Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
its bankrupt... has been forever. it succeeds in spite of idiotic government policies, taxes and regulations, not because of them.
and as i said.. no path is perfect. i simply said "i believe that" less interference with entrepreneurship does greater good and trying to fix any and all social inequalities at the expense of entrepreneurs.
you're kind of a lunatic.
what made you so angry anyway? you're the one saying Wallmart destroys jobs and communities.... then you are saying Wallmart is good for the economy... then your saying i'm confused and putting words in your mouth.
it can't destroy local communities and be good for the economy as a whole. that doesn't even make sense. you cant have a net good come from what you yourself claim is nothing but bad.
|
You have some severe reading comprehension problems.
I didn't write half of what you think I did. You must have misread or not understood the subtlety of some of the points I was making.
Your lack of comprehension doesn't = me not making sense.
I said that Wal-Mart was good, but does not deserve special tax considerations from municipalities. Those two statements are not inconsistent with each other.
You are the one who chose to use California as an example. Then you say they succeed "despite" the government policies, not because of them.
Then why don't other states with lower tax burdens and less regulations grow even more than California? You use California as your example of why free markets rule, and then dismiss the fact that the market there is less free than it is in most other places in the country.....but I'm the one who is confused?
Maybe free market capitalism has very little to do with California being a large economy. Perhaps the climate and proximity to the ocean are the reason people move there and bring their capital with them, and that grows the economy?