MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Makes me wonder how much faster and farther it would have grown without the government slowing it down. I suppose you two idiots are trying to claim progress was because of taxes. It is dispite of.
quite specifically my point, yes. i submit that mexico failed to tax progressively and fulfill the obligation as a government to place infrastructure for business and... brace yourself... 'spread it around a little' with regard to wealth.
studying mexico, granted that about 100 years ago, their economy was neck and neck with ours, and granted the par in natural resources like oil which we share, they are your smaller, low-tax government. they have freer enterprise than we do still. quite a bit could be extracted from the divergence of our states, but its the fable of the turtle and the hare that sums up the merits of your 'faster and farther' theory.
many of the developing economies of the world adhere to your model, but that doesnt make them great (far), just fast. could you bring to bare any, any whatsoever, highly conservative country where free-enterprise isnt partenered with government investment via tax? of course i mean countries in the 1st world, not anywhere where donkeys, mules, camels or elephants are considered capital.
*passes the idiot ball back to saveliberty*
The natural resource of America is and was the people. People intent on building a future under liberty and pursuit of happiness. The infrastructure you speak of was built by private industry. Railroads? Government or private? Agriculture was built by farmers, who took risks. Your model is simplistic and without merit.
And certain kinds of farming began to be unprofitable. Dairy farmers continue to struggle just to save their family farms. Is milk taxed? Nope. Do we need milk? Yup. So at what point does this become a problem only government can solve? Just an example, mind you.