Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Here is where I get honestly confused. I am not sure if some really don't see it or if they simply try to protect their ideology or the irrational actions of some government officials.
*GM is a failed auto company. One reason is in their failure to recognize the need and their lack of ability to produce fuel efficient green vehicles that people actually want to buy.
*Obama bails-out GM. GM is a failed company propped up by tax payers.
*Obama talks about the new green economy as the future. Obama and Congress, in their wisdom, think they know the winners in this new emerging green economy.
*Tulsa Motors, a start up green company making electric vehicles. Has to compete with GM an old smoke stack company in the auto industry. Tulsa makes and sells electric vehicles, the type I might actually buy.
*The founder of Tulsa Motors used his own personal funds to start the company, a company that will compete with a government subsidized company like GM.
*Our tax policy taxes the founder of Tulsa Motors on virtually every dollar of income he saved before he could invest. And Obama would have taxed him more, and more, and more - perhaps to the point where the founder of Tulsa Motors would not have started his company.
*Tulsa Motors is located in California but incorporated in Delaware, why? Because that action would be less punitive. The founder is actually South African - he could have made that country his home base. If tax rates get too high, he might just do that. Taking jobs, technology, his tax base, income and consumption with him.
*In 2009 Mercedes, a German company, invests in Tulsa Motors, and now owns 10%. Tulsa Motors was founded in 2003.
* Also in 2009 Tulsa Motors became profitable. A group of Abu Dhabi investor acquired a stake in the company, and the US decided to give the company a low interest loan.
What if there was no government interference? How many Tulsa Motors don't exist because they can not compete or get funding due to our government picking winners and losers? How many Tulsa Motors are based in different countries because of our current anti-business environment?
Rhetorical questions certainly. I fully expect a few flip responses. But, the problem is this stuff is real and for every flip response I can come back with solid real word examples. Supply side is real, it works.
|
I'm confused about which actions of the government you're complaining about exactly...
Would you prefer if the government had let GM fail? Ok, that's a valid position to take. I would argue that, by temporarily propping up GM, the government helped stabilize the economy, by avoiding the effects of GM going bankrupt (thousands of layoffs, etc). Would you rather the government hadn't loaned tesla motors $465 million to encourage green development? I think that low-interest government loans to businesses help encourage competition and innovation. I think encouraging 'green' cars is a worthwhile use of my tax dollars. If we let the free market work, gas-powered cars will dominate the market because they're cheaper...polluting the atmosphere until climate change is truly devestating...until...the gas runs out...then...boom, there goes the economy.
I think it's pretty clear that the free market, on its own, tends to follow a boom-and-bust cycle...it's been that way since the free market began, and there doesn't seem to be any stopping it. IMHO, one of the roles of government in the economy should be to try to smooth out those booms and busts. That means that regulation will be a little bit of a drag on business profitability, and that taxes will be slightly higher to pay for that regulation, but I think things like a social safety net and reasonable regulation are worth it.
The free market is a great thing, but far from perfect. It's short-sighted as hell, and open to manipulation by powerful players (monopolies, for instance).
Obviously a 'planned' economy doesn't work, but neither does a completely free market.
And, fwiw, Obama's supposed anti-business attitude is nothing but rhetoric. He's a very few points more liberal than, say, W, but so far from the anti-business commie the right makes him out to be that it isn't even funny.
edit: Oh, and you also seem to be arguing that it's a bad idea for labor income to be taxed more than investment income. I've wondered about that a lot, and don't really understand the reasoning, or know if its a good idea or not.