News-Record.com

Montana sounds like he/she has taken a page from JDR's playbook (lol).

Dan - assuming Montana were your daughter or son, how would you answer this?

"They do a lot and get paid a little."

Put Libertarians in office, and cops will have a lot less to do. Yes, police do often protect people, but they also rob and kidnap people, and that takes up a lot of their time. Libertarians would stop the robbing and kidnapping and ensure that the police only protect people. There would also be a lot less crime since cops would dedicate all of their time to fighting crime rather than robbing and kidnapping.
Since their profession is dangerous, stressful, and skilled and since it represents one the few legitimate functions of government, Libertarians would most likely give policemen raises. They would receive more pay for less work but honest work.

When you come of age, Montana, vote Libertarian.

1950 to 1967.

I bet that was the golden age here in Greensboro.

In 1950 Summit Ave and Market Street were the Gateways to Greensboro. Everything north of Cone blvd. was probably farms and woods.

Sad to see all of the things that built Greensboro being sold off or changed.

I'm still pre-caffinated. That comment belongs on the JP thread.

Sorry.

I was wondering if it was just me Hugh, tee hee hee. Seriously though, the LTE brings up a good point. Why are they paid so little? I also wonder what type of education level these new officers have and if having the proper education level determines starting salary. I also agree that there is a lot of corruption in out police department and they need to get it leveled out.

A sad fact is that starting school teachers make less than firefighters and policemen if the salaries stated are correct. Teachers must have a 4 year degree, pass the NTE, and get 15 hours of renewal credit every 5 years, at their own expense and on their own time.

I agree that policemen and firefighters are underpaid, but not as much so as teachers.

Will the Libertarians be able to make our countries' pay scale such that people are paid for the contribution they make to society?

Hugh, had your coffee yet?

Montana, you do too want to get rich. I started my job with a PhD at 32,000 (albeit a decade back), and I live in fine, upstanding, bourgeois fashion--cable, two ovens plus a microwave, leather couch, the works. So do cops. 34K is not a bad starting salary. If you want the big bucks, be a CEO. It's a free country.

In answer to your question about why cops make $16 hour and not the $30 you would prefer, the answer is that you are not Queen of America. If you were, you could set wages as you chose. But America is a capitalist democracy. That means wages are set by a vast collective decision involving what are called "supply" and "demand." Where labor is concerned, supply is determined by who is willing and able to do which job at what price. (One reason CEOs are paid a lot is that they must master extremely complex accounting methods.) Demand is determined by who is willing to pay what price for which service (here, police protection). Demand, in this case, is filtered through democracy: elected representatives ultimately make the decision.

If you wish personally to set the prices on jobs, you shall have to become Queen or Dictator for Life in some other country. In the meantime, you can attempt to influence the democratic, capitalist market by writing, voting, or political action.

JDR, here is my answer. First of all a $35K starting salary isn't bad in my book.

Secondly, Montana wrote the letter, not my son/daughter. So, I would have Montana ask her parents if they would like to have their property taxes doubled, state income tax doubled, and raise the sales tax to, say, 12% so the govt. can double the salaries of firefighters, policemen, and teachers too.

I would then ask Montana (and her parents who likely influenced her opinions) what problem she has with millionaires. They don't sit around a computer all day, rather those who worked for their millions busted their arses working 80 hour weeks to become millionaires. They likely took great risks to start businesses and now their companies that provide jobs and sell products/services that we want to buy.

Then I would tell Montana that some people choose professions for other reasons than money, just like the social worker LTE yesterday. That is their choice. If I don't feel I make enough money being a cop, then perhaps I should choose a different profession.

brian444, one point of note; the comment "But America is a capitalist democracy." has partial truth. America is a capitalist Republic which happens to be democratic in function.

I will not enter this "wage" debate as my views are far too liberal for most to accept.

Shalom

Darryl, I thought we were a democratic republic politically, and capitalistic economically.

brian444 said it best but I'll chirp in here as well. I would agree with others that 35k a year is a pretty decent starting salary. The problem isn't so much with the starting salary as much as the ending salary.

But let's face facts. Compare the qualifications needed to be a cop versus those to be a CEO. Well, there's the problem. You can't compare them. They are in a whole other league.

I agree with Montana that cops should probably be rewarded more for their jobs. But then again, I think paying a basketball player over $100,000 a game should be a capital offense.

I never did understand it when people tried to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. I still don't. But for partisan reasons, I'm happy to call it a Republic.

On another note, is anyone besides me rather put off by the number of people who publicly advertise themselves as being "compassionate persons" or, more broadly, pronounce their moral virtue as a gesture preliminary to trying to persuade you of something? If somebody just up and tells me they're virtuous, I'm automatically disagreeing.

Montana, at least, is smart enough not to practice compassion for a living for a measly 35K. I predict big things from her.

Paul, I forgot to ask you, can you provide the proof that cops are busy robbing and kidnapping people? Is this a standard belief of the Libertarian Party or something you believe on your own? Either way, proof please.

Montana,

This was an interesting letter,if this is your letter and if you are 14. I prefer that people just write their letter and let the merits of the content stand for itself. By the way, I'm 62, retired and live on a fixed income. Everyone makes more money than I do.

Montana,

This was an interesting letter,if this is your letter and if you are 14. I prefer that people just write their letter and let the merits of the content stand for itself. By the way, I'm 62, retired and live on a fixed income. Everyone makes more money than I do.

Montana,

This was an interesting letter,if this is your letter and if you are 14. I prefer that people just write their letter and let the merits of the content stand for itself. By the way, I'm 62, retired and live on a fixed income. Everyone makes more money than I do.

Starting or otherwise, school teachers, firefighters and policemen all make at best a lower middle income … but apparently we really value Movie Stars.

Doesn’t Julia Roberts get $15,000,000 for 6-months work in a movie? OK – that’s “market demand” and I would not have a problem if the tax structures were set up so that 70% of that was delivered back to help fund Police, Firemen and Teachers.

It used to be that way: high salaries were held back because it just went to taxes - and I argue we were a better country because of it.

The funny thing is, those huge salaries to a few had now enabled these same few to influence those writing the tax laws .. and miracle of miracles .. the taxes they are required to pay keeps getting lower. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

We are then fed a line of crap that says ALL taxes are bad, and ALL tax reductions are good – and the truly sad part – American’s believe it because the folks saying it are well read, well spoken, educated to the point where they don’t say openly stupid things.

These folks – politicians is what we call ‘em – have an ability to slip between charismatic and intimidating as needed. Most important they have are good looks and family connections – both genetic issues.

As Brian said, in a free country big bucks go to the CEO, but I disagree wages are set by a “vast collective decision” involving "supply" and "demand". That’s not true at the upper levels. To be a CEO you need to be a politician: well read, well spoken, educated to the point where you don’t say openly stupid things, and an ability to slip between charismatic and intimidating as needed. Hire accountants to do the high finance things (a side benefit is you can blame them if you get caught).

As in the Julia Robert’s Story – most important are good looks and family connections – both genetic issues.

Depending on definitions, I disagree with the statement America is a capitalist democracy. If you use narrow understandings like Capital is related to financial assets, and democracy means governing through elected representatives – maybe. But the average Joe would define a capitalist democracy as pure "supply" and "demand", and those that simply bust their arses working 80 hour weeks do well.

Now thank goodness there are still real folks that take “great” risks to start businesses in hopes their companies will provide jobs making products that add value to our lives. That is certainly the “classic American Success Story”, but it is increasingly rare.

These days, Money is made primarily though extremely complex accounting methods, or having a sweet genetic pool to draw from, and let me repeat: I would not have a problem if the tax structures were set up so that 70% of that was delivered back to help fund Police, Firemen and Teachers.

Go get 'em JDR, bleed those eeeeeevvvviilll rich people till they have just the same amount as the rest of us.

You really seem to like Julia Roberts, gotta crush on her hmm?

Dan, I thought James made some valid statements. Are you filthy rich? Why do you constantly defend the rich?

As for the salaries of CEO's, pro athletes, music stars, movie stars, etc., I find it outlandish, as should you. No one is worth that much money, IMO. Now we also have to look at the folks who pay for the tickets to see these folks. Hard to believe the millions that a movie can make in a weekend. As a cheap-o, I only go the the $2 movie or rent to see at home.

Ya know Dan, I really don't think rich people are eeeeeevvvviilll .... but cha know what - they're not special either.

First - let's define rich. Most think you and I are rich - we're both self employed with business that gross into strong 6-digit territory. We have houses and cars and frankly, I eat steak or lobster whenever I damm well feel like it - I'm sure you do to. But neither you nor I are the kinda rich I'm talking about.

I'm talking about those consistantly making over $1,000,000 per year - maybe the number should be half that or twice that - but ask yourself - WHY are they rich? A few - damm few - did it the old fashion way - a great idea they worked hard and smart into a minor fortune. Damm fewer of them ever make it to the economic stratosphere.

I'll say it again - and previously I have shown the data in this blog - MOST of the truly wealthy inherited or bullied their way to to the economic stratosphere.

I don't care if they already pay 50% of the taxes - the cold facts are they only have that money because they were given it or the bullied it - and even if they paid 80% of the nation's tax, they would not only have steak when they want, they have a jet plane to fly them to Montana to select the lucky steer.

One other item - think of this: If they really did have to pay enough that they noticed the amount - MAYBE they'd be a bit more outspoken about How their friends in DC spend their tax dollars.

You can be a aloof bastard on some topics, Dan - and this is one of them.

"You can be a aloof bastard on some topics, Dan - and this is one of them."

Quick quick watch out JDR, Deacon stole your name!! I thought it might be him as he is the only one who calls me nasty names.

Carol, I constantly defend the rich because I'm against a system that punishes people just because they are make alot of money and redistributes their money to non producers. That is socialism. I have lived in a socialist country, France, and I know that socialism drains any desire to work hard and become successful. Just depend on the govt for your every want and desire. No thanks. Look at all the problems they have lately. Their economy sucks and has for the last 35 years.

The top 1% of wage earners pay 34.27% of Federal taxes.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

The bottom 50% pay 3.46% of Federal taxes. And you guys think it's unfair and outlandish that rich people don't pay more?

So I don't find it outlandish Carol. If one of your children had become an NFL player grossing $5 mill a year would you tell him it was outlandish? Would you tell him he needs to pay back 80% of his earnings as JDR recommends?

Class warfare alive & well.

Dan - I think you have America confused with France. The flags are both red-white-blue, but ours are horizontal - and we have stars in the corner.

You're " .... against a system that punishes people just because they are make alot of money and redistributes their money to non producers."

But I don't see America that way. France maybe, but America - not really.

America provides a system that REWARDS people - infact people can make alot of money without doing a whole lot - and they get to keep MOST of it. America is (I think) the LEAST Taxed nation in the world. Do us a favor, look it up.

Who's being punished? Rush makes $30 million a year being a loud mouth crass, and pays no more than a third - & I'll bet it's a LOT less - to provide monies being spent by his pet president - but that still leaves $20,000,000 - which is over 1-1/2 Million Dollars a Month. Poor Baby.

Are there non producers that exploit the system - sure. Do I ever support that exploition? No.

Ya know the bitch? It's the middle class folks that are taking the hit - slime exploits always, Poor Baby Big Mouth gets his pouty way - and you and Carol and MRP and NeoCON and everyone else in here gets left holding the turd-bag.

Remmember: horizontal strips - stars in the corner.

Overly simplified but here's a list of countries with upper rates above the country with the red-white-blue horizontal striped flag:

Denmark
Netherlands
Norway
Austria
Belgium
Slovenia
Israel
France
Australia
China
Spain
Italy
Germany
Ireland
Morocco
Egypt
Greece
Poland
Portugal
South Africa
Taiwan
Turkey
U.K.
Vietnam
New Zealand
Luxemburg
Japan
Thailand
Hungary

Above not counting VAT.

Below: list of countries with upper rate as the same as the country with the red-white-blue horizontal striped flag:

Argentina
Indonesia
Lithuania
Malta
Pakistan
U.S.A.

SAME LIST but the VAT added

Argentina
Indonesia
Lithuania
Malta
Pakistan

The Only County with no VAT: U.S.A.

Carol Dunn asks:

"Will the Libertarians be able to make our countries' pay scale such that people are paid for the contribution they make to society?"

No. Except for government employees, it is not the role of government to set wages.

However, the free-market economy which would prevail under a Libertarian government and the absence of governmental theft would make everyone far more prosperous.

Dan: I appolgize for the slur - but you are either really uninformed or you are just plain pig-headed.

"Johnny - there's a train a-comin', Now get off them tracks."

"Awwhhh Ma, that ain't no train, it's a . "

"Johnny?"
"JOHNNY?"
"JOHNNY!!!"

Dan says:

"Paul, I forgot to ask you, can you provide the proof that cops are busy robbing and kidnapping people? Is this a standard belief of the Libertarian Party or something you believe on your own? Either way, proof please."

That police rob and kidnap people is a well-known fact, Dan. Drive down the street without wearing a seatbelt, and before you know it, a cop will rob you. Exercise your right guaranteed by the Second Amendment without letting them know, and they'll rob and kidnap you. Talk politics on a city sidewalk without getting their permission, and they'll rob and/or kidnap you. Smoke some weed, and they'll rob and kidnap you.

Need I go on?

All wages are set by a vast collection decision. All of them. Even the wages of CEOs, who don't, after all, own their companies. Stockholders, through intermediaries, make decisions on CEO pay, and while CEOs game the system (like everyone else--you and I have asked for a pay raise as well), their value is determined by market logic no different from the mechanism that determines the pay of a cook at Burger King.

Same for Julia Roberts. If you think she makes too much, don't watch any movie she's in. Because you're paying her--even you, Carol, with your $2 movies and rentals. You're just paying her a little less. If you think other people are paying her too much, then become Queen of America and pay her the wage you think she deserves.

The vast collective decision also includes decisions (mostly political ones) that modify pure market logic: taxation rates, minimum wage laws, determination of govt jobs. The US govt could, for instance, raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour and tax income over $1M at confiscatory rates. However fair it sounds, it doesn't work past a certain level. As Dan says, see France. Determining the level at which such modifications do work--and they're already at work, since the top 10% of earners pay 50% of US income tax; the top 50%, 97%, and so forth--is a fraught business.

Brian:

You have well stated the "vast collection decision" - are you a professor or something?

.. and we agree with Dan, it doesn't work past a certain level: see France.

All I'm really asking is: where is the proper level?

My personal experience working with "Power People" is that most are now working under what I'll call the Bully Walmart principal: They write the rules - accept them or stay home. Maybe the correct words are "For us or Against us".

Here's a specific (well known) example. If you want another, ask and I spend a few more minutes:

Many Merchants tell suppliers what they want to sell: how many of what color and size etc., and they pick a their selling price and margins. If a suppler can provide, a PO is written. That's not true supply and demand but I guess it's reasonable.

There's the hard place - the return clause - if what Walmart picked doesn't sell, or is sold and returned - the rest goes back to the Supplier. He eats it - actually, he sells it at a huge loss to Overstock.com or BigLots, etc.

This process starts relatively small, but when the product sells, the quantities are ratchet rapidly and soon purchase quantities are so huge, the supplier really gets salivating. By the third of fourth year, the business has become overly dependent on Walmart, and the loss of Walmart as a client would mean the loss of the supplier's core business.

Of course Walmart also requires an arbitary 10% cost reduction every year - the rock - and about the third or fourth year, the supplier is squeezed between the two - and rather than go out of business he starts outsourcing.

Now you can say the supplier made bad "vast collection decisions" - but some really smart people have been beaten up by this - Rubbermaid, Levi Strauss and Vlasic Pickle are three specific examples. Suppliers are becoming wiser to the perils, but I would argue the Walmart busines model has accelerated the outsourcing of our economy, and while globalization is inevetable, what's the reason we're in such a damm rush to the bottom?

Back on topic - is that "rock and a hard place" aka the Walmart business model truely a "vast collection decision" - or are they just a bunch of rich damm bullies?

In 1913 the tax rate was 1 % on taxable net income above $3,000 ($4,000 for married couples), less deductions and exemptions. It rose to a rate of 7 % on incomes above $500,000.

During World War I the top rate rose to 77 %; following the war, the top rate was scaled down (to a low of 25 %).

During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose again, reaching 91% during the war; this top rate remained in effect until 1964.

In 1964 the top rate was decreased to 70% (1964 Revenue Act), and then to 50% in 1981 (Economic Recovery Tax Act or ERTA).

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 reduced the top rate to 28%, at the same time raising the bottom rate from 11% to 15% (in fact 15% and 28% became the only two tax brackets).

During the 1990s the top rate rose again, standing at 39.6% by the end of the decade.

The top rate was cut to 35% and the bottom rate was cut to 10% by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA).

In 2003 the JGTRRA, or Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, was passed, expanding the 10% tax bracket and accelerating some of the changes passed in the 2001 EGTRRA.

The above shows the top line, and sort-of shows the lower levels - and it's is an interesting contrast.

The upper bracket is a virtual wave - up and down - but the bottom bracket is a line - slowly rising over the past near-century. If I find the data again, I'll post it.

btw: Look at the timings of those waves. First, there's the war syndrone - then was the economy for-crap in the 50's when the top rate was 91%?

How about in the 60's when it was still 70%?

We all agree in 1981, we needed anEconomic Recovery Tax Act ... but not that since then it's not jumped up - except during the 1990s - the 39.6% certainly didn't hold back the economy.

Sorry - I meant to say this:

We all agree in 1981, we needed an Economic Recovery Tax Act ... but note it's been pretty low since then - since the era of The Me Generation ... which is my whole point.

ME ME ME - bunch of dang sea-gulls American is

James Rockefeller says:

"In 1913 the tax rate was 1 % on taxable net income..."

Before 1913, there was no income tax, and the country got along just fine. Let's return to those days.

Brian:

Here's an interesting commentary on the "vast collection decision"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1746818,00.html

JDR, I think I know the flags pretty well, having lived in both countries. I prefer the flag with the stars on it.

My point is the US is moving towards a socialist society. The govt. & those of like mind want an entitlement society complete with a cradle to grave nanny state.

A great example is the recent law approved in MA where it is required to have health insurance. Not having health insurance will be illegal in MA and violaters are subject to fines. That's right if you have sufficient income you are FORCED to buy health insurance.

For lower income people it will be provided by the govt. for $2/month. Guess who pays for the rest? Now the producers will have to subsidize the healthcare for all the non producers. Income redistribution plain & simple.

Another example is the law in France which will actually allow an employer to fire someone under 26 in the first two years of employment. Oh mon Dieu, quelle catastrophe!! An employer can ACTUALLY fire someone!!

In France you get 4-8 weeks of vacation & a myriad of other benefits and your employer cannot fire you. What incentive is there to innovate and produce? That's why France's economy is in the toilet, but dare change any of the freebies and the populace goes bonkers and starts rioting!!

I have a buddy in France who is a ski instructor. Since he can only work 4 months a year in that job, he collects unemployment the other 8 months and sits on his butt doing nothing! No incentive to produce and innovate.

Not meaning to be pig headed, but back to Rush & your example of him earning $30mil and paying $10 mill in taxes.

My little company has generated $1.5 mill in sales (not profits, sales) in it's eight year existence. I'm not sure what I've paid in taxes over that period, let's just say $100,000 for simplicity.

If I'm one person contributing $12,500 a year in taxes and Rush is contributing $10 million who is contributing more? Why does Rush or anyone else making that kind of money have to be penalized at 80% just because they are more successful? You should laud Rush and others who contribute so much rather than demonizing them.

I've used this example before but here it is again: While living in France, my French girlfriend's dad was a veternarian. When he started his practice he had ambitions to start up other clinics. Problem was he became so successful in his earnings that the govt. threw him into a 70% tax bracket.

After that he scrapped his plans for future clinics and even trimmed down his existing practice to make less money and fall into a lower tax bracket!!

A good example of how confiscatory taxes stifle growth and innovation, plain & simple.

I know we will never agree on this issue, but I sure enjoy bantering around with it.

Paul, thanks for your clarification, robbing is paying fines for not wearing a seatbelt. Kidnapping is getting thrown into the tank for breaking a law. Now you will get robbed in MA if you choose not to buy health insurance.

Dan:

We agree the Mass. Government pays the cost above the $2 poor folks contribution - but who do you think pay's those costs now? One guess.

I don't know why your ex-g/f's Dad really gave up his supposed passion (Veternarian), but I would suggest that giving up his plans to Franchise his clinic was not a bad thing. Worst case - he spends more time with his family and dedicates more service to his passion as a Veternarian. No - the worst case is he goes ahead with the franchis plan and has to spend his time dealing with lawyers and accountants and no longer gets to heal. Maybe his daughter gets to inherit the wealth he created - and she'll just be a bigger bitch than she is now - afterall, you dropped her for being a small bitch - hell he did you a favor!

Let's talk Franchise. To leverage a local successful business into a Franchise basically you sell a proven business plan. Someone pays you x dollars for your marketing and demographic data and inventory requirments and other business information - which is clearly valuable and usually empirically derived. This buyer gets a much better chance at success - but at the cost of profits that must be paid to the Franchise.

Now who benefits? The public gets nothing - an oil change is $25 from your local garage and from jiffy lube. The industry gets no innovation 'cause everything becomes cookie cutter. The Franchise seller gets a cash cow for adding no value to society. The Franchise buyer gets a busenss that he'll never get rich from, cause that's how franchises are structured; he does gets to call it his own business and gains some freedom. Now that's better than working for someone else but In my opinion, that ain't worth the price. It's not as good as working for yourself, creating your own innovations and nurturing them.

A good real life example? McDonalds. Think of all the local and wonderful family restaurants that no longer exist so your kids can have a Happy Meal - lucky them.

JDR, you are right, my girlfriend was a bitch but her dad was a nice guy.

I knew you had it out for the rich, but didn't know you disliked franchises as well. Again it comes down to choice, some do quite well with franchises.

There are still plenty of mom & pop restaurants around, I visit them regularly. But sometimes I'm on the road in a strange city and in a hurry. When I see that Subway sign, I know I can get a decent healthy meal for around $6. So me, John Q. Public, does benefit.

I travel overnight frequently & usually stay at Hampton Inns. I know I will get a clean room at a reasonable rate and a decent breakfast, so I benefit. Yes they are cookie cutter, every Hampton Inn has the same little signs everywhere and the exact same breakfast, but when on a business trip I just want a clean, safe room and WiFi!!

When I go off with my wife for a weekend I will choose something different and more unique. We are spending Sat night at a little lakefront hotel. No wifi, but my wife would shoot me if I spend our time together blogging with you!

Bottom line franchises have their place, so do the mom & pop places.

When I traveled a lot, I too stayed at more well known hotels - and agree there is something comfortable about know what you're getting ...

At the same time - what a wasted vanilla world.

Here's a recent true story: I had a supplier come visit me the other week - he came from Buffalo, and got in a bit late - at 11:30 he called and said he was just getting into town, and he was pulling into the Subway for a quick bite - and did I want to join him.

I said - "Fred, I'll join you but look across the street. See that bland place across the street called the Sherwood Diner? I'll meet you there."

An hour and a coupld home-made chicken salad sandwichs later - Fred said it was the best meal he had on the road in a long time. When he paid the $8 bill - for both of us (with chips and sweet tea) - he added that was the icing on the cake.

Franchise's have there place, I guess - but for the most part, it's wasted vanilla world.

One more thing, then I'm done, my friend:

I could not find it just now - but there was recently an interesting article about Pharmacies - how the local Pharmacist was once your friend and confidant, an entrepreneur and small business owner - now replaced by CVS or Walgreen with rotating strangers doing the prescription filler thing. Do CVS or Walgreen really add value to anything?

I guess I see a major (and critically important) distinction between Small business and Large Business. btw: the Federal Government defines "large" business as $100,000,000 annual revenues, and I'm generally OK with that line.

Call me Mr. Small Business is what America is All About and Large Corporations smell an aweful lot like Socialism (we know what's good for you, trust us) and Large Corporations are just like the Big Government so-called Conservatives are supposed to be against but really aren't.

Have a good week-end - looks like flying weather.

Already went flying this morning. Had to do a short hop to Statesville to meet a client.

Yep there are plus & minuses of franchises, but we still do have options, like your Sherwood Diner. I go to a place in Reidsville alot called the Farmers Table. It's a meat & two veggie type place. Everytime I go there it's packed. The little guys have a place too, they just have to be different from the megachains.

As for pharmacies, you are correct in that there are not alot of smaller ones anymore. A new one did just open up in Reidsville called the Belmont Pharmacy, so evidently the market is still there for smaller ones. I don't use prescription drugs except if I need to once or twice a year, so I don't frequent pharmacies too often. My parents do frequent smaller ones where they know the staff.

It's true the US is more vanilla, I did enjoy how each city in France was unique with it's own stores, etc., but that has probably changed too.

I'm a small business myself and I work with a lot of small businesses in my job, also work with a few large corporations. I get many sales from smaller companies, as they tell me I give them the time of day. Some of my competitors are not interested in small potato accounts. I enjoy working with all of them since all their money is green :)

JDR,

Yes, the question is clearly about where to draw the line. We would answer it differently. I say, let the Vast Collective Decision draw the line. Planned economies simply don't work as well as free ones. This sounds counterintuitive, since most people aren't that smart, but the mass makes better decisions over time than anyone. The more freedom, the more wealth, and while the pie is more unevenly distributed in a free market economy, the larger pie in the free market makes it a wash at the low end of the equation: poor people in France have it about the same as poor people in America (and, I should add, a whole lot better than anyone in a communist country). Redistributing wealth simply means less total wealth.

As for your preference for small business over big, I would argue that big businesses are big (where once they were small) because they provide good choices in the VCD. It's easy to romanticize about Mom and Pop, but think about the old hardware store vs. Lowes or Home Depot. Give me the latter any day, and give me Target, too. Not Wal-Mart, and not Golden Corral--not personally, but the VCD says that they stay. There's no way to get rid of big business that you don't like without getting rid of the ones you do. If people really wanted a pharmacist they knew, they would have prevented CVS and Eckard from gaining market share. What people want and what they say they want are two different things about 71% of the time. There's also, I would argue, no real way to punish big business without punishing small business, too.

A few other comments I'll take issue with.

(1) Yes, Wal-Mart is subject to supplier decisions (as part of the VCD). If it jobs suppliers too much, then they'll stop supplying. The only thing even near a monopoly possible in today's economy is Microsoft, and that's because of their control of a platform (Oracle may be the same way--I don't know). So I don't mind govt interference in such cases, since that a semi-unique case that impedes competition. But you can get a pair of jeans anywhere.

(2) An oil change costs the same at the local garage or at Jiffy-Lube. Yes, because JL (like Wal-Mart) exerts downward pressure on prices. I've seen estimates that Wal-Mart (where poor people like to shop) has singlehandedly cut US inflation in half; others that its downward pressure on prices far outweighs its downward pressure on wages. Those are economic studies (and hence guesses), but you can't really argue that aren't benefits for consumers to globalization and the companies that master it.

(3) "The lower tax rate goes up in a straight diagonal line." Yeah, but it doesn't matter because of exemptions. The bottom 50% still pays almost nothing. Hence what I call socialist creep: since half the electorate pays no real income taxes, they exert a pressure toward higher taxes and more gov't services. This is complicated by a number of factors--values voting, lower voting rates for the poor, more political influence for the rich, single-issue voters, etc.--but over time, I think gov't will inevitably grow. Too bad. Sorry, Paul.

(4) McDonald's flourishes because it provides goods people want at prices people like. The VCD again. Although I hate McD's, my kids love it: $3 for a meal, a playground, and a toy. I take them there sometimes: they're part of the VCD, too. Mom and Pop never gave away toys back in the old days.

"Redistributing wealth simply means less total wealth."

Probably true - but frankly, America can afford a little less overall wealth. While the so-called Robber Barons like my Great Great Uncle John were in-fact just shrewd businessmen, they were also moderately generous with their great wealth - I just don't see much of that happening in today's me-me-mine America.

is there a Walton University being built somewhere? Old man Duke left half his money - a billion bucks (today's value) - to support "higher education, health care, children's welfare, and spiritual life."

== True many big businesses were once small - and I use my wallet to support more big-box stores than I'd like to admit - but I see on a daily basis American Manufacturing bleeding to death. Globalization is inevitable but the rate at which it's happening concerns me.

There may be studies that show Wal-Mart has single-handedly cut US inflation in half - but I argue (admittedly without backing basis) - its actually better if things have to cost a little more to "pay Americans to do the jobs they currently don't want to do". If "poor folks" earned a bit more, they would not need to shop at Wal-Mart - to me it's the glass half-full deal, it can work both ways.

== Some economic studies - hence guesses - show that when sales and other "local" taxes are included, the bottom 50% in fact pays 20% in taxes - it's one of the arguments against a flat tax: "We already have a flat tax".

BTW - I'm not for a minimum wage - abolish it. I also say re-think workers comp', 'cause as presently structured it single handedly is the biggest limiter of small business hiring, and also a big contributor to hiring illegals and generally paying under the table / off the books.

== Our real security is economic - and the way world politics can swing, it just makes good sense to hang on to at least some ammo - a poignant example is TNT. America has not had manufacturing ability for a couple decades - We can't make this critical military. (Note: This info comes from a gun-nut friend - can you say NeoCon? - who is also a Chem P.E. - I'm taking his word on it).

Now speaking NeoCon's - these guys believe American Power is invincible, and just we need to assert it. Well that's fine, but perhaps Iraq proves American is not invincible - for example we can't even control the 10 mile stretch of highway from the Green Zone to the Iraq International Airport.

So now America has pissed a lot of the world off with arrogance, folks are talkin' nuc's again, and we can't even make TNT.

STEEL - another critical component. A few years ago we were neck and neck with Japan as the #1 & #2 producer - today we are a distant third where China now makes more than twice what we do.

As long as the world's at peace and as long as the present and future Rockefeller's are philanthropic, we're prob' gonna be OK - but frankly, I see neither of them happening, and it has me really concerned.

== Here's the core of where we disagree - Perhaps everyday people (the VCD) could have prevented CVS and Eckard from dominating the market share - but people don't always do what's good for them and that's where leadership comes in - something America is sorely lacking. Consider Military leaders: To save the majority they send the minority to certain death - remember why field Officers were first invented: to stand behind the line and shoot deserters. China, btw, has Leadership in Spades.

== Good discussion - keep it up.

PS:

"Planned economies simply don't work as well as free ones."

Haven't we had a "planned economy" since Hamilton beat Jefferson?

JDR,

Had a long response, but it got lost in computer limbo. Gist was: we want mostly the same thing, but I don't see a cure worse than the disease.

Trust the invisible Hand!!! Thanks,

Found the missing post:

JDR, some good points. We agree on the negative social consequences of some parts of globalization, I would view your America-first avoidance of the "rush to the bottom"--through paying slightly higher prices in exchange for higher wages, (probably) through stricter immigration control, through higher taxes on the wealthy--in sum, your social engineering through "leadership" that would prevent people from acting against their best interests, as ultimately counterproductive. I don't mind putting America first. Categorically, I like small business over big. I wish there were less income inequality (CEO vs. wage earner). But I don't see a cure that would be worse than the disease, nor do I believe that centralizing economic leadership "for the good of the people" is superior to letting people make their own decisions. (That's how we got worker's comp, and how France got its bizarre hiring regulations.) Sure, it happens, but the less, the better.

This is the classic liberal/libertarian argument. I guess one way I would argue is that people make smarter economic decisions on their own than through political means. Of course it's easy to vote for spending now and paying later; that's why we have massive entitlement spending that will progressively eat up GDP. When people are spending their own dollars, they make smarter decisions.

Trust the INVISIBLE HAND!!!