The Rich Don't Create Jobs

[Oldstyle]

Actually, this is not that at all. Demand is always the key factor. Your own wording alludes to it. The business person in your example can only create a business when there is demand for something. If there is no demand, there is no business, there are no jobs.

What I find amusing is all the conservatives here who can't seem to grasp that last concept...

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there. Solyndra is a perfect example of that. Investors created a company and many jobs because they anticipated a demand for a certain type of solar panel. They miscalculated. Still it was the "anticipation" of demand that caused Solyndra to be created.

LOL, right. And what determined the actual success? Keep going with your reasoning. I'm not arguing that business is created on speculation. Like I said, business fails all the time. Which ones succeed......the ones with consumer demand to support them.

There are literally tens of thousands of businesses operating in the US right now with insufficient demand to be profitable, RDD...but that doesn't mean that they don't employ hundreds of thousands of people. Many of those businesses are operating at a loss but remain open because they still anticipate an increase in demand and potential profits. I'm sorry but it is STILL the anticipation of profit that drives job creation.

 

[Dragon]

Historically, prosperity has followed from tax cuts.

Historically, prosperity has followed from tax increases. Historically, prosperity has followed from taxes left where they were. Historically, we can see no consistent correlation between either tax cuts or tax increases and prosperity.

However, as I have pointed out numerous times, you can't prove economic theorems using historical data.

And as I have responded when you did, that means you have nothing concrete to claim, are admitting your own positions are not fact-based, and are merely regurgitating dogma.

As I have already pointed out several times, that prosperity was the result of bombing the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

And as I have pointed out every time someone makes that claim, the rest of the industrialized world was NOT "bombed into the stone age." Every industrial power participating in World War II, with the exceptions of Germany, Japan, and MAYBE the Soviet Union (that last only because I don't have good data on it) emerged from the war with MORE industrial capacity than when the war started, not less.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there.

Demand equals the fusion of two things: desire to buy and ability to buy. When introducing a new product, or even a new business trying to take market share from existing businesses around an old product, desire to buy is speculative, but ability to buy is not. Either it exists or it does not. Where it does, investors are more likely to take risks on new products which may or may not be desired. Where it does not, investors are more likely to wait until it does.

Take television for example. The technology for TV was fully developed by the late 1920s, but in the U.S. it was not introduced commercially until the late 1940s. Why? Because the Great Depression so greatly reduced the ability of people to buy that the risk was judged too great. (And afterwards came World War II, which diverted most of our industrial production into the war effort.) So it was introduced in the next period of relative prosperity.

Similarly, the mass-market auto and radio were introduced in the 1920s boom, commercial plastics in the 1950s, audio tapes and stereo in the 1960s, personal computers in the 1980s, and Internet commerce in the 1990s.

Whether you're talking about expanding an existing business or introducing a new and speculative product, broadly shared prosperity prompts more investment, while intense concentration of wealth does the opposite.

More money to the rich does NOT create jobs.

More money to the middle class and poor DOES create jobs.

You might be correct if your economic model were closed. In the real world the rich that you are going to take money FROM to give to the middle class and the poor have options. One of those options is investing their money outside of our economy. Kindly explain to me how prompting THAT to take place is going to help the middle class or the poor in the US in any way whatsoever?

 

[RDD_1210]

That's not neccessarily true. There are businesses created every day on the assumption of a demand that isn't neccessarily there. Solyndra is a perfect example of that. Investors created a company and many jobs because they anticipated a demand for a certain type of solar panel. They miscalculated. Still it was the "anticipation" of demand that caused Solyndra to be created.

LOL, right. And what determined the actual success? Keep going with your reasoning. I'm not arguing that business is created on speculation. Like I said, business fails all the time. Which ones succeed......the ones with consumer demand to support them.

There are literally tens of thousands of businesses operating in the US right now with insufficient demand to be profitable, RDD...but that doesn't mean that they don't employ hundreds of thousands of people. Many of those businesses are operating at a loss but remain open because they still anticipate an increase in demand and potential profits. I'm sorry but it is STILL the anticipation of profit that drives job creation.

So your whole theory is built on speculation. Speculation that DEMAND will one day be there. If that demand doesn't come, the business dies. Yes there are plenty of businesses out there that aren't turning a profit, and many of them will die off. But long term success, growth and health of the economy is based upon that demand. Speculation isn't sustainable and leads to nothing but uncertainty. Demand all but removes that uncertainty and thus the economy thrives.

 

[Sallow]

Straight from the horses mouth. A multi-millionaire describing how backwards it is to give the rich tax breaks to create jobs. It's a terrible idea that has never been shown to work anywhere but the parrots continue to refer to it.

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer - Businessweek

"That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be."




Bonus points to the first idiot who says, "nothing is stopping him from sending more money to the government".

Of course they create jobs - who the fuck do idiots think has all the money to invest?? the idiot that makes 17k a year???

I suppose one could argue demand creates jobs, however at the end of the day its the rich who have the money to meet those demands. That demand for a product or service creates the jobs and its the wealthy individual that has the money to supply those goods and services...

The rich seldom invest their own money or take on risk.

 

[Dragon]

You might be correct if your economic model was closed.

Good, we're getting somewhere.

I'll point out in passing that this thread seems to be getting a lot of traffic. I think it's because the premise is so antithetical to right-wing economics, which is based on the idea that the economy benefits from maximizing concentration of wealth. If that isn't true (and it's not), then the entire structure of right-wing economics falls apart for lack of foundation and we'll end up saying as Nixon did "we're all Keynesians now." (Suitably modified for where Keynes got it wrong, which basically means paying more attention to natural resource husbandry and green economics.)

In the real world the rich that you are going to take money FROM to give to the middle class and the poor have options. One of those options is investing their money outside of our economy. Kindly explain to me how prompting THAT to take place is going to help the middle class or the poor in the US in any way whatsoever?

The answer is that raising taxes on the rich slightly is NOT going to prompt that to happen. That's what I've been saying several times, which you have, deliberately or not, misunderstood as saying that outsourcing isn't happening.

As long as we have foreign labor working for ten percent or less of what Americans make, jobs that can be outsourced will be outsourced. Not all jobs can be outsourced, though. Some require skills or infrastructure that are only available in the advanced economies. Some have to be done on-site. Taxes are quite irrelevant to this, because they represent a pittance compared to the savings in labor costs that are available. (Well, unless we were to, say, impose a corporate income tax of 99% or some such, which nobody is proposing.)

 

[bripat9643]

Historically, prosperity has followed from tax cuts.

Historically, prosperity has followed from tax increases. Historically, prosperity has followed from taxes left where they were. Historically, we can see no consistent correlation between either tax cuts or tax increases and prosperity.

That's an admission that your theory that tax increase lead to prosperity is bogus.

However, as I have pointed out numerous times, you can't prove economic theorems using historical data.

And as I have responded when you did, that means you have nothing concrete to claim, are admitting your own positions are not fact-based, and are merely regurgitating dogma.

"Fact based" is just your euphemism meaning "based on empirical data." You use the two interchangeably, but one does not equate to the other. The one fact you can't get around is that your empirical data is the product of thousands of variables, and you have no why to isolate the independent variable causing the change you are interested in studying. I can bloviate all day about how it rained more this year than last year and that the Dow Jones industrial average was higher this year than last year. that doesn't prove that more rain causes an increase in the stock market. Making such a claim would be dogma, not pointing out that your proposed cause/effect relationship isn't proven by empirical data.

As I have already pointed out several times, that prosperity was the result of bombing the rest of the industrialized world into the stone age.

And as I have pointed out every time someone makes that claim, the rest of the industrialized world was NOT "bombed into the stone age." Every industrial power participating in World War II, with the exceptions of Germany, Japan, and MAYBE the Soviet Union (that last only because I don't have good data on it) emerged from the war with MORE industrial capacity than when the war started, not less.

That is utter horseshit. For one thing, after the war, the USSR looted all the countries it occupied in Eastern Europe for all their industrial plant and equipment. The East block countries were virtually denuded of factories and machinery. Furthermore France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Yugoslavia China, Korea and Italy were all heavily bombed and damaged by ground fighting. The claim that these activities had no negative impact on their productive potential simply isn't plausible, nor is it born out by the economic data.

 

[bripat9643]

The rich seldom invest their own money or take on risk.

that is one of the dumbest claims ever posted to this forum. What do you think they do with their money, stuff it into their mattresses?

 

[Oldstyle]

You might be correct if your economic model was closed.

Good, we're getting somewhere.

I'll point out in passing that this thread seems to be getting a lot of traffic. I think it's because the premise is so antithetical to right-wing economics, which is based on the idea that the economy benefits from maximizing concentration of wealth. If that isn't true (and it's not), then the entire structure of right-wing economics falls apart for lack of foundation and we'll end up saying as Nixon did "we're all Keynesians now." (Suitably modified for where Keynes got it wrong, which basically means paying more attention to natural resource husbandry and green economics.)

In the real world the rich that you are going to take money FROM to give to the middle class and the poor have options. One of those options is investing their money outside of our economy. Kindly explain to me how prompting THAT to take place is going to help the middle class or the poor in the US in any way whatsoever?

The answer is that raising taxes on the rich slightly is NOT going to prompt that to happen. That's what I've been saying several times, which you have, deliberately or not, misunderstood as saying that outsourcing isn't happening.

As long as we have foreign labor working for ten percent or less of what Americans make, jobs that can be outsourced will be outsourced. Not all jobs can be outsourced, though. Some require skills or infrastructure that are only available in the advanced economies. Some have to be done on-site. Taxes are quite irrelevant to this, because they represent a pittance compared to the savings in labor costs that are available. (Well, unless we were to, say, impose a corporate income tax of 99% or some such, which nobody is proposing.)

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon. Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

I keep going back to this because it's so central to the problem we face. We HAVE to cut the deficit. Failure to do so will result in further downgrades of our rating. Does anyone here dispute that? So basically we're left with two approaches to cutting that deficit...we can increase revenues and we can cut spending. Do we all agree on that? So let's look at increasing revenues. We can try to do that in two ways...either by increases in tax rates...or by increasing the base amount being taxed. The reason that an economist like Romer is against raising the tax rate is that she believes that doing so will decrease the base amount being taxed...in essence cancelling out any gains in revenue. That's not a conservative economist holding that belief...that's an extremely liberal one holding that belief. So if a Romer doesn't see tax increases as generating additional revenue then why do you? And if tax increases don't decrease the deficit could we please do the responsible thing and cut spending?

 

[Dragon]

That's an admission that your theory that tax increase lead to prosperity is bogus.

I have no such theory.

"Fact based" is just your euphemism meaning "based on empirical data."

Yes, that's the same thing. Either an idea is based on empirical data or it's pulled out of your ass. When you say that economic ideas can't be based on empirical data, you're saying that all economic ideas are pulled out one's ass, including yours.

At which point there is no reason to continue the discussion, is there? Why not leave things to those of us who believe we're actually dealing with the real world?

That is utter horseshit.

No, it's entirely true. British, French, Italian, Dutch, Danish, and Norwegian industrial capacity was higher after the war than before it. Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, and numerous other industrialized nations weren't even combatants and weren't touched at all. There was extensive damage to northern French and Italian railroads and other infrastructure but all this was quickly repaired -- within a couple of years after the war ended. Southern French infrastructure wasn't damaged significantly at all. There was threat of serious famine in Europe and many refugees, but U.S. aid prevented that threat from manifesting and quickly restored European prosperity, and the same was true in Japan.

Germany and Japan were seriously damaged, true, although hardly "bombed back to the stone age." But both national economies were recovered to pre-war levels by the mid 1950s, and that's even with half of Germany either incorporated into Poland or separated as East Germany.

The looting of eastern Europe by the Soviets did happen, but most of those countries weren't industrial powers, and those that were (e.g. East Germany) still became the strongest economies of the eastern bloc within ten years after the war ended.

U.S. postwar prosperity lasted almost four decades, from 1946 until 1973. Any advantage the U.S. enjoyed due to infrastructure damage to Europe (which as noted is greatly exaggerated) ceased to exist by 1950.

The "last man standing" explanation for the postwar decades of prosperity is sheer myth.

 

[Dragon]

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon.

No, in practice, counting deductions and loopholes, we don't. In any case, as I said the cost of those taxes -- the ENTIRE cost -- is a pittance compared to the savings in labor that are available abroad. If corporate taxes were reduced to ZERO that would not put a dent in outsourcing.

Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

It's doctrine, and I believe she's wrong. Generally speaking, it's true you don't want to raise taxes in a weak economy; however, tax increases that don't hurt consumption don't cause problems, and would reduce the budget deficit which many consider to be a burden to the economy. (Long-term, I agree with them.)

While I agree that increasing the tax base is one way to reduce the deficit, I disagree -- as I've said several times -- that increasing the money int he bank accounts of the very rich is any way to do that. The rich aren't the ones who are short of funds. We have plenty of capital. What we're short of is consumer demand. That means we need to increase the money in the bank accounts, not of the rich, but of the middle class and poor. Ideally, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen instantly, here's what I would want:

1) A confiscatory tax (like 90%) on incomes above, say, 2 million a year, ALONG WITH a 100% deduction for investment in job-creating activities.

2) Magically increase union strength to around 40% in the private sector (well, I did say a magic wand) and raised wages following from this.

These two things would, through the action of the market around the changed parameters, redistribute wealth dramatically, boost consumer demand, boost investment, and restore real prosperity. Or it would if we had no natural-resource issues to worry about. There are a couple of other things I would do along those lines, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[Oldstyle]

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon.

No, in practice, counting deductions and loopholes, we don't. In any case, as I said the cost of those taxes -- the ENTIRE cost -- is a pittance compared to the savings in labor that are available abroad. If corporate taxes were reduced to ZERO that would not put a dent in outsourcing.

Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

It's doctrine, and I believe she's wrong. Generally speaking, it's true you don't want to raise taxes in a weak economy; however, tax increases that don't hurt consumption don't cause problems, and would reduce the budget deficit which many consider to be a burden to the economy. (Long-term, I agree with them.)

While I agree that increasing the tax base is one way to reduce the deficit, I disagree -- as I've said several times -- that increasing the money int he bank accounts of the very rich is any way to do that. The rich aren't the ones who are short of funds. We have plenty of capital. What we're short of is consumer demand. That means we need to increase the money in the bank accounts, not of the rich, but of the middle class and poor. Ideally, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen instantly, here's what I would want:

1) A confiscatory tax (like 90%) on incomes above, say, 2 million a year, ALONG WITH a 100% deduction for investment in job-creating activities.

2) Magically increase union strength to around 40% in the private sector (well, I did say a magic wand) and raised wages following from this.

These two things would, through the action of the market around the changed parameters, redistribute wealth dramatically, boost consumer demand, boost investment, and restore real prosperity. Or it would if we had no natural-resource issues to worry about. There are a couple of other things I would do along those lines, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

Do you not understand what effect your 2 "wants" would have?

A "confiscatory tax" of 90% on the wealthy? And you expect these monetarily savvy people to just sit there and let you take all of their capital? There would be a wholesale flight of capital out of the US like has never been seen before.

You want unions to increase to 40% of the private sector workforce and then demand higher wages? And somehow you think doing so will entice companies to open businesses in the US? Why? Because the labor costs that were already high will now become astronomically high?

You're spot on about those two things redistributing wealth dramatically, Dragon...but I think you've totally misjudged HOW said wealth would be distributed. You'd have a veritable tidal wave of investment capital fleeing the US where it would be distributed amongst the grateful citizens of dozens of other countries. You think for some reason that you'll be able to entice wealthy investors to keep their money in the US by giving them a deduction if they create jobs here when at the same time you're telling them that they will have to pay sky high labor costs to all of the union workers that will now be working for them?

 

[Crackerjack]

According to compensation survey administrator PayScale in 2010, the average income of small business owners varies widely depending upon their level of experience. For example, small business owners with less than one year of experience in running an organization earn an annual salary ranging from $34,392 to $75,076.

The Average Income of Small Business Owners | Small Business - Chron.com

Yeah. That would be the salary they earn after they start the business.

Way to move the goalposts! Keep working on your Google-fu, grasshopper.

If you have any evidence whatsoever that most people who start a new business are already RICH when they do so,

why don't you post, or STFU?

You were the one claiming it was only middle class people you see starting businesses, therefore the burden was on you to prove it. You failed.

Seems to me that, since you can't prove your assertions, it is you who should "STFU," as you so petulantly put it. But do as you please, sweetheart.

 

[bripat9643]

You want unions to increase to 40% of the private sector workforce and then demand higher wages? And somehow you think doing so will entice companies to open businesses in the US? Why? Because the labor costs that were already high will now become astronomically high?

You have to wonder why he only wants union to control 40% of the labor force? If unions are beneficial, why not increase their control to 100% of the labor force? The reason is that he knows unions are actually detrimental to keeping Americans employed and raising their standard of living. He doesn't believe American can tolerate any more than 40% of our labor force under union control. That's how high it was when all our unionized industries lost their domestic market to foreign competitors.

 

[Wiseacre]

A 90% tax rate and 40% unionization, I am continually amazed at how naive the lib/dems are. To think you can do that in today's world wide economy with no consequences is truly ridiculous. You can have all the demand you want, but if the costs are too high then nobody will buy American products. It's really as simple as that.

 

[RDD_1210]

A 90% tax rate and 40% unionization, I am continually amazed at how naive the lib/dems are. To think you can do that in today's world wide economy with no consequences is truly ridiculous. You can have all the demand you want, but if the costs are too high then nobody will buy American products. It's really as simple as that.

At what point in our history have "the costs" ever been better? The simple part is the part you refuse to accept....that the Rich don't create jobs and giving them increased tax breaks will not create more jobs.

 

[Bern80]

A 90% tax rate and 40% unionization, I am continually amazed at how naive the lib/dems are. To think you can do that in today's world wide economy with no consequences is truly ridiculous. You can have all the demand you want, but if the costs are too high then nobody will buy American products. It's really as simple as that.

At what point in our history have "the costs" ever been better? The simple part is the part you refuse to accept....that the Rich don't create jobs and giving them increased tax breaks will not create more jobs.

If the rich do not create jobs, who does? All those jobs at Microsoft aren't the result of Bill Gates starting the company? Or Steve Jobs at Apple? There's thousands, upon thousands of examples like that, RDD. By definition ONLY the rich can create jobs. The middle class and pour most certainly can't. You can't create a job working for someone else or not at all. That only leaves one other group to create them. The shear lack of objectivity and irrationality of the typical leftist living in fantasy land never ceases to amaze.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon.

No, in practice, counting deductions and loopholes, we don't. In any case, as I said the cost of those taxes -- the ENTIRE cost -- is a pittance compared to the savings in labor that are available abroad. If corporate taxes were reduced to ZERO that would not put a dent in outsourcing.

Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

It's doctrine, and I believe she's wrong. Generally speaking, it's true you don't want to raise taxes in a weak economy; however, tax increases that don't hurt consumption don't cause problems, and would reduce the budget deficit which many consider to be a burden to the economy. (Long-term, I agree with them.)

While I agree that increasing the tax base is one way to reduce the deficit, I disagree -- as I've said several times -- that increasing the money int he bank accounts of the very rich is any way to do that. The rich aren't the ones who are short of funds. We have plenty of capital. What we're short of is consumer demand. That means we need to increase the money in the bank accounts, not of the rich, but of the middle class and poor. Ideally, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen instantly, here's what I would want:

1) A confiscatory tax (like 90%) on incomes above, say, 2 million a year, ALONG WITH a 100% deduction for investment in job-creating activities.

2) Magically increase union strength to around 40% in the private sector (well, I did say a magic wand) and raised wages following from this.

These two things would, through the action of the market around the changed parameters, redistribute wealth dramatically, boost consumer demand, boost investment, and restore real prosperity. Or it would if we had no natural-resource issues to worry about. There are a couple of other things I would do along those lines, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

Wow! That's pretty incredible....confiscate 1.8 million from someone who has earned that 2 million. That's actually quite disturbing.

 

[Bern80]

We already have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, Dragon.

No, in practice, counting deductions and loopholes, we don't. In any case, as I said the cost of those taxes -- the ENTIRE cost -- is a pittance compared to the savings in labor that are available abroad. If corporate taxes were reduced to ZERO that would not put a dent in outsourcing.

Progressives like yourself describe additional taxes on the wealthy as a "pittance", yet a dyed in the wool Keynesian economist like Christina Romer comes out and states that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy as weak as ours is now, would be bad fiscal policy. How do you explain that?

It's doctrine, and I believe she's wrong. Generally speaking, it's true you don't want to raise taxes in a weak economy; however, tax increases that don't hurt consumption don't cause problems, and would reduce the budget deficit which many consider to be a burden to the economy. (Long-term, I agree with them.)

While I agree that increasing the tax base is one way to reduce the deficit, I disagree -- as I've said several times -- that increasing the money int he bank accounts of the very rich is any way to do that. The rich aren't the ones who are short of funds. We have plenty of capital. What we're short of is consumer demand. That means we need to increase the money in the bank accounts, not of the rich, but of the middle class and poor. Ideally, if I could wave a magic wand and make it happen instantly, here's what I would want:

1) A confiscatory tax (like 90%) on incomes above, say, 2 million a year, ALONG WITH a 100% deduction for investment in job-creating activities.

2) Magically increase union strength to around 40% in the private sector (well, I did say a magic wand) and raised wages following from this.

These two things would, through the action of the market around the changed parameters, redistribute wealth dramatically, boost consumer demand, boost investment, and restore real prosperity. Or it would if we had no natural-resource issues to worry about. There are a couple of other things I would do along those lines, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.

When are you leftists going to figure out it isn't the government's job to 'fix' the economy through manipulating the tax code and micro managing it. Ya just can't keep your grubby mits off can ya? Get the fuck out of the way and let business work. Put money back into the hands of EVERYONE and you will see job growth.

I'm sorry libs, but the axiom is STILL true. The more government tries to 'fix' things the more it fucks them up. The ONLY group in this equation that needs a good financial education is government. They are the ones that have to start disciplining themselves, not the private sector.

 

[RDD_1210]

A 90% tax rate and 40% unionization, I am continually amazed at how naive the lib/dems are. To think you can do that in today's world wide economy with no consequences is truly ridiculous. You can have all the demand you want, but if the costs are too high then nobody will buy American products. It's really as simple as that.

At what point in our history have "the costs" ever been better? The simple part is the part you refuse to accept....that the Rich don't create jobs and giving them increased tax breaks will not create more jobs.

If the rich do not create jobs, who does? All those jobs at Microsoft aren't the result of Bill Gates starting the company? Or Steve Jobs at Apple? There's thousands, upon thousands of examples like that, RDD. By definition ONLY the rich can create jobs. The middle class and pour most certainly can't. You can't create a job working for someone else or not at all. That only leaves one other group to create them. The shear lack of objectivity and irrationality of the typical leftist living in fantasy land never ceases to amaze.

Looks like someone has no idea what it takes to make a business successful.