Raising taxes on the rich

  • Thread starter Thread starter valentino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You state including the rich.where did all this lost money go?
That’s an interesting question. Maybe the money was only on paper to begin with. There’s a lot of extra currency that doesn’t really exist due to bank leverage. But you’re right, a lot of the money did go somewhere, it didn’t all evaporate. The people who came out ahead where the ones who sold right before the bubble burst.
 
That’s an interesting question. Maybe the money was only on paper to begin with. There’s a lot of extra currency that doesn’t really exist due to bank leverage. But you’re right, a lot of the money did go somewhere, it didn’t all evaporate. The people who came out ahead where the ones who sold right before the bubble burst.
I’m no economist, and can’t prove it, of course, but I think most of the “disappeared wealth” was “notional” in the first place. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t real, but like money itself, wealth in nearly any form is “wealth” only insofar as others value it and are willing to trade other forms of “wealth” (or service) for it at a relatively predictable level.

So, most of the lost wealth wasn’t burned in a big pyre on Wall Street. It wasn’t scooped up by the “capitalists” and stuffed into their pockets or suitcases. Most of it was in the form of generally acknowledged value of real estate and securities based on it. If your house is worth $100,000, and is for some time, and if, knowing it, you realize you have something you can “cash out” and trade for some other asset, you have “wealth” to the tune of $100,000. But if your home value declines to $50,000, you have “lost” $50,000. If your mortgage is $50,000, you have no wealth at all anymore whereas previously you had “wealth” to the tune of $50,000.

Now, if you’re a bank or an insurance company or a person with a 401k or whatever, and buy bonds that are based on that $50,000 mortgage, you have “wealth” to the tune of $50,000. If the houses underlying the bond decline to a representative level of, say $30,000, you have “lost” $20,000.

Yes, some of those who sold their houses high and didn’t purchase another overvalued home, did put cash into their pockets. But my guess is that those who actually ended up profiting in that sense were far outweighed by those who lost “notional” wealth. Otherwise, those who say the nation lost $16 trillion in wealth, couldn’t say it. In the aggregate, they would have to say nothing was lost.
 
The whole issue that “my house is worth $100,000” is bogus.

It’s not worth $100,000 until someone actually pays me $100,000 for it.

The valuation is merely someone’s estimate … actually, to be matter of fact, it’s not even an estimate … it’s a WAG … a Wild *ss Guess.

The same thing applies to a portfolio of stocks or a coffee can full of gold coins buried in the back yard.

How come you can pay $50,000 for a new car and the minute you drive it out of the showroom, it is worth much less. You can’t back up into the showroom and expect them to pay you $50,000 for it.

It’s all smoke and mirrors.

Folks need to take a close look at material things and what their “true value” really is … and how do you decide value.

You can buy a truck load of lumber and some tools for $5000 and with some skill add a room to your house that would increase the value much more than $5000. Where did that extra value come from?

Value is nothing more than a willing buyer and a willing seller coming to agreement and concluding a transaction.

Value added depends on the innovative skills of the seller. You can buy a load of sand … and make sand bags or add some ingredients and make concrete or add some heat and make glass … or do some chemistry magic and make computer chips. Not a zero sum game.

So, why should we punish the people who contribute the most economic growth to our society? What happens if they sense they are being punished, is that they move to someplace else … Singapore or South Korea or Hong Kong … the U.S. is no longer the #1 economic engine of free market economics.

Is this what you want? … to drive away and/or discourage innovative and inventive people? [Well, maybe, if you, personally, are not innovative or inventive. But then, that’s classical envy.]

If some 12-year-old writes a computer program that everyone loves and willingly pays for, why should the rest of us take his money away from him. It would certainly discourage him from writing any more computer programs that people love.
 
Here is one of several indexes of countries ranked by economic freedom.

The U.S. is not #1.

Not #2, either.

heritage.org/index/

Here’s the full list of 196 +/- countries

heritage.org/index/Ranking

You could probably find other similar lists.

I’ve seen one in which the U.S. is #17.

Here is the list Wiki published:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World

Take a look at the countries at the bottom of the list.

What characteristics do THEY have in common?

Here is the list prepared by Forbes Magazine … which by the way is worth reading regularly, along with Investor’s Business Daily.

forbes.com/2010/09/07/best-countries-for-business-business-washington-best-countries-10.html

Forbes says the U.S. dropped from #2 to #9.

You can click on a button and see the full list of all countries ranked by best for business.

forbes.com/lists/2010/6/best-countries-10_Best-Countries-for-Business_Rank.html

Apparently, Venezuela is ranked at #128
 
In addition to models for the best, Ghana objects to being characterized as a model for the worst:

ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/artikel.php?ID=184726

On the Heritage list, Venezuela is #175 … but, Lichtenstein is not rated, so if it got onto the rated list, then Venezuela would drop to #176.

Freedom House has a list they have published for some years. Can’t seem to find it on their Web page.
 
I’ve heard this same argument before.first of all its been proven by lowering the tax rate on the wealthy does not produce jobs.That’s what Bush did.And their was very slow growth in jobs.Its not that wealthy need less taxes so they will invest but they want what they consider is low enough so they can make so much.In other words they want say 30%profit on their investment.they will stick it out until the tax rate is low enough to where they can earn that much.they know we need jobs but they still won’t help America until they can make a certain some.Where’s there American pride?They could never have made this much money anywhere else.What happened to the corps.They wanted more money so they went overseas.they don’t seem to care if we go down .They could still make plenty of profits by investing now but not enough to satisfy them.We are in a sense in a stranglehold.
You seem to be missing why one creates a job… It is NOT for compassionate reasons… It is MARKET based… you first have to have demand for a product. then as it pertains to a certain task: you dont know how to do it, dont have time to do it, or dont want to do it. These are the reasons one creates a job. The problem with the economy is not the taxes totally. its the out of controll spending and all of the rediculous regulations that the government put on business owners. If I wanted to hire a person to make widgets and paid them a salary of $50,000 it will actually cost me $63,000 to hire and employ this person due to regualtions and depending on if I am a union corp then the costs could sky-rocket! Yes corporate taxes should be ZERO because they don’t pay taxes in the first place. We pay those taxes as consumers because that cost is passed on to us. We have 1 of the Highest corporate tax rates in the world lowering this to even 15% would bring business back to the country that left because taxes and regulations. Plus OBAMACARE MUST BE REPEALED for the future health of the company. Just google obamacare flow chart and imagine the nightmare that will persist for this peice of… :legistation" the government MUST STOP SPENDING NOW!!!

Lower taxes do create jobs under GW Bush we had a unemployment rate below 5% thats basically FULL employment. We had the DOW above 15,000 and over 70 monthes of steady job creation. You can see when everything started to fall apart is in 2007 when the Democrats took back the house and the senate. They were the ones who drafted TARP Bush just signed it.

The market needs certainty, lower taxes, lower regulations and lower government spending

Peace
DLG
 
So what is that system like?

Healthcare isn’t like other industries because it’s something where you get what you need now, and then figure out the compensation later. You can’t really “shop around” for the best price in certain areas. That seems to be the core of the problem. My wife is from Indonesia and their healthcare is much more market-driven. If you were in a car accident, and the doctor suspects you might not be able to pay… well too bad. We have laws against denying emergency services here, but then someone has to foot the bill one way or another.
You’re not suggesting we let people die are you? You can’t shop around for the best prices because you have to go where the insurance company says–and the doctor is compensated by procedure or visit at a rate negotiated/determined by the insurance company. The doctor doesn’t compete for your business by offering discounts and touting his record.(I’m not discussing emergency care).

Example my children each broke their arms. We went to the same clinic. First child saw the doctor maybe 5 minutes. Nurse cast the arm. I think we had one follow-up visit with nurse and the cast was removed.

With my other child the break was close to a growth plate so we spent more time with the doctor, nurse still cast but I had a discussion with the doctor and we has at least two follow-up visits with the doctor to check on the healing of the break in addition to the visit for the cast removal.

Same clinic. The cost for both services was the same. It bore no relation to the medical services we consumed. It is like my children were automobiles and they looked in the repair guide for the charge. Oh lets see broken arm $XXX. That is crazy. Healthcare costs will not come down until consumers have the ability to pay for their healthcare and doctors compete for their patients. If you could somehow take the money we currently spend on insurance, the uninsured, and medicare and give people a high deductible policy with a health savings account with X dollars in it that they could use to by routine healthcare–I think you could ring a ton of waste out of the system and force doctors to bill for their time (not the procedure) and compete for our business. If people are paying with cash from their HSA they’re not running to the doctor for sniffles demanding an antibiotic like they do now when they pay a $10 co-pay. They’ll think about their doctor visits. And doctors will think about what they charge because patients will be fee sensitive and might look for a new doctor if they feel they are over charged.

Of course–this would put a lot of the insurance beauracracy out of business so then I guess we pay more unemployment.

Peace,
Mark
 
Yes, it’s hilarious.

t’s say I make x amount of dollars per year.

Out of that money, I not only pay my bills, tithe to the church, give extra to charity, and purchase a few amenities. I also help support other family members, and pay a local kid to do the lawn. He uses that money in turn to save for college and to buy personal items, thus relieving his parents of some of that burden.

Suddenly, Boss Hogg decides I have ‘too much money.’ That I am one of the ‘greedy rich.’

He raises my taxes, and tells you the people that it’s ‘for the children.’ What he actually does with that money is put in a new swimming pool, fund obscene art, bribe other officials, and pay for a local abortuary.

I can no longer pay the lawn boy. He’s out of a job. The extra burden is thrown onto his parents. He can’t buy personal items nor save for college.

I can’t support my ill or aging relatives, or those who lost jobs because of Hogg’s policies.

More businesses shut down. The economy rockets into the dumpster. There are bread lines, but no one can afford to make bread.

It’s a simple overview, but it’s true.
Yes it is a simple overview. And not an accurate picture in my experience. You are one of the rare ones. Most people I see: do not tithe to their Church and indeed give very little to charity–unless you count the value of their Goodwill contributions which are usually inflated in value, they are usually looking for a way to preserve mom & dad’s money for themselves at the expense of their sibblings and their parents who they try to get on medicaid and into the cheapest nursing home around, and the lawn person isn’t usually a local kid but an illegal who they pay less than they would have had to pay the neighbor kid–who can’t find a job mowing lawns. Their ill and aging relatives and those who lost their job need medicare and food stamps because they are more concerned with their fancy car and twice a year vacations to exotic places than they are in helping their less fortunate relatives. That’s why Boss Hogg raised your taxes. If we were all doing are part there would be no need for any assistance programs–but it seems rather obvious that we are not doing our part.

Now lets not talk about the business owners–who constantly try to run non-deductible personal expenses through their business. Who look for ways to pay for their own healthcare and retirement through their businesses while trying to give nothing more than minimum wage to their employees who help them earn their nice living.
Sure there are great employers out their, but from what I see they are not the majority. As I said you are one of the rare ones.
 
Trickle down economics did nopt work for Regan, Bush I or Bush II. Look at the numbers. These administrations were the absolute most unsuccessful administrations ever in the history of the USA at balancing the budget. Regan was the worst nobody close until Bush #1 took the record. Bush #2 shattered the record with his tax cuts for the wealthy that kept no American jobs in the USA and created the largest deficit the country has EVER known do you get thet EVER. We are still feeling the pain from the mockery his administration made of our economy. While everyone blames Obama, Bush created TARP and it was his administration’s Federal Trade Comission and such organizations that allowed Wall Street to absolutly empty out the Federal Government’s and the American perople’s pockets with illegal and immoral banking practices with complete impunity. There is no place in there where the democrats had a hand in ANY of that. It was ALL the republicans and trickle down economics that trickled everybody’s money right into the hands of the banks and the barrons that are in bed with certain people (I’m not even going to get into the NWO stuff).

I’m sorry but it was the Republicans that were behind the economic policy that sent us into a recession that is really a depression. Remember? Oh no can’t remember that. Trickle down economics works so well that with 8 years of it, our entire economy almost collapsed! Does anybody remember this happening. Am I just imagining this? How do you overlook that? When you save rich people money they do not create American jobs, THEY KEEP THE MONEY. It makes them interest in a bank account or somewhere else in their portfolio. They DO NOT “invest in America” It doesn’t matter if it’s a Japanese company, a Russian, Saudi, as long as it’s making $$$ they put $$ in it! You think they take the money they make and set it aside to specifically invest in American companies? If you believe that I got a bridge I want to sell you too.

Am I lying? I certanly don’t believe I am. I don’t get how you guys can just sweep the near collpse of our economy with Bush under the rug and point the finger at democrats for not knowing how to balance a budget when Clinton DID IT. He balanced it! Refute that while telling nothing but the truth and I’ll shut up.🍿
How quickly we forget the Carter years or how whenever we started to recover during the 30’s FDR changed policy and drug us back down. And you can blame Johnson for the healthcare debacle–thats when how we compensate doctors changed. There is enough blame to go around for both parties.
 
How quickly we forget the Carter years or how whenever we started to recover during the 30’s FDR changed policy and drug us back down. And you can blame Johnson for the healthcare debacle–thats when how we compensate doctors changed. There is enough blame to go around for both parties.
I wasn’t alive during those times (well barely during Carter)… maybe you could describe the less talked-about points.
 
People in the United States NEVER died in the streets!

The whole issue of medical insurance was a bogus government creation during World War II.

The government had installed wage controls, so people were quitting their jobs in war production and changing to other companies … and people would take their costly trained skills with them and it was hurting the companies and the war production.

SO, someone came up with the brilliant idea to give people fringe benefits that would not be taxed or fall under the idea of wage controls.

Free medical insurance!! Yay!!

It was wonderful until the bureaucracy (ies) got ahold of it.

BUT it locked people into one employer. There was a risk if you changed jobs. The medical insurance didn’t belong to the employee; it belonged to the employer.

Before that, doctors were paid in cash by the patient. Fees were nominal and doctors all made house calls. No joke. Seriously. In cases of patients with no money, doctors would work out a deal or cut their fees or do the work for free.

Doctors always drove the best cars … Packards, mostly, at the time … why? Because they needed super reliable transportation to make their house calls in any kind of weather.

I remember when I was playing and got hurt. Where did my parents take me for treatment? To the drug store, where the pharmacist pulled the monster splinter. My recollection is that he did it for free. The local pharmacy was the equivalent of a walk-in clinic.

Because house calls were so inexpensive, and doctors were more or less not making a lot of money, it was easy for doctors to work with patients to decide on a course of action if a hospital trip was needed for surgery.

Nurses visited patients. Doctors visited patients.

Anyway, THAT is what medical and health care was like before the government got involved in creating the ridiculous idea of an employer supplying medical insurance.

People got excellent treatment. Doctors were dedicated to the patients.

And the bureaucracy was absolutely minimal.

In fact, bureaucracy was zero.
 
A doctor once put it to me this way: “The thing most wrong with the way medical care operates is that EVERYONE expects somebody else to pay for his care.”

And he was totally right about that.
 
Ironically, the availability of health insurance both private and public, including Medicare and Medicaid, is the chief driver of rising health care costs. Because if someone else is paying, neither the doc nor the hospital nor the patient have any incentive to watch costs. And providers have an incentive to do whatever procedures insurance will pay.

Health insurance for catastrophic medical bills only, with the consumer paying all costs up to a very high deductible, might be a better way to hold down costs.
 
Ironically, the availability of health insurance both private and public, including Medicare and Medicaid, is the chief driver of rising health care costs. Because if someone else is paying, neither the doc nor the hospital nor the patient have any incentive to watch costs. And providers have an incentive to do whatever procedures insurance will pay.

Health insurance for catastrophic medical bills only, with the consumer paying all costs up to a very high deductible, might be a better way to hold down costs.
Let alone the cost of filing the papers for Medicare and Medicaid.

-Prophesy
 
Ironically, the availability of health insurance both private and public, including Medicare and Medicaid, is the chief driver of rising health care costs. Because if someone else is paying, neither the doc nor the hospital nor the patient have any incentive to watch costs. And providers have an incentive to do whatever procedures insurance will pay.

Health insurance for catastrophic medical bills only, with the consumer paying all costs up to a very high deductible, might be a better way to hold down costs.
Maybe. I know that my insurance keeps costs down by negotiating on my (actually their) behalf with health care providers ahead of time. On the other hand, I used to go to a practice that seemed to try to set you up on a revolving door, wasting my time and everyone’s money. I finally wised up and found a new practice after the office tried to get me to go in for a follow-up when the doctor had specifically told me I didn’t need to.

The issue is going to the doctor isn’t exactly like buying a gallon of milk. The time it takes to shop around for the best quality at the lowest price for all but the most common ailments does not lend itself to being naturally regulated by the markets very easily. Look at the other end of the spectrum: when you go to the emergency room, you don’t even know the cost until you’re done. You could ask, but if it’s really an emergency how are you going to be able to do anything about it? (In extreme cases are they even allowed to let you leave?)
 
Maybe. I know that my insurance keeps costs down by negotiating on my (actually their) behalf with health care providers ahead of time.
Of course, what put the costs that high to begin with?
Sure they are negotiating costs down, but from a level that is artificially high to begin with.
(In extreme cases are they even allowed to let you leave?)
If you are physically capable of leaving, they cannot stop you.
 
Here is one of several indexes of countries ranked by economic freedom.

The U.S. is not #1.

Not #2, either.

heritage.org/index/

Here’s the full list of 196 +/- countries

heritage.org/index/Ranking

You could probably find other similar lists.

I’ve seen one in which the U.S. is #17.

Here is the list Wiki published:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Freedom_of_the_World

Take a look at the countries at the bottom of the list.

What characteristics do THEY have in common?

Here is the list prepared by Forbes Magazine … which by the way is worth reading regularly, along with Investor’s Business Daily.

forbes.com/2010/09/07/best-countries-for-business-business-washington-best-countries-10.html

Forbes says the U.S. dropped from #2 to #9.

You can click on a button and see the full list of all countries ranked by best for business.

forbes.com/lists/2010/6/best-countries-10_Best-Countries-for-Business_Rank.html

Apparently, Venezuela is ranked at #128

We all know you can make statistics say anything you want. The Heritage list which ranks Canada ahead of the US I find this interesting given my experience dealing with Canadian tax and business issues for clients. It ranks Canadian taxes as better than the US but I have yet to find a client who wanted to be taxed in Canada rather than the US if there was a choice. All lists need to be studied closely and not nenessarily taken at face value. I think these lists , the factors they consider and how they evaluate them should be examined closely–as should any list of rankings.
 
You seem to be missing why one creates a job… It is NOT for compassionate reasons… It is MARKET based… you first have to have demand for a product. then as it pertains to a certain task: you dont know how to do it, dont have time to do it, or dont want to do it. These are the reasons one creates a job. The problem with the economy is not the taxes totally. its the out of controll spending and all of the rediculous regulations that the government put on business owners. If I wanted to hire a person to make widgets and paid them a salary of $50,000 it will actually cost me $63,000 to hire and employ this person due to regualtions and depending on if I am a union corp then the costs could sky-rocket! Yes corporate taxes should be ZERO because they don’t pay taxes in the first place. We pay those taxes as consumers because that cost is passed on to us. We have 1 of the Highest corporate tax rates in the world lowering this to even 15% would bring business back to the country that left because taxes and regulations. Plus OBAMACARE MUST BE REPEALED for the future health of the company. Just google obamacare flow chart and imagine the nightmare that will persist for this peice of… :legistation" the government MUST STOP SPENDING NOW!!!

Lower taxes do create jobs under GW Bush we had a unemployment rate below 5% thats basically FULL employment. We had the DOW above 15,000 and over 70 monthes of steady job creation. You can see when everything started to fall apart is in 2007 when the Democrats took back the house and the senate. They were the ones who drafted TARP Bush just signed it.

The market needs certainty, lower taxes, lower regulations and lower government spending

Peace
DLG
Would you please detail out the costs that got you from $50,000 to $63,000–for your widget maker. In Oregon, in addition to the salary, it would cost:

Socail security + medicare: $3,825
Federal Unemployment: $56
State Unemployment: $1,066 (as a new employer assessed at the maximum rate)
Transit tax: $341 (only if in the Portland Metro area or Lane County)
WBF: $29

For a total of $5,317 in additional costs. Even if I start a 401(k) plan and do the minimum required match that adds another $1,500, but I am not required to do that.

At our office for a professional making $75,000 a year we figure it costs $90,000, but that includes paying for professional licenses, continuing education, retirement at 4%, vacation and sick pay, commissions, life insurance and a 105 plan payout in addition to payroll taxes (which are more than for a $50,000 employee)–most of which you won’t be paying to a widget maker and are not required to pay. My wifes company doesn’t pay for her professional license or annual education.

I’d be currious how you arrived at your $13,000 in additional costs on top of the salary. People often through numbers out–and I am never sure where they come from.

Thank you,
Mark
 
You seem to be missing why one creates a job… It is NOT for compassionate reasons… It is MARKET based… you first have to have demand for a product. then as it pertains to a certain task: you dont know how to do it, dont have time to do it, or dont want to do it. These are the reasons one creates a job. The problem with the economy is not the taxes totally. its the out of controll spending and all of the rediculous regulations that the government put on business owners. If I wanted to hire a person to make widgets and paid them a salary of $50,000 it will actually cost me $63,000 to hire and employ this person due to regualtions and depending on if I am a union corp then the costs could sky-rocket! Yes corporate taxes should be ZERO because they don’t pay taxes in the first place. We pay those taxes as consumers because that cost is passed on to us. We have 1 of the Highest corporate tax rates in the world lowering this to even 15% would bring business back to the country that left because taxes and regulations. Plus OBAMACARE MUST BE REPEALED for the future health of the company. Just google obamacare flow chart and imagine the nightmare that will persist for this peice of… :legistation" the government MUST STOP SPENDING NOW!!!

Lower taxes do create jobs under GW Bush we had a unemployment rate below 5% thats basically FULL employment. We had the DOW above 15,000 and over 70 monthes of steady job creation. You can see when everything started to fall apart is in 2007 when the Democrats took back the house and the senate. They were the ones who drafted TARP Bush just signed it.

The market needs certainty, lower taxes, lower regulations and lower government spending

Peace
DLG
I would suggest you review the history of industrial accidents in this county, labor conditions in the early 20th century, industrial polution, employers knowingly exposing their employees and surrounding communities to toxic waiste and dangerous conditions and then tell me how ridiculous these regulations are. I suggest you contact the widows and parents of the recently killed miners and ask them how ridiculous those unfollowed regulations were that were put on the poor mine owners. If business owners did the right thing we wouldn’t need these regulations–most regulation is brought about because business owners don’t do the right thing–they subject their workers to unsafe working conditions–using substandard scaffold bolts, lock them into factories, disable coal dust detection monitors, etc.–and bring the regulation on themselves. Additionally they knowingly sell unsafe products weighing profits against the legal and settlement costs of being sued. Again bringing the regulation on themselves.

Yes, one can argue that we consumers pay the cost of corporate taxes but only to the extent that they can pass them on and they can’t always pass them on due to competition. If they could then no company would lose money–the fact that a company loses money tells you that they can’t always pass on all the costs of production due to the market place. So while in theory the cost is passed on to us–in practice it is not necessarily so.

I would posit that more jobs are lost to low wages in foreign countries and to a lack of environmental regulation in those countries (and you’ve ignored the cost of corruption in many other countries) than “high” tax rates. I would further suggest that the potential for double taxation of corporate profits when the dividends are paid out contributes more than the actual corporate tax rate itself. This is an easy claim to make but I think it is very complex and requires looking at a whole set of tax law and transfer pricing issues, etc. Being overseas just makes it easier to play games with corporate income and expense–though this must be balance with the cost of a myriad of new compliance issues.

I think if you take a look at the underlying profits and balance sheets for many companies when the DOW was at 15,000 you will find that they were overvalued and that their underlying assets and profits did not warrant their valuation on the market. An overvalued stock/stock market is not a sign of economic health.

Out of curriousity would you outline the policies that the democrats enacted over the protests of the Senate and GW between 2007 and GW leaving office–that led to or contributed to the economic melt down? It seems that there is blame for both parties and that finger pointing is counter productive and well a bit unfair as well as untrue on both side of the isle.

Thank you,
Mark
 
We all know you can make statistics say anything you want. The Heritage list which ranks Canada ahead of the US I find this interesting given my experience dealing with Canadian tax and business issues for clients. It ranks Canadian taxes as better than the US but I have yet to find a client who wanted to be taxed in Canada rather than the US if there was a choice. All lists need to be studied closely and not nenessarily taken at face value. I think these lists , the factors they consider and how they evaluate them should be examined closely–as should any list of rankings.
Well, how would you rearrange the list.

And there are other issues as well.

I used to deal with high tech Canadian companies and I asked them why they were so competitive. They said they had to be because the competition was so stiff.

Consider that Canada makes specialty electronics and airliners and an amphibious water bomber to put out forest fires. Among other things. The PT-6 engine is Canadian and is arguably the best engine of its class in the world.

So, I would not put Canada down.

They also make a lot of television programs and movies there. Better cost structure than in the United States.

And they produce and ship a HUGE amount of oil and natural gas, and gold, and other metals.

If you thought about it, you could probably come up with a much longer list of things that Canada is very good at making / doing / producing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top