A Lesson in Economic for Liberals

[Dragon]

Hmmmmmmm........A "non-factual hypothetical?!?!?!?" As opposed to a "factual hypothetical?" Might I suggest you look up the definition of the word "hypothetical"?

I know what a hypothetical is, thank you very much.

A hypothetical should include all relevant facts if it is to be useful. The facts do not need to be perfectly correct, e.g. you did not have to have the real numbers for tax rates or regulation costs in order to argue that an impact on business performance exists. But your hypothetical example did need to avoid distorting the reality qualitatively and not just quantitatively, and by presenting taxes and regulations as if they operated in isolation that is what you have done.

One can always make shit up, but if that's all you're doing you're really not saying anything.

 

[BluePhantom]

You were deliberately isolating the factors you want to blame for economic problems -- taxes and regulations -- and showing their inimical effects if there are no other factors impacting the economy. But in reality, there ARE other factors impacting the economy, including differentials between U.S. operations and those in many foreign countries, and compared to some of these other factors both taxes and regulations are trivial in their impact.

Ok did I make the argument that the factors I brought up were the only factors that affect the economy? No. Did I say in my statement of goals that I was attempting to analyze every single little factor that affects trade? No. My statement of objective was to demonstrate how "taxation, regulation, unionization, and entitlements (such as Obamacare) stagnate the economy, diminish market share for American industry, enhance foreign profit margins, discourage domestic investment, and increase unemployment." It was my specific intent to isolate the variables to very clearly illustrate the point. Ever hear of a control group?

Now if you wish to make the argument that other factors may or may not enhance or compensate for the factors I chose to focus upon or you wish to make the argument that foreign nations do not remain a constant "control group" and fail to imposes taxes of their own, you are free to do so, but that's a completely different argument. Now you are talking about how to set the levels of taxation, regulation, etc in a globally competitive manner. It does not contradict the fact that the issues I focused upon have the exact impact I demonstrated.

 

[Bfgrn]

you are free to correct my math, but I hate to tell you pal. That's precisely how it all works. And the longer the chain of distribution the more amplified the effect becomes.

The problem isn't your math, it's your underlying assumptions and the factors you leave out of the equation, like labor costs for Foreign, Inc., and the trade and monetary practices of Foreign, Inc.'s foreign government. You are isolating the impact of taxes and regulations when these are not isolated factors. Your entire edifice of theory is made useless by this error.

I said Foreign Inc. started with the exact same parameters. However the nation in which they operate is choosing not to regulate, not to tax, and not to unionize. As a result the actions of the American government do not affect Foreign Inc.

And HERE is what Foreign Inc. looks like...

 

[BluePhantom]

And HERE is what Foreign Inc. looks like...

Yeah and that invalidates my premise how exactly?

 

[Bfgrn]

And HERE is what Foreign Inc. looks like...

Yeah and that invalidates my premise how exactly?

Here is a lesson from a liberal to a right wing turd...

NOTHING is free, there is a cost to everything. Liberals also include HUMAN capital. Right wing turds don't.

You whine about entitlement programs, what about corporate welfare? We the People are expected to breath and drink toxins spewed by polluters, then pay to clean up after them on top of it. THAT is not sound economic policy. Corporate malfeasance is the biggest danger we face as a nation and as human beings. Something right wing turds are totally oblivious to.

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman

 

[Flopper]

Ok guys, you are missing the point (or attempting to distract from it). It doesn't matter, for example, whether the price of logs I quoted is actually the current price of logs. It doesn't matter whether the tax rate I used is actually the current tax rate.

The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that when expenditures are imposed upon any business within the chain of distribution (whether it's by taxes, regulation, unionization, whatever) prices will adjust accordingly and the effect will increase the longer the chain of distribution is and the earlier the additional financial burden is imposed. Furthermore, when foreign competition is not forced to deal with the same financial burdens the effect is felt by the ability of the foreign company to dominate market share which in the end forces American industry into a position where they must choose between bankruptcy and relocating to a foreign nation with a friendlier business environment.

I suspect that all this liberal nitpicking and neg-repping is an attempt to deflect from that point.

It looks like you’ve spent a lot of time creating a scenario to show that increasing expenses will result in increased prices, something that’s intuitive obvious. You also attempted to show that government can through regulation and taxes make business less competitive, also quite obvious. However, just because government can does not mean it will. This has been the subject of endless debates on this board.

In your scenario, you neglect a number important factors. Just as in the US, our top trading partners have environmental regulations. In fact, 4 of our top 5 trading partners have environmental protection laws and regulation more stringent than ours. You also seem to neglect foreign taxes completely. Looking at our top 5 trading partners, corporations in 4 of the 5 pay effective rates almost the same as is paid in the US. Although corporate rates may be higher in the US, effective rate are nearly the same.

Finally, you neglect the fact that the competitiveness of US corporations versus foreign corporations is only one factor effecting the US economic growth. Only 13% of our goods and services come from abroad.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Top Trading Partners
Environmental Performance Index 2010: Country scores
2011 Worldwide Corporate Tax Guide - Country list - Ernst & Young - Global

 

[koshergrl]

2. Corporations should not be taxed because they pass the costs on to the consumer anway.

Well that is definitely true. Tax businesses all you want but they won't pay it...the consumers pay it. This is what I tell people who insist on taxing oil companies. "Fine", I tell them. "It won't hurt them a bit. You will simply pay more for a gallon of gas." People struggle to understand that.

I think they understand it, they're just dishonest about it. They want to see Americans begging in the streets and starving on street corners, so they promote economic policies that will bring that about.

 

[BluePhantom]

It looks like you’ve spent a lot of time creating a scenario to show that increasing expenses will result in increased prices, something that’s intuitive obvious. You also attempted to show that government can through regulation and taxes make business less competitive, also quite obvious. However, just because government can does not mean it will. This has been the subject of endless debates on this board.

Oh I think you might be very shocked, brother. You have no idea how many liberals I discuss taxation, regulation, etc with that flat out insist....INSIST that they will have no effect at all upon end prices, market forces, market share, and the competitiveness of American business. Indeed, before I launched into the nuances of micro and macro economics I found it necessary to first establish that these things indeed do have a significant impact because I have heard the liberal argument that they don't so frequently. Conservatives for some reason usually don't have an issue with the concepts that you have just conceded.

In your scenario, you neglect a number important factors. Just as in the US, our top trading partners have environmental regulations......"

Again.....control groups.....they do wonders when trying to establish a point.

 

[Bfgrn]

2. Corporations should not be taxed because they pass the costs on to the consumer anway.

Well that is definitely true. Tax businesses all you want but they won't pay it...the consumers pay it. This is what I tell people who insist on taxing oil companies. "Fine", I tell them. "It won't hurt them a bit. You will simply pay more for a gallon of gas." People struggle to understand that.

You really don't know anything about the real world, do you? You continue to proclaim: "Tax businesses all you want but they won't pay it...the consumers pay it". WRONG. If a corporation or business could raise their prices, they would...TODAY. They don't need an excuse. The market sets price. Corporations are always looking to externalize their costs and internalize their profits...econ 101. You ignore THE major factor that affects, sets, controls and regulates price...THE MARKET.

 

[editec]

It looks like you’ve spent a lot of time creating a scenario to show that increasing expenses will result in increased prices, something that’s intuitive obvious. You also attempted to show that government can through regulation and taxes make business less competitive, also quite obvious. However, just because government can does not mean it will. This has been the subject of endless debates on this board.

Oh I think you might be very shocked, brother. You have no idea how many liberals I discuss taxation, regulation, etc with that flat out insist....INSIST that they will have no effect at all upon end prices, market forces, market share, and the competitiveness of American business. Indeed, before I launched into the nuances of micro and macro economics I found it necessary to first establish that these things indeed do have a significant impact because I have heard the liberal argument that they don't so frequently. Conservatives for some reason usually don't have an issue with the concepts that you have just conceded.

In your scenario, you neglect a number important factors. Just as in the US, our top trading partners have environmental regulations......"

Again.....control groups.....they do wonders when trying to establish a point.

Yeah?

Where do you debate all these strawmen liberals?

Because what you're descibing as liberal POV isn't showing up HERE, is it?

 

[Truthmatters]

Allow me to further state that you should not make the mistake of assuming that I am of the opinion that all taxes, or all regulations, etc should necessarily be abolished. The government needs to run and that requires a level of taxation (unless we wish to allow the government to participate in open competition which I don't think anyone wants). History has been very clear that left completely to their own devices business will rape the environment and exploit the workers to extreme degrees. So there has to be some regulation and there has to be some protection for the workers. I don't think anyone could sit here with a straight face and make the claim that industry is self-disciplined enough to act in a manner that is not exploitative and they would certainly be hard pressed to back such a claim up with any historical documentation.

However, and what I have demonstrated, is that there is a trade off for all that and that trade off is that it creates a negative impact on profitability and the ability for domestic industry to maintain market share compared to foreign industry that does not impose such burdens upon their businesses. Neither can anyone sit here with a straight face and make the claim that taxes, regulations, unionization, etc does not create a financial burden upon industry that that snowballs through the chain of distribution and can lead to the collapse of the business. I have clearly and indisputably shown that it does.

Many liberals I have talked to and debated seem to be of the opinion that business exists to provide goods and services. That is incorrect. Business exists to generate profit. The goods and services are the means by which business generates that profit and if profit can not be generated, the business will fail or it will relocate to somewhere where that profit can be generated. As a business owner, a business manager, and a business instructor I can assure you that no business wants to leave the United States. Relocation is expensive and people want to buy goods that are made in their own country, their own state, or their own locality. People like to support local business. American business wants to support their communities because it generates a strong local economy through which the consumer has the money to purchase their goods and services. However, if a business cannot meet their financial objectives they are out of there, whether by bankruptcy or relocation.

The question you should all be asking is "where is the line drawn so that the worker can be protected, the environment can be maintained, the government has the revenue to operate, and industry can remain an economically viable entity?"

I encourage you to stop the partisan whining and focus upon that question.

This was far more effective than your example.

I understand what you are saying and I think you underestimate the average liberal.

The full cost on society of any product produced there has to be reflected in the way we tax business.

The purpose of taxing should be to recoup the cost of this product on society that is NOT reflected in the pricing.

When you have a society that provides some of the means for this product to be produced without or with minimum cost to the producer then in some way you have to recoup the rest of the cost on society through taxes to secure and maintain such structures.


If you PRICE this too low then you end up with the whole system failing.

You end up with decaying bridges, road unable to handle the current volume of traffic, decrepit schools, mentally ill people living in the streets, sick people allowed to die for lack of care, and on and on and on.


Its not that liberals are not aware of the problems surrounding effects of tax rates, its that the business world lies to us at EVERY fucking turn when we try to honestly acess these costs because they are willing to lie about anything for profit.

We cant take businesses word for their real concerns because they have a LONG history of trying to fuck us at every turn.

want fair taxes?

Get them to stop trying to cheat the system at every turn because the ONLY thing that matters is their profits.

It makes for a tense relationship.

 

[Dragon]

Ok did I make the argument that the factors I brought up were the only factors that affect the economy?

You didn't explicitly say that, no. However, if they aren't, then your argument fails to demonstrate what you wish it to.

 

[Sundial]

I don't know how many people have explained this to you already, but your example is fucked.

1. You appear to be adding sales taxes to every stage of production, but that's not how sales taxes work. Sales tax is applied to the final stage only; and they're applied to foreign and domestically produced items equally. Foreigners don't get an advantage from sales taxes.

2. If you don't mean the taxes to be sales taxes, but income taxes, then you've still fucked it up. Income taxes are applied to net income, not gross. In other words: profit.

If whatever is selling for $3, and $1 is profit, $1 only is taxed. Moreover, that tax is paid by the owners of the company; not consumers. The sales price is not affected.

3. You don't understand foreign trade. Let me give you a hint: why do foreigners want to sell stuff to us in the first place? Suppose there was a way to get them to build everything, put it all on ships, and then send it to us - without getting anything in exchange. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

4. Your entire example depends on the premise that profits (money obtained without work; ie unearned income) are sacrosanct, but that wages (earned income) are optional. Actually the reverse is true. Wages are necessary, profits are optional. All goods and services are produced by workers. The nation's wealth ultimately depends on how many hours they work, and on their productivity. Nothing else. Profits are a kind of tax workers pay to the upper class, so that they (the upper class) can consume without working.

5. Your argument that the nation's wealth depends on clear-cutting our forests and poisoning our air and water is transparently false. For one thing, clean air and water and forests are national wealth. How do you get richer by destroying what you have? For another, if there was any truth to your argument, you'd expect the richest nations to have the dirtiest air and water. Actually, the reverse is true.

 

[BluePhantom]

2. If you don't mean the taxes to be sales taxes, but income taxes, then you've still fucked it up. Income taxes are applied to net income, not gross. In other words: profit.

"Taxable income is generally described as gross income or adjusted gross income minus any deductions, exemptions or other adjustments that are allowable in that tax year."

Taxable Income Definition


"...the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151."

United States Tax Code

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(2) Gross income derived from business;"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

Profits are a kind of tax workers pay to the upper class, so that they (the upper class) can consume without working.

Wow. Let me respond to that in the language you are probably used to. "Работники объединению! Смерть в верхнюю часть класс!"

 

[Sundial]

You're misunderstanding the tax code. Businesses pay taxes on their profits, not gross revenue. Google "schedule c". Or ask anyone who's ever owned a business.

Unearned income is the whole point of being a capitalist. Why do you think people own land and stocks and bonds, other than to make money without working for it?

 

[Dragon]

"Gross income derived from business" = business profit, not business revenue. The business costs are subtracted before you even start with the IRS. If you had ever run a business, you would know that from experience.

However, while these objections from Sundial are valid, there is a more fundamental error that I already pointed out.

 

[Sundial]

Well, there were a number of fundamental errors.

Let me try this:

There's an American company making widgets. The market price for widgets is $10. AmCo pays its workers $5. The shareholders get the rest.

The workers unionize. They demand $6 per widget. Does the widget price go up? No. If AmCo could sell its widgets at a higher price, it would already have been doing that. What happens is that the shareholders get less - their profit falls from $5 to $4.

Now the government imposes a sales tax of 9%. Does that give Foreign Co an advantage? No. The tax is the same, regardless of which company makes it. (Note: the sales tax could reduce sales or profits; the point here is that it would do so equally.)

Now suppose the government imposes a corporate income tax of 9%. In this case only AmCo pays the tax. Does AmCo raise its prices? Again, if it could sell widgets at a higher price, it would already be doing that. What happens is that shareholders get less - specifically, 9% less.

Now suppose the government says AmCo can no longer poison the town's drinking water. It has to install expensive purification equipment. Again - the shareholders take a hit. This time it's for the cost of the purification equipment.

There is a pattern here - which is that things like taxes, unions and regulations cost business owners money. Which is why business owners (and the Republican Party) hates them.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Today, class, we shall attempt to explain to the liberal mind how taxation, regulation, unionization, and entitlements (such as Obamacare) stagnate the economy, diminish market share for American industry, enhance foreign profit margins, discourage domestic investment, and increase unemployment. To accomplish this we are going to set up a hypothetical set of businesses, a basic chain of distribution, and some basic initial assumptions.

First consider an American company that manufactures widgets. We will call them Widgets Inc. They require 2x4s to make the widgets which they get from Lumber Inc., and Lumber Inc. requires raw materials (logs) which they get from Loggers Inc. Additionally, we have Foreign Inc. that also manufactures widgets and begins with the exact same parameters as Widgets Inc. except that Foreign Inc. is located in a foreign country we will call “Foreignavia”. Both Widgets Inc. and Foreign Inc. sell their widgets to “Phantom-Mart” in the United States for distribution to the American consumer. We will also assume that the quality of the widgets produced by each company is the same and each year 1,000 widgets are sold by Phantom-Mart. We will also assume that one log produces one set of 2x4s which in turn produces one widget.

Let’s toss out some economic givens:
Loggers Inc. has the following factors: $1.00 on logs, $1.00 on labor, and $1.00 profit for a selling price of $3.00 per log

Lumber Inc. has the following: $3.00 on materials (logs), $2.00 on labor, and $1.50 profit for a selling price per bundle of 2x4s of $6.50

Widgets Inc. has the following: $6.50 on materials (2x4s), $3.00 on labor, and $2.00 profit for a selling price of $11.50

Foreign Inc. has the exact same parameters as Widgets Inc. except that it costs them $1.00 to transport their widgets from Foreignovia to the United States so they have a selling price of $12.50

Phantom Mart has the following: $1.50 for labor and $2.00 profit, meaning they sell widgets to the consumer at a price of $15.00 for widgets from Widgets Inc. and $16.00 for widgets from Foreign Inc.

We will calculate market share as the percentage differential in price between the two so since Widgets Inc. sells at a price that is 6% lower than Foreign Inc. we will assign a starting market share of 56% - 44% in favor of Widgets Inc. We will also assume that a factory can produce 100 widgets per year so Widgets Inc. requires six factories to meet the consumer demand of 560 widgets and Foreign Inc requires five factories to meet the consumer demand of 440 widgets a year.

Now that we have that established, let’s start taxing. The government imposes a 10% tax on production and manufacturing. Now one might think that this will raise the price of the $15.00 American widget to merely $16.50. But that’s not the case at all. It must be applied across the entire chain of distribution. Neither can a company simply add 10% to their selling price in order to maintain their profit. Loggers Inc. for a $3.00 price per log must add more than just $0.30 to their cost because at a new selling price of $3.30 the 10% tax is $0.33 translating into a profit of only $0.97 per log instead of the $1.00 they had pre-tax. So in order to maintain their $1.00 of profit they must raise the price to $3.33 representing an 11% increase. This is then passed on to Lumber Inc. who now has to pay $3.33 per log increasing their pre-tax price per bundle of 2x4s to $6.83 but again they now have a tax to pay as well which initially would be $0.68. Again however they cannot simply add $0.68 to their price as it would reduce their profit. They actually must raise the price $0.76 to cover their tax and the increased cost of logs. Their final selling price is now $7.59 which represents a 17% increase in against their initial price of $6.50. This will continue to Widgets Inc. who in the same way will now be forced to charge $13.99 per widget.

We will assume that the tax does not apply to sales so Phantom Mart will not get taxed but they must now pay $13.99 for an American widget as opposed to the pre-tax price of $11.50 which means they must sell the American widget for $17.49 instead of the pre-tax price of $15.00 and vs. the Foreign Inc. widget which remains at $16.00. The 10% manufacturing tax has resulted in a final increase of nearly 17% for the American consumer. But Foreign Inc. does not just sit back and do nothing. They realize they can increase their price and realize a greater profit and still sell at a lower price than their American competitor. So they split the difference and raise their prices from $12.50 to $13.25. With the new selling prices in mind when we calculate production for the next year Foreign Inc. now gains a 54% - 46% market share advantage (a ten percent swing) and they are realizing a 38% increase in profit. This means that out of the 1,000 widgets to be sold next year Widget Inc. will only sell 460. They have six plants that produce 100 widgets each but with only a demand for 460 they are forced to close one plant or they will be overproducing and lose their profitability. Foreign Inc. on the other hand now needs to produce 540 widgets and as such they must build a new plant to accommodate the increased demand. This means American workers just got laid off, they will be requiring fewer 2x4s from Lumber Inc, who will in turn be requiring fewer logs from Logging Inc.

Now here is an important point. Even if we now eliminate that tax the selling price for Widgets Inc. will not revert to its original price of $11.50. This is because over time people become accustomed to paying the higher price and if that tax is eliminated Widgets Inc. will merely split the difference and lower their price to $12.75. They realize greater profits and the consumer still thinks they are getting a good deal with a lower price. The longer a tax is in place the greater this effect. So once you assess a tax, the damage is done. Prices will never revert to their original pre-tax price.

Now let’s regulate!

Environmentalists are pissed at Logging Inc because they are destroying the habitat of the Northwestern Checkered Sloth, and they are demanding that action be taken to clean up the carbon emissions coming from the factories at Lumber Inc. and Widgets Inc. Government imposes emissions standards that increase the cost of production at Lumber Inc. and Widgets Inc. by $0.75 and declares part of Logging Inc’s forests as federally protected. This forces Logging Inc to go into areas that are more difficult to access and further away to provide logs. The additional cost is $0.50 per log. So where Logging Inc was producing logs at $1.00 a pop they now pay $1.50 to produce the same thing. This increases not only their base selling price but the amount of tax they must pay as well since that is calculated as a percentage. Their selling price now goes from $3.33 per log to $3.89 per log. Lumber Inc. now pays that higher price for raw materials, has to deal with their own regulations, and the increased tax burden and they have to raise prices from $7.59 to $9.04. Same thing with Widgets Inc who must raise their price from $13.99 to $16.43 and now Phantom Mart must sell American widgets for $19.93 compared to their pre-regulatory price of $17.49. Again, Foreign Inc sees an opportunity and raises their prices by half of the difference to $14.84. Foreign Inc has now seen their profit margin grow 117% compared to their original price while the American companies have seen no increase in profit. The price for consumers has risen 22% even for the cheaper foreign widget that has done nothing to demand an increase in sales price.

Again we must recalculate market share and we find that Foreign Inc now has a 58% - 42% advantage. With this and the rate of production per plant there is no need to build or shut down plants although Widgets Inc will certainly be forced to suspend operations for part of the year. More workers are laid off, less 2x4s required from Lumber Inc, less logs required from Logging Inc.

Now let’s apply Obamacare!

Obamacare we will say will cost an additional 15% against labor. You know what’s coming by now. The price of logs jumps from $3.89 to $4.06. The price of 2x4s from $9.04 to $9.57. The price of widgets from $16.43 to $17.52. But this time Phantom Mart gets hit too because they have employees as well they must provide for and so the selling price for an American widget jumps from $19.93 to $21.25 (a 6.6% increase) but the foreign widget only jumps from $18.34 to $18.57 (a 1.2% increase). This time Foreign Inc does nothing to their prices. They decide they are going to go for the market share and squeeze Widgets Inc. and by doing so they grab a 64% - 36% market share advantage. This means Foreign Inc will have to produce 640 widgets when they only have the capacity to produce 500. They must build two new plants. Widgets Inc. now only has a demand for 360 widgets but they have the capacity to produce 500. They must close another plant.

Now about this time along come Billy Bob. Billy Bob is a manager at Phantom Mart and he’s saved some cash and he wants to invest. Well he could invest in the American Widgets Inc. but over the last couple years they have shown a market share decrease of 20% and they have not shown any increase in profitability. Foreign Inc on the other hand has shown a market share increase of 20% and profitability has increased 117% meaning a trend of a strong return on investment. Who do you think Billy Bob is going to invest in? This means American money generated through goods and services is now going to help Foreign Inc to build their two new plants.

Now let’s unionize!

The workers unite across the board and strike a deal for an initial 10% increase in wages and a mandatory 5% increase every year. I will skip to the bottom line because by now you are surely getting the point. In the first year American widgets increase to $22.11 while foreign widgets increase to $18.72. At this point Foreign Inc makes a bold move. They slash their profit margin back to the original level and start selling again at $12.50 because they know that within six years American Widgets Inc. will be forced to charge double the price of their own product enabling them to grab a full 100% market share and driving their American competitors out of business.

This is not lost on Widgets Inc and they realize they have only one choice that will keep their company from a total collapse. They are forced to close all their plants and move to Foreignovia where they can compete with Foreign Inc. at an even level. Of course this means they are no longer buying 2x4s from Lumber Inc and in turn Logging Inc gets slaughtered as well. The result is that we have taxed, regulated, Obamacared, and unionized our American business to the point that it simply cannot compete while foreign profits and employment have increased. Because of the closure of all these plants due to a decreased market share American workers are out of a job, unemployment has skyrocketed, and the economy has ground to screeching halt. Thankfully though, the Northwestern Checkered Sloth is happy as a pig in shit.

At this point, liberals, environmentalists, and union workers start scratching their heads wondering where all the jobs have gone and their solution is “raise taxes and increase union influence”. And they wonder why we are where we are.

Class dismissed.

Nice theories. I'm assuming tomorrow you're going to actually present real world examples that actually happened to support your theories, rather than just making up more hypothetical examples that - not surprisingly - always support your view? Or do we need not concern ourselves with the real world, real history, what actually happened? Heck - why look back in history and see how tax rates, unionization, etc. actually affected the economy and the real people in it - when you can just make shit up that works out perfectly to support your view? It requires far less reading and research on your part, and since the examples you provide are made up by you with the sole purpose of illustrating your points, they nicely and neatly fit in with your theories instead of introducing the complexities that a real world example would provide.

 

[mskafka]

I forget....what did you major in, in college? I appreciate ( I think) you feel like you have to educate those who you perceive are stupid.
It reminds me of John Stossel. Stossel is an authority on everything from business, quantum physics, and Massengill's most fragrant scent. (in his own mind)

Respectfully, you come across as condescending; and therefore, some people will dismiss your thread. Perhaps you wanted to get a rise out of others?

 

[Sirkarl101]

Thank you for the economics lesson. The same discussion has been going on by world economists and they conclude that the Federal Reserve, the housing screw job and the Obama bailouts are the cause. I am not very educated however, when push comes to shove I assure you human nature instincts for survival will kick in and lets hope a few of us will survive. All finger pointing, no solutions.