Admittedly, I haven't read much about administrating sales tax before, but this study from WA State seems to contradict your numbers. For small retailer the cost of collection was around 6% and that went down to less than 1% for large retailers. That would seem very efficient. Would it be different if it were a National Sales tax? Asking, cause I don't know the answer.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/aboutus/statisticsandreports/retailers_cost_study/default.aspx

>> ^heropsycho:

The problems with consumption taxes are:
A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.
B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.
That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

The problems with consumption taxes are:

A. Not progressive enough, which could admittedly be overcome, but how you could would be tedious. What are retailers gonna do, ask to see your tax statement everytime you buy something? It would have to be based on type of purchase, which would be very difficult to structure it to be progressive enough.

B. As I've mentioned numerous times, sales taxes cost too much to collect. Income taxes are over 90% efficient. For every dollar charged, it only costs less than ten cents to collect and enforce income tax. Last I checked, it costs about forty cents on the dollar to collect and enforce a sales tax. You'd then have to charge everyone more taxes to make up for the inefficiencies.

That's honestly where I'd advocate abolishing sales tax within every state, and have the state legislature raise everyone's income tax a small percentage, so everyone would pay slightly more in income tax, but no sales tax. If done correctly, everyone would pay less in taxes overall, and the state governments would get more in tax revenues due to eliminating inefficiencies inherent in a sales tax. That should be something everyone could get behind.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

@Peroxide I am hardly right wing, and many state use something other than income tax. Usually sales tax, which is at a flat rate. So, it is already there to be seen really. The US government used to subside nearly completely on tariffs as well, which is also flat. Long tradition of flat, sales taxes around the world, so I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment. Consumption taxes seem more fair as it taxes people who do and use things as they do and use them. Which I think was one of the arguments that was being thrown around as to the level of fairness. If you drive a gas hog of a car, you pay more consumption tax....makes sense to me! If you wanted to make it progressive, you could change the rate on certain things, or offer food stampish things to people that are low income, basically forfeiting their tax back to them in the way of rebates. Lots of different ways to handle it. I just know that now, I can't file my taxes without the help of a computer. And even then, I don't know if it is right. At any time the government could audit me and really, I wouldn't know how valid their claim would be. How many of you are sure that you aren't guilty of tax fraud? Have you read the X million lines of tax codes?

The full range of his arguments are not entirely clear to me, but here's what I got.

1) Free trade leads us to send jobs and money overseas.

2) Crappy tax code means the rich are amassing huge fortunes while the rest of us face service cuts in the face of our deficit.

3) We spend lots of money covering the losses of banks.

4) Politicians who go against special interests get thrown out of office.

To which I could respond:

1) Free trade also makes imports cheap. If they raised tariffs and TVs and cellphones doubled in price, would we all thank the government for making American businesses more competitive? Back when it was actually possible to buy American did people do it? No. They went to wall-mart to save $5.

2) We voted for it. How many democrats have we seen clobbered at the ballot box because they presumed to raise taxes on the rich? The only Democrats who have won the presidency in my lifetime have done it by putting as little daylight as possible between themselves and their opponents on tax policy.

3) When banks fail we have recessions. When we have recessions, we vote out whoever is in charge. Thus, the government borrows and spends and bails as much as it can to minimize the cyclic nature inherent in any market economy. Is this good for long term competitiveness, growth, or our national finances? No. Does this stop voters (from both parties) from demanding that the government "fix" every economic downturn immediately? No.

4) Do special interests get special votes? No. They just put lots of (generally dishonest) advertising on the air, and voters are too lazy or too stupid to determine what is true and what is not.

In summary, why does our government inflict these horrible policies on us? Why do they suffer from such gridlock? Because we ask them too. We like living on borrowed money to buy cheap crap that distracts us from the difficult truths that a more responsible electorate would face head on. We have the government we chose and the government we deserve.

The Big Lie About The Great Depression

Ben Shapiro

In her vital and fascinating new book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," Amity Shlaes tells a story about national icon President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Shortly after FDR took office, Shlaes explains, he began arbitrarily tinkering with the price of gold. "One day he would move the price up several cents; another, a few more," writes Shlaes.

One particular morning, Shlaes relates, FDR informed his "brain trust" that he was considering raising the price of gold by 21 cents. His advisers asked why 21 cents was the appropriate figure. "It's a lucky number," stated Roosevelt, "because it's three times seven." Henry Morgenthau, a member of the "brain trust," later wrote: "If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened."

Ignorance of basic economics — and the concurrent attempt to obfuscate that ignorance by employing class-conscious demagoguery — remains the staple of the Democratic Party. For over 60 years, Democrats and their allies in the media and public school system have taught that the Great Depression was an inevitable result of laissez-faire economic policies, and that only the Keynesian policies of the FDR government allowed America to emerge from the ashes. The Great Depression, for the left, provides conclusive proof that when it comes to economics, government works better than business.

This point of view has a sterling reputation. That reputation, unsurprisingly, was created by FDR himself. FDR turned the Great Depression into a morality play — a morality play in which those in favor of individual initiative were the sinners, while those who relied on government were the saints. "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals," Roosevelt intoned in 1937. "We know now that it is bad economics."

This, as Shlaes convincingly shows, is hogwash. The Depression lasted nearly a decade longer than it should have, due almost entirely to governmental meddling under both Herbert Hoover and FDR. High tariffs and government-sponsored deflation followed by enormous taxation and unthinkable government expenditures turned a stock market stumble into a decade-long nightmare. Only the devastation of World War II lifted America out of the mire, solving the drastic unemployment problem and providing a legitimate medium for FDR's pre-war wartime policies.

Nonetheless, the myth of a grinning FDR leading America forth from the soup kitchens remains potent.
And today's Democrats rely desperately on that fading falsehood, hoping to bolster their bad economics with worse history. Hillary Clinton routinely hijacks Rooseveltian language, most recently disparaging the "on your own society" in favor of a "we're all in it together society." John Edwards' "two Americas" nonsense drips of FDR's class warfare. Never mind that Keynesian economics does not work. Never mind that it promotes unemployment, discourages investment and quashes entrepreneurship. For Democrats, the image of government-as-friend is more important than a government that actually protects the rights that breed prosperity.

"The impression of recovery — the impression that a President was bending the old rules and, drawing upon his own courage and flamboyance in adversity and illness, stirring things up on behalf of the down-and-out — mattered more than any miscalculations in the moot mathematics of economics," novelist-cum-economist John Updike recently wrote, defending FDR from Shlaes' critique. "Business, of which Shlaes is so solicitous, is basically merciless, geared to maximize profit. Government is ultimately a human transaction, and Roosevelt put a cheerful, defiant, caring face on government at a time when faith in democracy was ebbing throughout the Western world. For this inspirational feat he is the twentieth century's greatest President, to rank with Lincoln and Washington as symbolic figures for a nation to live by."

For Updike and his allies, image trumps reality. The supposed harshness of the business world matters more for Updike than the fact that profit incentives promote economic growth, efficiency and creativity. The "caring face" of government is more important for Updike than creating a framework that produces jobs and affordable commodities. Updike's sporadically employed father liked FDR because FDR made him feel "less alone." No doubt Updike's father would have felt less alone if he had been steadily employed by a private enterprise — the kind of enterprise stifled by Roosevelt.

"We are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the ideal," FDR announced in 1937, as unemployment stood at 15 percent, "and in so doing we are fashioning an instrument of unimagined power for the establishment of a morally better world." Today's Democrats continue to embrace the vision, even at the cost of a prosperous reality.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Hey, you're the one that put that article forward, not me.

I think it's impossible to actually track specific jobs created by the stimulus. You can make estimates based on theory, but that's not really evidence, either for or against.

What's a bit easier to measure is the overall employment trend. You'll love that these are Nancy Pelosi's charts, but they're based on BLS statistics (what the whole economic world uses as the source for data on employment, BTW).

Here's the chart of the recession through to May's jobs report (June's report will probably come out this week). The stimulus bill was passed in February of 2009. The trend changed immediately, with the job losses slowing, and then turning into gains.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs.

That's my point, the stimulus wasn't about creating "government" jobs, it was an attempt to reverse the unemployment trend in the private sector. Right now the biggest drag on the jobs reports coming out is job losses in the public sector.

Here's a chart showing the last year in the ongoing march of Obama's supposed socialist revival. Private sector jobs up, public sector jobs down.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board.

I know it was another thread, but that idea's been tried. Hell, it's still being done to a greater degree than it's been done since well before I was born. That idea has clearly and unambiguously been tried, and has utterly failed to produce anything like what Republicans from Reagan forward have claimed it would.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.
wiki:
<long quote about things FDR said on the campaign trail>

A couple paragraphs above that, you find a description of Hoover's actual policies:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.[45] However, Hoover did pursue many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, reduce the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued until 1937. In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[46]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations payments had stopped completely.[47][48] Hoover in 1931 urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[49] The NCC was an example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged NCC member banks to provide loans to smaller banks to prevent them from collapsing. The banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was replaced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

That all sounds very familiar to me as modern-day Republican policy proposals -- eschew direct assistance to the unemployed, try to boost employment by deporting Mexicans, attempt to defer interest payments on foreign debts, and ask banks to put in place their own policies to fix their own shortcomings rather than resort to regulation, and stick to preserving the gold standard at all costs. The only thing out of place is tariffs, but I've seen those mentioned from the conservative rank and file in discussions about what our response to China's ascendance should be.

In the election year of 1932, with unemployment at 25% and with people throwing things at his motorcade everywhere he went, he did start engaging in a little attempt at mortgage loan stabilization and fiscal stimulus, and they did seem to make a positive impact, but were too little too late, but they weren't policies that were the centerpiece of his administration, they were things he tried to do out of desperation.

It's also quite true that FDR in 1932 ran on a platform that included promises to balance the budget, but that's because it'd been the Democratic that had always been scolds on that topic up to that point. Besides, FDR was no student of Keynes; General Theory wasn't even published until 1936. I don't really know where the ideas for FDR's New Deal came from. I'm guessing just simple populism, and maybe some Keynesian influence amongst his economic advisers.

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Sorry Dudes, I know you mean well, but you are defending the indefensible. Obama has failed, just like those of us who know socialism (or semi-socialism) fails knew he would. Couldn't care less that the moonbats hate him for not being Marx enough, His Earness has failed.

Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs. With government, when 30 desk jockeys can replace 300, the other 270 stay on board for the ride (and pensions). No wonder we're headed for Greece.

Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board. Recognize it's not the government's money, even if it prints the sh1t.

Another wonderful side effect of letting people keep the lion's share of what they earn: you get a properly-restrained government too small to rape and plunder in the name of "social justice" or any other bullsh1t of the day.

And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.

wiki:

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted (Hoover) for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[54] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[55]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[56] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."




>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet here we are with our current SCAMULUS not helping at all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-eco
nomists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
I'm calling FOUL, Keynes! You hear me? KEEEEYYYYNNNEEEEEESSSS!

That article says it created 2.4 million jobs. Its main point was that if you take the number of jobs it's estimated to have created, and divide it by the total sum of the bill, it was expensive per job. But it wasn't buying jobs, it was buying goods and services.
Of course you can get more jobs per dollar if the government just directly hires people, and puts them to work doing what needs to be done (like build cars, sweep floors, grow corn, etc.). But that's socialism, so instead we just buy stuff from the market, and let the market decide how many (and which) jobs get created.

@peggedbea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup
"In the U.S., HFCS is among the sweeteners that have primarily replaced sucrose (table sugar) in the food industry. Factors for this include governmental production quotas of domestic sugar, subsidies of U.S. corn, and an import tariff on foreign sugar; all of which combine to raise the price of sucrose to levels above those of the rest of the world, making HFCS less costly for many sweetener applications."
So there are politico-economical reasons sodas in Europe contain beet sugar.

>> ^ulysses1904:

Yeah his voice is obnoxious. And the editing and sound effects are the usual manipulative crap. The only thing missing is the mushroom cloud at the finale. Or was it there, I stopped watching before the end.


However, the message for the cars is completely true. I am not a wealthy person, so fluctuations in used car parts is a real pain for me...and it has been noticeable. Even moreso since many of the components I have needed of late have been engine related.
>> ^handmethekeysyou:

I almost upvoted this video after the beginning sequence.
But after the narrator's obnoxious tone, and then specifically the line, "but this government misallocation of money and resources always[emphasis mine] leads to unintended consequences," I stopped watching.
Always? Now there are a few ways of interpreting this sentences. First would be that when the government misallocates money and resources, there are unintended consequences. I won't disagree with that semantically, but if that's what he's saying, does it really need to be said? When the government screws up, it screws up. The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club.
A second interpretation is that government policy always misallocates money and resources & there are always, without fail, unintended consequences. Well, now I'll disagree semantically. Saying that all policy misallocates $$ & resources is ludicrous. If the video is going to talk about the fact that in all policy, there is always some money misused, that sounds interesting and is a worthwhile, constructive criticism. But something in those ominous clouds composited behind the Capitol Building tells me this isn't going to be an objective, in-depth look at government spending.
I suppose this video is 10 minutes of cherry-picked policies that the government screwed up. I'd love to watch and get worked up about it, but now I know it would just be anti-government propaganda.
...
I decided to watch some of it since maybe it was unfair to rail on it so hard after only a minute. Things that struck me:
- Use of Uncle Sam to suggest overbearing government propaganda. Video then proceeds to lay the propaganda on heavier than a North Korean campaign to get you to trim your hair. People in the streets, in photo negative! Capitol building with dollar signs coming out it, heading right for the lens, in photo negative! How about you composite some more shots over other shots to make this all seem so overwhelming? I think there was a full 5 seconds in there without a single hit or sting. I was bored and not emotionally outraged during those 5 seconds. Please reedit to fix.
- You're going to argue against "regulations" at large? All regulation is hurting me, the consumer, the citizen? [Regulating the amount of lead in my paint ultimately costs me more money, which means I can't provide as well for my children, who are currently eating paint chips.] Strange that he doesn't name a single specific regulation. Though it's actually nice. It saves me from having to think. Now I know, regulation=bad, and I don't need to worry my pretty little head about the whys and hows of it all.
- Nor does he explain the line "We have recently seen that sometimes it's the regulator that keeps bad businesses in business." Ok, sometimes that happens...like, when? Oh, I don't actually know any examples, just sometimes it happens. I can't wait to put on a smug expression of intellectual superiority after I wow the crowd at my next cocktail party when I pull this nugget out.
- During the regulation bit, he does relate that we're paying a "regulation tax" that's priced into my health insurance, shoes, clothing [shoes aren't clothing?], food, cars, homes, and pretty much anything I buy. I hate taxes! I buy at least 3 of those things! [So what?] So...I hate regulations! Which regulations do I hate again? [Not sure.] All of them! [Did I mention this is propaganda?]
I stopped after the regulations part [can you tell I didn't like that bit?]. I have no conclusive paragraph to sum everything up. This video is terrible and offensive.


There are many examples of bad companies staying in power because of using the power of law to enforce their agenda. For instance, the enjoyed legal monopoly of most telco and cable companies. Or, the higher prices Americans pay for sugar because of import tariffs on sugar. And thusly making corn sugar, its unhealthier cousin, the mainstay of American diets. Or, the corn subsidy that makes corn feeding beef more economical, even though it causes ecoli to then be produced by said cattle; this all benefits fast food industries to the defiant of us all. Or minimum wage, it necessarily raises unemployment by denying low skilled workers access to market priced labor; this protects high skilled labor from ever being found wanting for lower priced labor mainly benefiting large union positions, while relegating to perpetual unemployment/illegal employment a low skilled migrant worker.

But I admit, there needed to be more examples and less dogma in the video.

>> ^jwray:
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.
The difference is the Coke has HFCS in it because the government has artificially made HFCS cheaper with our tax dollars and at the same time made cane sugar artificially more expensive through tariffs. This directly benefits corporations...it can be argued that it does or does not benefit the people indirectly but the fact remains that it's being done regardless of how it effects the people because thats what big money wants.

jwray, don't miss the forest for the trees. His main problem with HFCS is that its the product of government subsidies for special interests that, along with tariffs protecting the cane sugar industry, resulting ultimately in a higher effective cost for Americans. Additionally, another problem with the subsidies is that it pays for farmers to produce corn, and with such a surplus of corn, the industry pushes its supply of corn into whatever supply chain it can....including things such as HFCS, corn ethanol, corn-fed beef, all of which have deleterious effects on the health of our society and economy.

He believes that the biggest impact of corn subsidies on our public health result from using antibiotics that should be judiciously restricted for human health is indiscriminately given to keep corn-fed cattle alive while fattening to slaughter, which simultaneously selects for bacteria that are resistant to said antibiotics.

"but what do tariffs, subsidies, taxes and stimulus packages have to do with bin Laden?"

Bin Laden? Is this the video where people are coming to make their straw man arguments today? To answer this, they probably have nothing to do with Bin Laden. They may have everything to do with 9/11 and the war on terror. And because so much of this is affected by causation, you could lump in the recession as a result of 9/11 as well, therefore stimulus, tax increases, subsidies for buying homes and cars, and duties placed on Chinese imports would make sense as being caused by 9/11 or rather government reaction to 9/11.

"but do you think more or less movie tickets would be sold if roads and highways were unsafe? Do you think more or less surfboards would be sold if public beaches did not exist or were not maintained? Do you think more or less refrigerators would be sold if there were no food safety standards?"

I understand how some may take these examples as literal, but they'd be doing so erroneously. Tickets in and of themselves, like surfboards and refrigerators, wouldn't affect wealth generation in our economy, by aggregate them into all services and goods, and you get the idea.

I don't think the issue of "public works" this video is addressing can be boiled down to just the "roads" or "public beaches". It's more about things like the high speed rail system from San Diego to San Francisco which was partly sold to the public as a job creation initiative.

So are things like multimillion dollar art centers, multimillion dollar convention centers, etc. If the individuals who are being taxed to build those public works projects could instead spend their money how they personally needed, you'd see it spent more efficiently and in the areas they require instead of getting sifted off the top to pay for bureaucracies. If businesses needed an art center, they'd invest in the construction of one. And so on. By doing so, wealth is created out of demand.

Argument completely falls apart at 3:30. Agreed that 911 and the resulting military spending has been a huge drain on the economy, but what do tariffs, subsidies, taxes and stimulus packages have to do with bin Laden?

Infrastructure and public works are easy to take for granted, since they are always there for us, but do you think more or less movie tickets would be sold if roads and highways were unsafe? Do you think more or less surfboards would be sold if public beaches did not exist or were not maintained? Do you think more or less refrigerators would be sold if there were no food safety standards?

Allow me to adjust your analogy as you've missed a few crucial points. We've removed government involvement in the market, so Walmart can no longer profit from tax abatements, billions in taxpayer bailouts, protectionist tariffs, eminent domain, state franchise monopoly privileges, subsidized land and other taxpayer funded subsidies. In fact, laws are no longer structured to create better conditions for corporate charters vs. individuals going into business, because there would be no corporate charters.

There will also no longer be costly licensure requirements, regulatory fees, etc. that currently keep less wealthy business owners from competing or even starting a business to begin with. Walmart also takes advantage of China's authoritarian regime which manipulates the market and forces its people to work in bad conditions under the threat of violence. Workers make up to 70% less than they should, which is the only real area you'd have to compete with. But! Being that more local companies could compete with a local Walmart (given the examples above), more companies like yours would open, thus creating more jobs. A little economics 101 here: The more jobs, the higher the wages. The more companies, the higher the competition, thus the lower the cost of goods and services. And given more options and better wages, people wouldn't need to shop at Walmart and probably would choose a store like yours.

Eventually a huge hierarchal company like Walmart would have to reduce themselves to something smaller, because competition would slowly edge them out. The world we live in today would be absolutely transformed. That's your happier picture, and it's 100% plausible.

Tarrifs? Smoot–Hawley all over again? The issue is not the size of government but the embed corporate interests. An efficient and truly representative government would be flexible enough to grow and diminish to reflect economic dynamics. As it stands different corporate interests represent each party and there isn't so much as a legislative deliberation but stubborn grandstanding for conflicting interests and a back and forth with electoral cycles.

I'm not saying anything new here of course, but my point is, ideology in the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. The Democrats are firmly behind free market policies over any kind of long term nationalization, or anti-free trade policies. They will be rid of their corporate ownership of the automobile and financial services industries as fast as they can, and they will be forced or at least pressured into spending cuts, tax rises, raising the pension age and what have you to combat the deficit whether they like it or not.

The best thing in the short term is effective education reform. As much as anyone would like to say otherwise, the biggest factor that has led average middle income wages stagnate or fall in real terms over the last few decades has been technological innovation and automation replacing manual jobs. Competing at this level in trades that haven't been automated is obviously a fool's errand, emerging countries will easily out compete on wages. Educating people into higher skilled jobs should be the priority.

Effective campaign finance reform is the only way this and any meaningful reform will be possible though. When Massa went on his talk show tour, the focus shouldn't have been on his playful tickling or innuendo it shouldn't have been him saying on Beck's show: (a comment that is in a video in my PQ by the way!)

“Congressmen spend between five and seven hours a day on the phone begging for money ..."

If this isn't dealt with, the US will simply become Japan if it has not already. Growth will stagnate, but living standards will remain high though so no one will really notice. Rather than bureaucrats becoming more embedded with the government as in Japan it will be the corporate interests. Meanwhile problems will accumulate. As the government becomes less and less effective, voter apathy will takeover and feed the process.

As with Japan's current debt of 200% of GDP, the US's current 80% level will continue to rise until breaking point. Japan is lucky being a creditor nation and having plenty of domestic lenders willing to provide low yield rates, but even that will not last. Meanwhile the US's stupendous absolute debt in relative terms and being a debtor nation will probably not allow it to reach that level, with perhaps the saving grace being that the US dollar is still the world's reserve currency.

But anyway, tl;dr version: ideology is irrelevant, campaign financing and genuine representation is everything.

Oh perhaps I should make clear that this isn't really all directed at you, more a general response to the topic.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

We need to rethink our economy. The population is getting bigger, while at the same time employment is being lost to automation, 3rd world labor exploitation and corporate consolidation. It seems to me that this is a problem that can't be solved by a booming economy alone.
I'm not sure what could be done to halt this process, perhaps huge tariffs on corporations that use non-American labor, or limits on the size and power of corporations. I don't know. I'd love to hear ideas on this.