Hello Bob,   
      
    MM>> I can agree with you entirely even if Romney was president   
    MM>> jobs WOULD NOT be created. I think i would like to see a   
    MM>> capital gains tax cut if you keep someone at 250% above the   
    MM>> poverty level employed for over a year.   
      
    BK>> Wrong move. All they would do is cut a job somewhere and add one   
    BK>> somewhere else.   
      
    LL>> Or rehire the same person at lesser pay.   
      
    BK>> Besides, the best thing to encourage job creation, in the long   
    BK>> run, would be to raise capital gains rates.   
      
    LL>> Not really.  In order to make money you have to spend money.   
    LL>> Preferably other people's money.  That is the ticket for   
    LL>> success. Having a policy of "soak the rich" is not a   
    LL>> solution, but rather a recipe for disaster.  Business and   
    LL>> labor need each other.  If one or the other is eliminated   
    LL>> (or become inconsequential and/or insignificant), both die.   
      
   BK>Which is irrelevant to what I said. This country was a lot more   
   BK>prosperous with a higher capital gains rate.   
      
   Of course it was.  But look who we were competing against.  Europe   
   was devastated by war.  So was Asia.  And the Soviet Union could hardly   
   match anything we could produce, in quality or in numbers.   
      
   Today is much different.  The cars we produce are still good, but   
   cars that other countires are producing are also good.  Made in USA   
   is but one of many different "brands" that are sought by consumers.   
   If the products that are produced here in the USA are too costly,   
   consumers will buy products that are made elsewhere.   
      
   The simple fact of the matter is that the USA no longer has a monopoly   
   on quality made products.  In the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s   
   the USA was the only game in town.  Today we are challenged by Japan,   
   Korea, the European Union, China, a consortium of third world countries,   
   and even the likes of countries such as Mongolia.   
      
   BK>See, with a higher capital gains rate they make their money by   
   BK>building a company and selling a product. With the low capital   
   BK>gains rate they make their money but building a company and   
   BK>selling the company.   
      
   Multinational corporations (MNCs) operate all over the world.  They   
   recognize no political or geographical boundaries, their motive being   
   profit.  That is what is meant by "globalization" and a "global"   
   workforce.  Workers owe their allegiance to the corporation, not to   
   the state.  The corporation owes its allegiance only to itself.   
      
   BK>Henry Ford proved you can get rich by building a company and   
   BK>paying higher wages and selling the product. When you are   
   BK>selling the company you get more if it has lower wages.   
      
   Henry Ford was a genius, making sure his employees earned enough   
   dough in order to buy a car from his company.  When you figure out   
   the worker's salary and subtract the cost of a car from that salary,   
   the actual cost of labor comes out to be minimal.  The assembly line   
   method enabled Ford to hire lots of workers, thus guaranteeing many   
   sales of new cars.  Truly a genius, and a man clearly ahead of his   
   time.  General Motors could have used a man like that.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)