Businesses don't pay tax ("The Free Lunch Myth")

[DearSummer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Only people can pay tax:
-Consumers
-Employees
-Shareholders

For every $1 you tax a corporation, it is $1 less to cut prices, pay employees, or pay shareholders.

P.S. Milton is a boss.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BxuP7Z8Q-vY/TidoMaGAsZI/AAAAAAAAAA4/nUoxxgWgb8o/s1600/3965809597_f5f38e74d9.jpg

[Hitman21]

Milton Friedman is brilliant its just too bad more people don't understand him.

[neutral]

SMH, so now that you've stolen from the middle class, you can now give it to the wealthy... Nice. The reality is that dollar is far more likely to be concentrated in the hands of the very wealthy.

[robster77]

Friedman and the rest of the whackjobs from the Chicago School were discredited decades ago. Trickle down indeed.

[neutral]

Oh and I'm sure someone like Friedman would argue that corporations are people, should have the same protections under the law etc, when it suits his purpose.

[robster77]

Oh and I'm sure someone like Friedman would argue that corporations are people, should have the same protections under the law etc, when it suits his purpose.

LOL....he did actually.

[gomyone]

Milton Friedman is brilliant its just too bad more people don't understand him.

....so true. Since you understand him, what do you think about his accelerationist hypothesis? And do you agree with his preoccupation with M1 and M2 targets?

[DearSummer]

Oh and I'm sure someone like Friedman would argue that corporations are people, should have the same protections under the law etc, when it suits his purpose.

What does this even mean? A corporation is a legal entity (like a person). What is wrong with that? What other system could be setup in lieu of having corporation as legal entities?

[robster77]

What does this even mean? A corporation is a legal entity (like a person). What is wrong with that? What other system could be setup in lieu of having corporation as legal entities?

I think what he/she means is that corporations like having the distinction of being "human" when it suits their needs, and not when they don't. For example, they love that limited liability when they destroy ecosystems by being negligent and dumping oil into the ocean. Just one example.

[DearSummer]

I think what he/she means is that corporations like having the distinction of being "human" when it suits their needs, and not when they don't. For example, they love that limited liability when they destroy ecosystems by being negligent and dumping oil into the ocean. Just one example.

So you would propose fining or jailing all of the shareholders of BP? :lol:

[CDNPatriot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Only people can pay tax:
-Consumers
-Employees
-Shareholders

For every $1 you tax a corporation, it is $1 less to cut prices, pay employees, or pay shareholders.

P.S. Milton is a boss.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BxuP7Z8Q-vY/TidoMaGAsZI/AAAAAAAAAA4/nUoxxgWgb8o/s1600/3965809597_f5f38e74d9.jpg

LOL Dearsummer, I see that you took my advice and have done some research after I pointed out to you yesterday that your economic opinions were very simplistic and misguided in nature.

However, what you posted is very dated. Hard to find any university these days (even in Alberta or the US) that still preach that as it all failed. I remember Milton even acknowledged many of his major flaws in his thinking using hindsight of course.

Rather than wasting everyone's time here why don't you sign up for a university economics course if you like this so much? Why as an uniformed person you try to preach stuff that you are clearly not knowledgeable on is quite humourous and sad at the same time.

[Hitman21]

LOL Dearsummer, I see that you took my advice and have done some research after I pointed out to you yesterday that your economic opinions were very simplistic and misguided in nature.

However, what you posted is very dated. Hard to find any university these days (even in Alberta or the US) that still preach that as it all failed. I remember Milton even acknowledged many of his major flaws in his thinking using hindsight of course.

Rather than wasting everyone's time here why don't you sign up for a university economics course if you like this so much? Why as an uniformed person you try to preach stuff that you are clearly not knowledgeable on is quite humourous and sad at the same time.

Obviously Milton Friedman must be wrong and communism is the answer :facepalm:

And you wonder why I accuse you of being a pinko :facepalm:

[CDNPatriot]

Milton's most faithful disciples changed their opinions on Milton after 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive

[CDNPatriot]

Krugman another Nobel prize heavyweight criticised Milton.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/feb/15/who-was-milton-friedman/

[robster77]

So you would propose fining or jailing all of the shareholders of BP? :lol:

Yes, I would actually in the case of gross negligence. But that's just me. DearSummer, if you're interested, I recently wrote a lit review on Friedman's Free Lunch. If you're interested, send me your email address and I'll flip it to you. The guy was bonkers and has been discredited by his own colleagues at Chicago for heaven's sake. In fairness to him, his radical ideas needed a couple of radical presidents like Reagan and Bush to put his looney ideas into wide-scale practice and destroy public deficits and debtloads until his ideas were discredited. So kudos to the Gipper and Bush I-II for that, I suppose.

[DearSummer]

Yes, I would actually in the case of gross negligence. But that's just me.

Who on their right mind would invest in any company under such a system? You realize there are literally millions of shareholders of BP right? You want to put them all in jail? :facepalm:

[Hitman21]

Milton's most faithful disciples changed their opinions on Milton after 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3GVhIHGyWRM&pid=newsarchive

The problem is that it wasn't free markets that allowed the collapse to happen. It was crony capitalism, the government and banks were together involved with the problem

[Syne]

Only people can pay tax:
-Consumers
-Employees
-Shareholders

For every $1 you tax a corporation, it is $1 less to cut prices, pay employees, or pay shareholders.

P.S. Milton is a boss.



So he's saying that wealth is zero sum, and that if someone is rich, it's at the expense of others. Yet, he somehow turns this into "let's tax corporations nothing because they just pass the costs off to the workers and customers anyways".

It sounds to me like a rallying cry for government to channel or redistribute this money even more fairly among the masses. Nothing about any of his ideas made me feel like the world would be a better place for a greater amount of people, if we just stopped redistributing wealth. I suspect that wasn't even his point.

[robster77]

Who on their right mind would invest in any company under such a system? You realize there are literally millions of shareholders of BP right? You want to put them all in jail? :facepalm:

The directors and board I would boil in oil. The shareholders I would hold them personally liable for any damage incurred beyond the value of the firm. Radical? Sure. And isn't it a damn good thing that I don't set or even influence public policy? It's unfortunate the same could not be said about Mr. Friedman, who had the ear of several neocon presidents. Which also, not coincidentally, is why the liability laws in the U.S. are so weak...the whole notion of regulation and fines stifling entrepreneurs and other nonsensical rubbish that came out of Friedman's mouth. But that's a tale for another day.

[DearSummer]

So he's saying that wealth is zero sum, and that if someone is rich, it's at the expense of others. Yet, he somehow turns this into "let's tax corporations nothing because they just pass the costs off to the workers and customers anyways".

Huh? He didn't say that at all. There isn't a limited amount of wealth in the world. The pie is constantly growing.


It sounds to me like a rallying cry for government to channel or redistribute this money even more fairly among the masses. Nothing about any of his ideas made me feel like the world would be a better place for a greater amount of people, if we just stopped redistributing wealth. I suspect that wasn't even his point.

Go to 1:50...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBB7l-SfoK4&t=1m50s

[Hitman21]

....so true. Since you understand him, what do you think about his accelerationist hypothesis? And do you agree with his preoccupation with M1 and M2 targets?

You again :facepalm:

[jcon]

....so true. Since you understand him, what do you think about his accelerationist hypothesis? And do you agree with his preoccupation with M1 and M2 targets?


You again :facepalm:

Once again dodging questions. Why won't you answer him? Or is it that you can't?

[Hitman21]

Once again dodging questions. Why won't you answer him? Or is it that you can't?

Once again stalking me :facepalm:

[Syne]

Huh? He didn't say that at all. There isn't a limited amount of wealth in the world. The pie is constantly growing.

Look, he made a two-tiered argument.

1.) Corporations are people. If you tax them, it's going to have a negative trickle-down effect on everyone.

2.) You can't just print money or it causes inflation.

He actually took two pretty obvious points and gussied them up into a rousing speech. Now the man is accomplished at his craft and I am not an economist, so I'm sure I'd be out of my depth trying to contradict the body of his work, but what your videos show isn't the work of a college professor and diligent researcher, it's the specious rhetoric of a man trying to convince a captive audience that trickle-down economics works to everyone's best interest - not to mention calling it the "free lunch myth" is incredibly patronizing, because it assumes that those who disagree with him, or have a Keynesian view of economics, are living with this idiotic notion that taxation will happen in a vacuum as long as you direct it at business, and you can print money without inflation.

From such an accomplished academic, I'd expect better nuanced arguments, wouldn't you?


Go to 1:50...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBB7l-SfoK4&t=1m50s

OK, that was a pretty shameless promotional video but what's your point? He didn't invent free market principles. Yes, a global economy has helped China and India increase their presence on the world stage and I think that's great - but it has to be balanced with quality of life and the ability for individuals to self-determine... and what's with the plug from Dubya? These days, that's more poisonous than promotional.

What he is neglecting to factor in is personal greed. If you don't force people to channel money in a certain direction, then they won't. It's the reason why trickle-down economics does not benefit the majority of people, more than corporate taxation. It's really that simple. Take work ethic and 'shouldas' and 'wouldas' and put them aside for one moment. More people will get less under Friedman's principles. Do you honestly disagree?

[squagles]

So you would propose fining or jailing all of the shareholders of BP? :lol:

Yes. And I'd have Adam Smith backing me up.

At the very least, the company should've been nationalized and had it's assets liquidated.

[BornRuff]

I have to say that I am very excited to see people posting a youtube video about economics that is actually about real economics.

Say what you want about his deeper body of work, but the points in that initial video are spot on and very basic truths.

The conclusion that corporations should not be taxed at all is certainly debatable. The point that taxing corporations is actually a tax on people is undeniable though. Someone has to pay that cost.

Taxing corporations can make sense, but you always need to keep sight of who is actually paying the tax, not just assume that since it is a tax on corporations, it is not affecting anyone.

[CDNPatriot]

I have to say that I am very excited to see people posting a youtube video about economics that is actually about real economics.

Say what you want about his deeper body of work, but the points in that initial video are spot on and very basic truths.

The conclusion that corporations should not be taxed at all is certainly debatable. The point that taxing corporations is actually a tax on people is undeniable though. Someone has to pay that cost.

Taxing corporations can make sense, but you always need to keep sight of who is actually paying the tax, not just assume that since it is a tax on corporations, it is not affecting anyone.

Dearsummer is clearily out of his league with this material. I love it how he is the original poster in these discussions and if you watch him he avoids questions people pose to him or change the subject by bringing up other rhetoric.

As for not taxing corporations the idea is flawed. Under that system the richer will get richer. Look at Air Canada. There are a number of high ranking managers making salaries well into the millions including the chief honcho himself. Yet the stewardess have to take a thirty percent cut while these guys continue to make millions and I'm not even including the bonuses they give themselves. And when they finally get fired for wrecking the company they get other millions of dollars on top of that. Do you actually think that if you don't tax corporations that CEOs won't boost their incomes as a result? They already increased their incomes by 400 percent in the last number of years.

[jcon]

Once again stalking me :facepalm:

Don't flatter yourself and answer the question for once.

[CDNPatriot]

Yes. And I'd have Adam Smith backing me up.

At the very least, the company should've been nationalized and had it's assets liquidated.

Adam Smith... now there is another name you can for Dearsummer can google. Please don't ask me to post links. There is also a nice video on Adam Smith on youtube created by a sixth grader that I think you would like.

[Ziggy007]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Only people can pay tax:
-Consumers
-Employees
-Shareholders

For every $1 you tax a corporation, it is $1 less to cut prices, pay employees, or pay shareholders.

P.S. Milton is a boss.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BxuP7Z8Q-vY/TidoMaGAsZI/AAAAAAAAAA4/nUoxxgWgb8o/s1600/3965809597_f5f38e74d9.jpg

This operates under the assumption that the company would redistribute the wealth to anyone but their top executives.

When the government harmonized the sales tax they said it would allow companies to drop prices, how much did you see items drop by? Anyone I know who had their own business looked at it as a way for them to get more profit out of their company.

Apple, one of the most profitable companies on the planet has the most expensive products, pays their employees par for the course of a big tech firm, and doesn't pay dividends. That's how businesses are set up to work in a free market, to rape and pillage the wallets of consumers every way possible.

[patpond]

Capitalism sux.

[DearSummer]

Look, he made a two-tiered argument.

1.) Corporations are people. If you tax them, it's going to have a negative trickle-down effect on everyone.

2.) You can't just print money or it causes inflation.

He actually took two pretty obvious points and gussied them up into a rousing speech. Now the man is accomplished at his craft and I am not an economist, so I'm sure I'd be out of my depth trying to contradict the body of his work, but what your videos show isn't the work of a college professor and diligent researcher, it's the specious rhetoric of a man trying to convince a captive audience that trickle-down economics works to everyone's best interest - not to mention calling it the "free lunch myth" is incredibly patronizing, because it assumes that those who disagree with him, or have a Keynesian view of economics, are living with this idiotic notion that taxation will happen in a vacuum as long as you direct it at business, and you can print money without inflation.

From such an accomplished academic, I'd expect better nuanced arguments, wouldn't you?

How could he make it any more nuanced? It's a simple concept. People have this idea that taxing corporations somehow creates money out of thin air. It doesn't. People end up paying for it. There is really nothing to disagree about. He recommended taxing people directly so it is clear who is being taxed (aka more transparency).


OK, that was a pretty shameless promotional video but what's your point? He didn't invent free market principles. Yes, a global economy has helped China and India increase their presence on the world stage and I think that's great - but it has to be balanced with quality of life and the ability for individuals to self-determine... and what's with the plug from Dubya? These days, that's more poisonous than promotional.

What he is neglecting to factor in is personal greed. If you don't force people to channel money in a certain direction, then they won't. It's the reason why trickle-down economics does not benefit the majority of people, more than corporate taxation. It's really that simple. Take work ethic and 'shouldas' and 'wouldas' and put them aside for one moment. More people will get less under Friedman's principles. Do you honestly disagree?

He didn't invent free market principles but he was a primary driver that put them into wide spread use around the world. Free market principles are the reason that the standard of living across the world is much higher than it has ever been.

How do you force people to channel their money in a certain direction? Where should it be directed? The whole concept of the free market is based on incentives which give people choice and hence power. It's an economic democracy.

Show me some examples where socialism has resulted in a higher standard of living than free market principles. Free market principles have an untouchable track record vs any other system.

[DearSummer]

This operates under the assumption that the company would redistribute the wealth to anyone but their top executives.

If they did that, they wouldn't be competitive to consumers or shareholders and hence would cease to exist eventually.


When the government harmonized the sales tax they said it would allow companies to drop prices, how much did you see items drop by? Anyone I know who had their own business looked at it as a way for them to get more profit out of their company.

But their competitors could drop prices and take their market share or offer a higher return to shareholders and attract more capital...


Apple, one of the most profitable companies on the planet has the most expensive products, pays their employees par for the course of a big tech firm, and doesn't pay dividends. That's how businesses are set up to work in a free market, to rape and pillage the wallets of consumers every way possible.

Apple does pay a dividend now and anybody who invested has made a killing...

[MrKap]

Oh I get it, Unions are in it for the money.

Walmart is in it for children.

It's not the taxes that drive prices up or down. Sorry to inform. Massive tax cuts just went through and the consumer price index is higher than ever before.

[rems]

Oh I get it, Unions are in it for the money.

Walmart is in it for children.

It's not the taxes that drive prices up or down. Sorry to inform. Massive tax cuts just went through and the consumer price index is higher than ever before.

Isnt that due to gas/energy and food prices?

[MrKap]

I don't know... it could be anything, I am not an economist.

If Burger King can make a hamburger for 1.00 and turn a profit, and mac donalds is selling them for 5.00.

What would you sell your burgers for? In a free market, not one of these markets that are dictated by corporate taxes.

[rems]

I don't know... it could be anything, I am not an economist.

If Burger King can make a hamburger for 1.00 and turn a profit, and mac donalds is selling them for 5.00.

What would you sell your burgers for? In a free market, not one of these markets that are dictated by corporate taxes.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/cpi-ipc/cpi-ipc-eng.htm

The cost of energy advanced 7.2% in the 12 months to February, led by increases in prices for gasoline (+8.9%) and electricity (+8.7%). The February increase in energy followed a 6.5% gain in January.

Food prices rose 4.1% on a year-over-year basis in February, following a 4.2% increase in January.

The Consumer Price Index (CPI), excluding food and energy, increased 1.7% in the 12 months to February, as passenger vehicle insurance premiums and homeowners' replacement costs rose. This followed a 1.6% gain in January.


So I don't think Walmart or McDonalds are driving the CPI...

[MrKap]

Ontario corporate taxes were slashed something like 80%.

Prices went up. It's what people will pay, not what something costs. You think MacDonalds, Walmart and everybody else cuts you a deal? No way... they provide you a service that you pay for, gladly.

Let me know the last time prices went down.

[rems]

Ontario corporate taxes were slashes something like 80%.

Prices went up. It's what people will pay, not what something costs. You think MacDonalds, Walmart and everybody else cuts you a deal? No way... they provide you a service that you pay for, gladly.

Let me know the last time prices went down.
But part of what they charge is how much it costs.

And I'm not sure but can you let me know the last time wages went down?

[MrKap]

In 2008, some 751,400 individuals worked at or below the minimum wage set by their province. This represented 5.2% of all employees in Canada, up slightly from 5.0% the previous year.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2008-eng.htm

[DearSummer]

They should get rid of the minimum wage to expand employment and give low-productivity employeess the ability to have on-the-job training (to improve their productivity and hence wage).

[DearSummer]

Ontario corporate taxes were slashed something like 80%.

Prices went up. It's what people will pay, not what something costs. You think MacDonalds, Walmart and everybody else cuts you a deal? No way... they provide you a service that you pay for, gladly.

Let me know the last time prices went down.

So where does the money go if it's not to the consumers (i.e. a price cut)? It goes to either the employees or the shareholders, both of which is a good thing for society.

[rems]

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/topics-sujets/minimumwage-salaireminimum/minimumwage-salaireminimum-2008-eng.htm

But does that mean wages went down as a whole?
CPI measures all prices. Well I saw toilet paper prices go down last week compared to the same price last year cuz it was on sale.
Also saw a 2 for $5 arby's beef and cheddar when the price last year was like $4 each.

[patpond]

They should get rid of the minimum wage to expand employment and give low-productivity employeess the ability to have on-the-job training (to improve their productivity and hence wage).

Somebody put this guy in charge now! :cheesygri Here's your platform : Eliminate middle class today!

[Hitman21]

Somebody put this guy in charge now! :cheesygri Here's your platform : Eliminate middle class today!

Always with the fear-mongering :facepalm:

[olssy]

Aren't corporations taxed only on profits after costs? That's what I always thought anyway, shareholders get their dividends taxed so I also assume dividends go out before taxable profit is applied. Anyone know this stuff for sure?

[DearSummer]

Somebody put this guy in charge now! :cheesygri Here's your platform : Eliminate middle class today!

You think people should be forced onto welfare if their productivity does not meet the minimum wage standard? I think everybody should have the right to work.

[DearSummer]

Aren't corporations taxed only on profits after costs? That's what I always thought anyway, shareholders get their dividends taxed so I also assume dividends go out before taxable profit is applied. Anyone know this stuff for sure?

Dividends are taken from after-tax profits.

[MrKap]

Anyone remember the days when they used to leave ketchup packets out at mac donalds.

Now that was a free lunch.

They should ban ketchup all together and pass the savings on to everybody else.

Who needs it if it means I can eat cheaper? Why should I pay for other peoples ketchup!

[manmanny]

Always with the fear-mongering :facepalm:

I am amazed how come all these people supporting Unions and bashing Cons started appearing on RFD, all of sudden?
Off course its spring time soo they are out for sunshine. And most of them lived on St. Clair...:razz:

claims of "getting rid of Middle Class" is nonsense and so old fashioned even for hardcore NDPer.

[Hitman21]

I am amazed how come all these people supporting Unions and bashing Cons started appearing on RFD, all of sudden?
Off course its spring time soo they are out for sunshine. And most of them lived on St. Clair...:razz:

claims of "getting rid of Middle Class" is nonsense and so old fashioned even for hardcore NDPer.

Agreed. Just be prepared for the trolls to wake up with the warm weather starting soon

[gomyone]

You again :facepalm:

What's the matter? You bemoaned the fact that "too many people don't understand Milton Friedman" and I agreed with you. Since I'm assuming you are not like these others you speak of, I was interested in your insights on Friedman's accelerationist hypothesis and his preoccupation with M1 and M2 targets. Someone like you who purports to understand Friedman and his influence within the monetarist school of thought should have more than just a facepalm emoticon for an opinion??

[MrKap]

Isn't he an egalitarian?

They say Iceland is the same.


Oh how we forgot how those communist conservatives bailed Canada out of the worst recession in decades.

[Syne]

How could he make it any more nuanced? It's a simple concept. People have this idea that taxing corporations somehow creates money out of thin air.

Nobody thinks this. That's why his premise is so condescending. Some people find it acceptable to put more of the burden on the profits of business, but nobody thinks that it creates money out of thin air. Nobody. No respectable academic would begin an argument with a straw man premise such as this one. In that video he was being political and pandering to his audience. If he was in front of a group of his academic contemporaries, they would feel like they were being insulted.


He recommended taxing people directly so it is clear who is being taxed (aka more transparency).

Corporations are people, remember?


He didn't invent free market principles but he was a primary driver that put them into wide spread use around the world. Free market principles are the reason that the standard of living across the world is much higher than it has ever been.

How do you force people to channel their money in a certain direction? Where should it be directed? The whole concept of the free market is based on incentives which give people choice and hence power. It's an economic democracy.

Show me some examples where socialism has resulted in a higher standard of living than free market principles. Free market principles have an untouchable track record vs any other system.

I don't need to go far. Canada vs. US health care is a clear example of socialist principles beating out free market principles in terms of cost.

[DearSummer]

Nobody thinks this. That's why his premise is so condescending. Some people find it acceptable to put more of the burden on the profits of business, but nobody thinks that it creates money out of thin air. Nobody. No respectable academic would begin an argument with a straw man premise such as this one. In that video he was being political and pandering to his audience. If he was in front of a group of his academic contemporaries, they would feel like they were being insulted.

You don't get it. You can't tax a business. The cost gets passed on to the employees, shareholders, or customers.


I don't need to go far. Canada vs. US health care is a clear example of socialist principles beating out free market principles in terms of cost.

The U.S. has socialized medicine. To say that it is a free market is absolutely laughable.

[MrKap]

You don't get it. You can't tax a business. The cost gets passed on to the employees, shareholders, or customers.

Everybody understands you, but people tax businesses and when taxes go down, employees don't get raises, and customers don't get cheaper prices. That's where you are sadly mistaken. To be perfectly honest, if you're not getting paid one dollar by the company as some sort of tax shelter loophole and taking dividends right out the company as a paycheck, then I highly doubt your shares are going to pay out more either. Free money for everybody!

[DearSummer]

Everybody understands you, but people tax businesses and when taxes go down, employees don't get raises, and customers don't get cheaper prices. That's where you are sadly mistaken. To be perfectly honest, if you're not getting paid one dollar by the company as some sort of tax shelter loophole and taking dividends right out the company as a paycheck, then I highly doubt your shares are going to pay out more either. Free money for everybody!

So where does the money go if not to shareholders, employees, or consumers? :facepalm:

[MrKap]

I don't want to pick on any companies in particular, but record profit years followed by mass layoffs are not uncommon.


So where does the money go if not to shareholders, employees, or consumers?

My point is it's not going to you, so whatever pipe dream is inside your head, you're wrong. The rich are rich, and they are the richest, not because they are giving you money. Companies fold, money launders, new companies open up, billions move from country to another. You're not getting a raise, and your burger still costs twice as much today as it did over a decade ago despite the advances in technology.

[DearSummer]

I don't want to pick on any companies in particular, but record profit years followed by mass layoffs are not uncommon.



My point is it's not going to you, so whatever pipe dream is inside your head, you're wrong. The rich are rich, and they are the richest, not because they are giving you money. Companies fold, money launders, new companies open up, billions move from country to another. You're not getting a raise, and your burger still costs twice as much today as it did over a decade ago despite the advances in technology.

Just tell me where the money goes if not to consumers, shareholders, or employees. It has to go somewhere and you can't say where.

[rems]

I don't want to pick on any companies in particular, but record profit years followed by mass layoffs are not uncommon.



My point is it's not going to you, so whatever pipe dream is inside your head, you're wrong. The rich are rich, and they are the richest, not because they are giving you money. Companies fold, money launders, new companies open up, billions move from country to another. You're not getting a raise, and your burger still costs twice as much today as it did over a decade ago despite the advances in technology.

Who hasn't gotten a raise in the past 10 years??

And the costs of making burgers have gone up (wages, rent, beef, tomatoes lettuce, ketchup,buns,etc...) from 10 years ago too. I don't get your point. Costs go up - what about it?

[MrKap]

How about here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

What about here? - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/uk-billionaires-idUSLNE72903120110310

You think because you own a share in something that whatever changes in taxes the government makes translates to more money for you? Sorry... not happening...

Good thing it was just a minor recession. If it was a really bad one, there would 3 or maybe even 4 times as many new billionaires.


DearSummer, you are very niave to think that reduced government taxes, lead to employee raises, increased shareholder payouts, cheaper ice cream, and whatever else you think the money else goes to.

Less taxes translates to expansion, not more money for you, that's a guarantee.

[DearSummer]

How about here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walton_family

What about here? - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/uk-billionaires-idUSLNE72903120110310

You think because you own a share in something that whatever changes in taxes the government makes translates to more money for you? Sorry... not happening...

Good thing it was just a minor recession. If it was a really bad one, there would 3 or maybe even 4 times as many new billionaires.

Wow...I don't even know what to say based on your level of ignorance. The Waltons are major shareholders in Wal-Mart. They get a proportionare share of dividends. 1 share of Wal-Mart stock is worth the same whether it's owned by you or a Walton.

[SoBored]

i don't 100% agree with this

first of all, private corporations, although they have 'shareholders', the bulk of those shares belong to the CEO and any investors, with some going to employees if the company has a stock option plan.

so these corporations don't pay dividends anyways.

secondly, not all corporations offer products to consumers - they offer services to other businesses - this money comes from the REVENUE that those other businesses generate. Just because business A spends $500,000 on a service from business B, it doesn't mean business A is going to increase the cost of their product - they have to remain competitive in pricing. they use the money from their own profits in hopes of generating even more profit (a ROI).

secondly, since i file the taxes for the corporation i work for,i know that we already get the taxes paid back to us every month we file (you get back the taxes you paid on purchases less the taxes you made from sales), so you're not really paying tax anyways. then of course there are corporate tax and other tax you have to pay but that's the cost of doing business and isn't really significant - it doesn't have a huge impact on the end user as this video would have you believe

by this logic, ANY cost levied on a business is going to affect the end-user, we might as well stop charging property taxes for the buildings they own too then

there are costs to doing business and you get a return on those costs

[Syne]

You don't get it. You can't tax a business. The cost gets passed on to the employees, shareholders, or customers.

Wow, way to completely miss the point. I'm going to start calling you Hitman. It's so nice to have conversations with people who don't bother acknowledging or replying to your points before coming up with a way to restate their own. Good thing you post 4 articles a day about the same thing. Well, you've just lost a follower buddy - someone who actually watches your videos and reads your posts carefully.


The U.S. has socialized medicine. To say that it is a free market is absolutely laughable.

You asked for an example and I gave you one. Your arguments are just about as nuanced as your friend, the intellectually dishonest Nobel Prize winning economist.

Have a nice day, Hitman.

[BornRuff]

Dearsummer is clearily out of his league with this material. I love it how he is the original poster in these discussions and if you watch him he avoids questions people pose to him or change the subject by bringing up other rhetoric.

As for not taxing corporations the idea is flawed. Under that system the richer will get richer. Look at Air Canada. There are a number of high ranking managers making salaries well into the millions including the chief honcho himself. Yet the stewardess have to take a thirty percent cut while these guys continue to make millions and I'm not even including the bonuses they give themselves. And when they finally get fired for wrecking the company they get other millions of dollars on top of that. Do you actually think that if you don't tax corporations that CEOs won't boost their incomes as a result? They already increased their incomes by 400 percent in the last number of years.

The fact of the matter is that taxing corporations just to try to limit executive compensation is extremely inefficient. It may lead to slightly lower compensation for the executives, but they will only bear a tiny portion of the tax. The bulk will show up in a combination of higher prices, lower wages, and less money paid out in dividends to share holders.

If you want to limit executives or tax them at a higher rate, just do that directly. Create higher tax brackets for the super high income earners and raise that tax rate significantly. Close all the loopholes. If you want to tax the rich, tax the rich. Don't tax corporations and assume you are only taxing the rich, because that isn't the case.

[DearSummer]

i don't 100% agree with this

first of all, private corporations, although they have 'shareholders', the bulk of those shares belong to the CEO and any investors, with some going to employees if the company has a stock option plan.

so these corporations don't pay dividends anyways.

Yup...so what? If they are making huge profits other companies will move into their industry to take a slice of the profits. This creates competition and lowers prices.


secondly, not all corporations offer products to consumers - they offer services to other businesses - this money comes from the REVENUE that those other businesses generate. Just because business A spends $500,000 on a service from business B, it doesn't mean business A is going to increase the cost of their product - they have to remain competitive in pricing. they use the money from their own profits in hopes of generating even more profit (a ROI).

Exactly, so businesses reinvest capital into their business which creates more jobs and wealth for everybody.


secondly, since i file the taxes for the corporation i work for,i know that we already get the taxes paid back to us every month we file (you get back the taxes you paid on purchases less the taxes you made from sales), so you're not really paying tax anyways.

You're referring to HST which is not what this thread is about. The fact that you file these taxes and don't seem to understand the difference between corporate taxes and HST is quite concerning. :|

[DearSummer]

Wow, way to completely miss the point. I'm going to start calling you Hitman.

Just let me know who pays the taxes of a business. A business can't pay a tax. It gets passed on to SOMEBODY.


You asked for an example and I gave you one. Your arguments are just about as nuanced as your erstwhile friend.

Have a nice day, Hitman.

You gave an example that compares two different socialized health care systems. :facepalm:

What society has been prosperous under a system that is not based on free market principles?

[DearSummer]

The fact of the matter is that taxing corporations just to try to limit executive compensation is extremely inefficient. It may lead to slightly lower compensation for the executives, but they will only bear a tiny portion of the tax. The bulk will show up in a combination of higher prices, lower wages, and less money paid out in dividends to share holders.

If you want to limit executives or tax them at a higher rate, just do that directly. Create higher tax brackets for the super high income earners and raise that tax rate significantly. Close all the loopholes. If you want to tax the rich, tax the rich. Don't tax corporations and assume you are only taxing the rich, because that isn't the case.

Exactly...make it transparent.

[SoBored]

Yup...so what? If they are making huge profits other companies will move into their industry to take a slice of the profits. This creates competition and lowers prices.

That doesn't make any sense.




Exactly, so businesses reinvest capital into their business which creates more jobs and wealth for everybody.

Again that doesn't make sense. Reinvesting capital in what way exactly? You think just because a business is profitable they will start hiring employees they don't need and spread the wealth? NO - they want to keep as much wealth within the corporation as they can. Your idea that the more profitable a business is the more better off everyone is plain wrong.

Case in point - Apple is as profitable as ever, so by your logic their products should be getting cheaper and cheaper and everyone should be better off! but of course, we both know their products are overpriced and not even made domestically because people are willing to pay for it, thus the free market. We also know that their employees are paid wages that are normal for their sector - not above.

If Apple paid $0 in corporate taxes, tell me who would benefit? do you know how much cash apple is hoarding in their bank account?

You shouldn't speak on things that you have no idea about - maybe in your fantasy world they sound like good ideas but that's not how the real world works





You're referring to HST which is not what this thread is about. The fact that you file these taxes and don't seem to understand the difference between corporate taxes and HST is quite concerning. :|


if you actually read my post i distuingished corporate taxes and i stated that they don't have a large impact on the business. Being a canadian corporation we already get significant benefits. If you think the paltry amount we pay in corporate taxes has any bearing whatsoever on the end-user you're crazy.

I believe my corporation pays something in the very VERY low six-figures per year for income we make in the millions. this is a cost of doing business. it does not translate into higher prices - the free market which you claim to be so supportive of dictates the price of a good or service. if one business cannot provide it at that price or offer something unique it will eventually be weeded out.

and incase you didn't realize, those taxes go to pay for essential services. (ever been to a doctor recently? have kids in school? drive on roads? use public transit?)

by this logic, let's just stop taxing everybody! that way we can spend more money and spread the wealth, right? or maybe people would put that money in their savings account the same way a business would do?

[DearSummer]

That doesn't make any sense.

LOL how do you not understand that? If McDonalds was the only burger joint in Toronto and sold burgers for $20 and made $15 per burger you don't think new businesses would pop up that sell hamburgers for cheaper?


Again that doesn't make sense. Reinvesting capital in what way exactly? You think just because a business is profitable they will start hiring employees they don't need and spread the wealth? NO - they want to keep as much wealth within the corporation as they can. Your idea that the more profitable a business is the more better off everyone is plain wrong.

Companies either reinvest capital or pay their shareholders via salaries/dividends. Keeping money in the business is the worst thing you could do as it lowers your Return on Equity. That is why companies have share buybacks, dividends, etc. if they don't have a productive way to reinvest capital.


if you actually read my post i distuingished corporate taxes and i stated that they don't have a large impact on the business. Being a canadian corporation we already get significant benefits. If you think the paltry amount we pay in corporate taxes has any bearing whatsoever on the end-user you're crazy.

I believe my corporation pays something in the very VERY low six-figures per year for income we make in the millions. this is a cost of doing business. it does not translate into higher prices.

and incase you didn't realize, those taxes go to pay for essential services. (ever been to a doctor recently? have kids in school? drive on roads? use public transit?)

by this logic, let's just stop taxing everybody! that way we can spend more money and spread the wealth, right? or maybe people would put that money in their savings account the same way a business would do?

You don't get the point. Your business is not paying those taxes. Either the shareholders, customers, or employees do. The money cannot just appear of out thin air. At the end of the day, it comes out of somebody's pocket.

Friedman advocates for taxing people, not businesses, to make it transparent who is actually paying the taxes.

[MrKap]

LOL how do you not understand that? If McDonalds was the only burger joint in Toronto and sold burgers for $20 and made $15 per burger you don't think new businesses would pop up that sell hamburgers for cheaper?

They couldn't. They don't have the capital to get costs down in a competitive manner. Haven't you noticed the lack of newcomers over the last 2 or 3 decades and the collapse of the others?

I think the only one that actually made any sort of comeback was A&W

Burger joints used to be a dime a dozen. Now there are a handful who dominate. It's not because they make a better milkshake.

Here, this is reasonably interesting as well - http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-3

[DearSummer]

They couldn't. They don't have the capital to get costs down in a competitive manner. Haven't you noticed the lack of newcomers over the last 2 or 3 decades and the collapse of the others?

I think the only one that actually made any sort of comeback was A&W

Burger joints used to be a dime a dozen. Not there are a handful who dominate.

What are you talking about? There are countless competitors to McDonalds... :facepalm:

Why would McDonalds sell burgers for $1.69 when they could sell them for $20 with no competition?

[MrKap]

Why would mac donalds give away free coffee if they lose money.

Your arguments make no sense at all.

Mac Donalds sells for Profit. They sell their burgers at a price the market will bear. Not the lowest they can get it to pass savings on to you.

[SoBored]

LOL how do you not understand that? If McDonalds was the only burger joint in Toronto and sold burgers for $20 and made $15 per burger you don't think new businesses would pop up that sell hamburgers for cheaper?


What does that have to do with taxes? Those 'new' businesses would have the same costs that mcdonalds does. this is the free market that you are so supportive if - if another company can sell something for cheaper then it's competitor then it will do so. this has nothing to do with the topic because both of them will be paying corporate taxes.



Companies either reinvest capital or pay their shareholders via salaries/dividends. Keeping money in the business is the worst thing you could do as it lowers your Return on Equity. That is why companies have share buybacks, dividends, etc. if they don't have a productive way to reinvest capital.


Re-read the edit i made on my original post. Do you have any idea how much cash Apple is hoarding? but I guess they have no idea how to run a good business, right?




You don't get the point. Your business is not paying those taxes. Either the shareholders, customers, or employees do. The money cannot just appear of out thin air. At the end of the day, it comes out of somebody's pocket.

Friedman advocates for taxing people, not businesses, to make it transparent who is actually paying the taxes.

this is just laughable. Of course my corporation is paying these taxes, from the REVENUE that they earn. The corporation is an entity itself - it generates revenue. of course shareholders would like to keep as much within the business they can - paying corporate tax is a cost of doing business like MANY other costs of doing business.

I can guarantee you if my corporation stopped paying corporate tax it would have no affect on shareholders because the only shareholders in my business are the CEO and major investors - they only care about the bottom line and want to see GROWTH. they don't get paid dividends. they will only make a profit by selling the company to another business or from an IPO - neither of which is heavily influenced by the small amount of tax we pay as a canadian corporation.

[BornRuff]

Why would mac donalds give away free coffee if they lose money.

You're arguments make no sense at all.

Mac Donalds sells for Profit. They sell their burgers at a price the market will bear. Not the lowest they can get it to pass savings on to you.

They have free coffee days as a promotion to drive business into their stores. No business would just give out free stuff because they make lots of money.

Selling things for less is often more profitable. If you can undercut the competition, or provide better value for the customers money, then you get more business.

[rems]

Why would mac donalds give away free coffee if they lose money.

Your arguments make no sense at all.

Mac Donalds sells for Profit. They sell their burgers at a price the market will bear. Not the lowest they can get it to pass savings on to you.

Exactly. That's why if there's a huge profit, other companies will get in on that action. So if McD's is selling the burger for $20 and $15 profit, a company can come in and sell a similar burger for $15 and make $10 profit cuz that's still good. Then someone else will come in and sell the burger for $10 and make $5 profit. This will stop once profit margins become thin that it's no longer attracting new entrants into the burger selling industry.


They couldn't. They don't have the capital to get costs down in a competitive manner. Haven't you noticed the lack of newcomers over the last 2 or 3 decades and the collapse of the others?

I think the only one that actually made any sort of comeback was A&W

Burger joints used to be a dime a dozen. Now there are a handful who dominate. It's not because they make a better milkshake.

Here, this is reasonably interesting as well - http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-3

Actually I've seen a lot more "gourmet" burger joints pop up. Like look at Hero Burger...they've expanded quite a bit. Downtown there's so many of these types of burger joints.

If there's profit to be made like that, people will invest and you'll get your capital.

[DearSummer]

What does that have to do with taxes? Those 'new' businesses would have the same costs that mcdonalds does. this is the free market that you are so supportive if - if another company can sell something for cheaper then it's competitor then it will do so. this has nothing to do with the topic because both of them will be paying corporate taxes.

If you lower corporate tax,es it creates a lower baseline cost which either increases profitability (paid to shareholders or employees) or decreases the price in the industry (paid to consumers).


Re-read the edit i made on my original post. Do you have any idea how much cash Apple is hoarding? but I guess they have no idea how to run a good business, right?

Why do you think they just instituted a dividend and share buyback? Companies do not want to hoard cash because it hurts ROE. This is basic corporate finance. Reinvest or distribute to shareholders.


this is just laughable. Of course my corporation is paying these taxes, from the REVENUE that they earn. The corporation is an entity itself - it generates revenue. of course shareholders would like to keep as much within the business they can - paying corporate tax is a cost of doing business like MANY other costs of doing business.

I can guarantee you if my corporation stopped paying corporate tax it would have no affect on shareholders because the only shareholders in my business are the CEO and major investors - they only care about the bottom line and want to see GROWTH. they don't get paid dividends. they will only make a profit by selling the company to another business or from an IPO - neither of which is heavily influenced by the small amount of tax we pay as a canadian corporation.

Companies are not taxed on revenue, they are taxed on profit. If your business had lower taxes, the shareholders would earn more. That would create more on an incentive for others to enter the market because it is more profitable which would result in lower prices.

[olssy]

Some people logic about this completely escapes me.

If a company make a profit it gets taxed so if they are making a huge profit and don't want to be taxed on it they can increase wages, hire more people and/or lower the cost of the services/products they offer.

How is this in itself bad?

For me the bad thing about it is the ridiculous amount of things a corporation can do to reduce profit but increase value just to pay less taxes. Private jets, lobbyists, new offices, artwork, etc.

A privately held company doesn't have much to gain from being profitable on paper, instead of declaring a $10000000 profit they can just increase expenditures by $1000000 in assets that gain value over time.

A publicly traded corporation will have to answer to shareholders who do want to see a declared profit as well as get paid dividends(in most cases). Unfortunately, if you go to a shareholder meeting you will quickly realize that the major shareholders of corporations are other corporations so you don't really get to decide anything.


And for those curious, here is Canada's federal corporate tax rate since the past few years(We have the lowest rate of the G7):
21% before January 1, 2008
19.5% effective January 1, 2008
19% effective January 1, 2009
18% effective January 1, 2010
16.5% effective January 1, 2011
15% effective January 1, 2012

Add to this the provincial rate(Lower rate is on deductible federal income and higher is on the rest):

Province or territory Lower rate Higher rate
Newfoundland and Labrador 5% 14%
Nova Scotia 5% 16%
Prince Edward Island 4.3% 16%
New Brunswick 5% 13%
Ontario 5.5% 14%
Manitoba 2% 14%
Saskatchewan 4.5% 13%
British Columbia 4.5% 12%
Yukon 4% 15%
Northwest Territories 4% 11.5%
Nunavut 4% 12%


None-inclusive list of corporate tax deductions:
Advertising expenses | Allowance on eligible capital property | Bad debts |
Business start-up costs | Business taxes, fees, licences, dues, memberships, and subscriptions | Business-use-of-home expenses | Capital cost allowance | Computer and other equipment leasing costs | Convention expensess | Current or capital expenses | Delivery, freight, and express | Fuel costs | Insurance | Interest | Leasing costs | Legal, accounting and other fees | Maintenance and repairs | Management and administration fees | Meals and entertainment | Motor vehicle expense | Office expenses | Prepaid expenses | Property taxes | Rent | Salaries, wages, and benefits | Supplies | Telephone and utilities | Travel

There is also something called Tax-Holidays that seem to be for corporations that meet a certain criteria, here is one for Ontario that exempts taxation for 10 years:
Companies incorporated in Canada after March 24, 2008, and before March 25, 2012, that
commercialize intellectual property developed by Canadian universities, colleges or research
institutions

Something interesting to note in all this is that despite the lowered tax rate the revenue from corporate tax is increasing. Some will say this is because reducing the tax rate is in fact stimulating the economy and creating more wealth to be taxed. This is probably partly true but the big reason for increasing revenues is the increasing price of commodities we export or trade in, think natural resources.

[NorthYorker]

Milton is a boss.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BxuP7Z8Q-vY/TidoMaGAsZI/AAAAAAAAAA4/nUoxxgWgb8o/s1600/3965809597_f5f38e74d9.jpgUnlike you, mister Dreamer, I for many years lived in a country which had practically been a proving ground for Friedmanites. They sat in highest government offices and banks and decided what to dance and who to fire. Believe me, you don't want to live in a country built using Friedman's recipes.

P.S. Would it not for corporate money supporting Friedmanism, any theory which failed an experiment so spectacularly would be long dead now. However, paid shills continue to recruit ignoramuses to trump failed musings.

[MrKap]

Exactly. That's why if there's a huge profit, other companies will get in on that action. So if McD's is selling the burger for $20 and $15 profit, a company can come in and sell a similar burger for $15 and make $10 profit cuz that's still good. Then someone else will come in and sell the burger for $10 and make $5 profit. This will stop once profit margins become thin that it's no longer attracting new entrants into the burger selling industry.



Actually I've seen a lot more "gourmet" burger joints pop up. Like look at Hero Burger...they've expanded quite a bit. Downtown there's so many of these types of burger joints.

If there's profit to be made like that, people will invest and you'll get your capital.

You don't have to tell me. I'm eating dog food that is about x5 to x10 cheaper than human food, and it's just as good, if not better than human food. I don't mean corn crap either, I mean high quality stuff, that people charge an arm and a leg for to humans. Because they will pay that much. Not for meals, for snacks that are way more nutritious, tasty and cheaper than the sh#t humans eat.

I unlike the majority of people out there, know what a fast food milkshake is/was made of.

[Hitman21]

Wow, way to completely miss the point. I'm going to start calling you Hitman. It's so nice to have conversations with people who don't bother acknowledging or replying to your points before coming up with a way to restate their own. Good thing you post 4 articles a day about the same thing. Well, you've just lost a follower buddy - someone who actually watches your videos and reads your posts carefully.



You asked for an example and I gave you one. Your arguments are just about as nuanced as your friend, the intellectually dishonest Nobel Prize winning economist.

Have a nice day, Hitman.

:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

[DearSummer]

Unlike you, mister Dreamer, I for many years lived in a country which had practically been a proving ground for Friedmanites. They sat in highest government offices and banks and decided what to dance and who to fire. Believe me, you don't want to live in a country built using Friedman's recipes.

P.S. Would it not for corporate money supporting Friedmanism, any theory which failed an experiment so spectacularly would be long dead now. However, paid shills continue to recruit ignoramuses to trump failed musings.

Oh really what country is that?

[NorthYorker]

Oh really what country is that?Russia 1992-1997 (Yeltsin started to limit worst excesses of Friedmanism after folks started to actually die on streets, so Chicago Boys had been somewhat curbed in their enthusiasm in 97-99; however, previous years, as well as Argentinean disastrous experience, are the closest approximation of what happens when Friedman's theories meet real life).

[DearSummer]

Russia 1992-1997 (Yeltsin started to limit worst excesses of Friedmanism after folks started to actually die on streets, so Chicago Boys had been somewhat curbed in their enthusiasm in 97-99; however, previous years, as well as Argentinean disastrous experience, are the closest approximation of what happens when Friedman's theories meet real life).

Capitalisms track record is untouchable compared to any other system when it comes to increasing the standard of living of your average person. History is very clear in this regard. What country has succeeded without capitalism? All of the success stores are because of the free market.

[NorthYorker]

Capitalisms track record is untouchable compared to any other system when it comes to increasing the standard of living of your average person. History is very clear in this regard. What country has succeeded without capitalism? All of the success stores are because of the free market.So you agree with me that application of Friedman's theories to a life outside of his university shell had been disastrous, and try to turn conversation to a bigger issue of capitalism's advantages. OK, I'm glad we agreed on the simple fact that Friedmanism's track record is too disastrous to be discussed.

[kasianman]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BxuP7Z8Q-vY/TidoMaGAsZI/AAAAAAAAAA4/nUoxxgWgb8o/s1600/3965809597_f5f38e74d9.jpg

Freedom for the employer/boss/owner/rich
Corporate slavery for the rest (Employees)

[DearSummer]

So you agree with me that application of Friedman's theories to a life outside of his university shell had been disastrous, and try to turn conversation to a bigger issue of capitalism's advantages. OK, I'm glad we agreed on the simple fact that Friedmanism's track record is too disastrous to be discussed.

Name some examples of countries that have succeeded without the free market principles promoted by Friedman. Every successful country uses free market principles. How is that a disastrous track record? Capitalism's record is untouchable. America and the rest of the Western world has the highest living standard ever in history on the back of capitalism. Show me a system that works better. No system is perfect, but capitalism is far and away the best we have.

[DearSummer]

Freedom for the employer/boss/owner/rich
Corporate slavery for the rest (Employees)

What system has benefited the average worker more than capitalism in the history of the world?

[NorthYorker]

Name some examples of countries that have succeeded without the free market principles promoted by Friedman. This is a bit like saying "since eating is good for you, binge eating is very good for you". Friedman is one of more successful propagandists of binge capitalism (which had been, by the way, saved by massive injection of public funds from universally recognized collapse not even 4 years ago). I'm yet to find an example when extreme approach to any problem brings anything but grief, and IMHO Friedman is pretty extreme in "synthesis" part of his writing. Ironically, this is something he shares with Karl Marx :) Two brilliant Jewish analytical minds who badly screwed up when they tried to propose solutions for problems they identified.

[DearSummer]

This is a bit like saying "since eating is good for you, binge eating is very good for you". Friedman is one of more successful propagandists of binge capitalism (which had been, by the way, saved by massive injection of public funds from universally recognized collapse not even 4 years ago). I'm yet to find an example when extreme approach to any problem brings anything but grief, and IMHO Friedman is pretty extreme in "synthesis" part of his writing. Ironically, this is something he shares with Karl Marx :) Two brilliant Jewish analytical minds who badly screwed up when they tried to propose solutions for problems they identified.

You realize that it was government working hand in hand with business that caused the financial crisis, right?

[LostInTruth]

DearSummer,

You just severely shot yourself in the foot with this post.



Regards,

Remaining Credibility. ;)