...   
      
    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   
      
    ...   
      
   BK>>Which is irrelevant to what I said. This country was a lot more   
   BK>>prosperous with a higher capital gains rate.   
      
    LL> Of course it was.  But look who we were competing against.   
    LL> Europe was devastated by war.  So was Asia.  And the Soviet   
    LL> Union could hardly match anything we could produce, in   
    LL> quality or in numbers.   
      
    And how is that relevant? That mainly applies to foreign trade,   
    and that was not a huge portion of GNP then. Looking at the   
    history of it, from the end of WWII for a few years out exports   
    did exceed imports greatly. However, both Europe and Japan   
    rebuilt quickly and by 1965 were pretty well matching us.   
      
    ...   
      
    LL> The simple fact of the matter is that the USA no longer has   
    LL> a monopoly on quality made products.  In the late 1940s,   
      
    None of which was the point. The point is as follows.   
      
   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.   
      
    LL> Multinational corporations (MNCs) operate all over the   
    LL> world.  They recognize no political or geographical   
    LL> boundaries, their motive being profit.  That is what is   
      
    Irrelevant.   
      
    ...   
      
   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.   
      
    LL> Henry Ford was a genius, making sure his employees earned   
    LL> enough dough in order to buy a car from his company.  When   
      
    That's my point. Oh, and the auto workers unions used that same   
    reasoning in bargaining in the '50s.   
      
    LL> you figure out the worker's salary and subtract the cost of   
    LL> a car from that salary, the actual cost of labor comes out   
    LL> to be minimal.  The assembly line method enabled Ford to   
    LL> hire lots of workers, thus guaranteeing many sales of new   
    LL> cars.  Truly a genius, and a man clearly ahead of his time.   
    LL>  General Motors could have used a man like that.   
      
    And they paid higher capital gains taxes.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... I am Hamlet of Borg: prepare to be, or not to be...   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 And Still Here. Join Us: www.DocsPl (1:123/140)