Here is a response from a friends friend to my original Bar Stool Economics
i was going to post both the original email and my response, but it turns out i literally just quoted and responded to her entire email, so i'm just posting MY response and ya'll will just have to believe me that I'm not leaving out some genius point of hers that destroys my argument.
and as always, the names have been changed to protect my ability to be employed by the other half of the country.
Friend's original email to her with Bar Stool Economics attached
This is my friend Patrick's (the socialist) view. Now it makes some since.
This is what I get to argue with every day. Yes I can say your a socialist and crazy. However, my economics background gives some validity to his arguements. However you can make anything sound good if you want.
I just wanted to see what yall thought.
-Friend
Now to her email and my point by point disintegration of her demagoguery which (shockingly) she had no response to....
Typical democrat (socialist)....trying to confuse a very simple issue based on a specific example with a lot of double talk.
yea... cuz the economic structure of the united states... or hell the world for that matter is a "very simple issue"....
It doesn't matter how you try to argue against it...if you overburden the tax on wealthy and redistribute to the poor, the individuals and companies creating the wealth will relocate or stop trying to create wealth and jobs altogether.
I'm gonna blow your mind here man... I totally agree with that... if you "OVERburden" the wealthiest americans, THEN SOME!!!! will stop creating jobs... blaw bla bla...
But the issue is where is the Overburdening point?... i dont have exact figures... no one does.. but sense YOU CLAIM .. we are ALWAYS overburdening them... then your just FLAT WRONG.. it is entirely possible we are under the point on the laffer curve at which to optimally tax the richest. because the Laffer curve is not a flat tax system.... at any income level the percent would be different. (but am i confusing a "very simple" issue again... or should i just grunt... "OIL!!!!!!!..." no wait.. "NO TAXES"....? )
Traditional investment in start up businesses and small business in general dries up because the risk of loss of investment is too great compared to the potential ROI.
Maybe we should exempt start up small businesses?.. or give them extra tax breaks for hiring new employees?.. (hmmm.. that must be McCains plan?/... right?.)
or how about getting Healthcare out of the businesses hands...?... now that Healthcare is thru employers, businesses have to add 33% to the cost of an employee. WHY?... European competitors don't have to factor that into their employee costs. AND, we pay 3 times more for healthcare in this country. (so there is definitely something wrong with this picture, but i'll admit the Dems are too much of pussys to take this issue on)
With the collapse of the financial markets and tight credit, companies will have limited options for investment and financing and it will be too expensive. They will not be able to earn the necessary returns to offset the increased costs.
If only we had some kind of regulators... or something to make sure loan officers wernt pressuring people to take more money out then they could afford. Or if there were regulators with spines who wouldn't allow these "credit swaps" to be categorized as "swaps" instead of insurance which THEY ARE!!!
Please ask your friend...how many dollars he has put at risk in investments in his career?
i've bought a few lottery tickets in my life. Oh and i just started my own company. I put lack of income for a year at risk. oh and if i pulled in a quarter million dollars this year... i wouldn't really mind a %39 instead of the 36. (which is kind of my point)
What does he consider to be an acceptable rate of return on an investment?
depends on the investment.. what the risks are... how much work i would have to do ... and so on... if anyone say "10%" or any number to a question so broad and open-ended, i would consider them as "simple" as someone who claims " you are ALWAYS overburdening people with taxes"
What does he think the average rate of return is on a small to medium size business in a troubled economy?
im not a venture capitalist, and its been a few years sense business school, so such numbers arent off the top of my head. But failures dont get taxes, so really isnt the issue if your successful anyways?.. And again, if your so successful your making a quarter million dollars.. then you got back to my original points....
You can have high level discussions and theorize on the economics of wealth redistribution but at the end of the day...you have to look at the practical investment habits of all investors in the market and the liquidity and cash flow requirements necessary to move the economy forward.
well that doesnt seem all that simple to me?... all of a sudden it gets complicated... ( i could start discussing these isuses.. but it would take a while, so i'll just quote one of my favorite thinkers....
"typical republican (fascist)....trying to confuse a very simple issue based on a specific example with a lot of double talk."
PB