Raising taxes on the rich

[Ridgerunner]

David,

I have no idea how much a “living wage” would be for you … or if you are single and living in a 100 sq ft room or with your parents I would pay you minimum legal wage, but if you married a widow with six kids I would have to raise your living wage to $50,000 per year for the same work.

Of course, you can’t do that, you know. EEOC would be on you like a duck on a june bug. You can’t discriminate against him just because he’s single. You would either have to bring the single guy living at home up to the level of the family man, or you would have to lower the wage of the family man to that of the single man, assuming their jobs and performances were essentially the same, or you would have to have the two “meet in the middle”. Of course, that means the family man can’t support his family, but this society does not care about that.

Personally, I think all of that is morally wrong, but the law does not agree with me.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

You forgot Centessimus Annus, which speaks to the principle of subsidiarity and the proper role of government.

This is a very important encyclical, which is frequently overlooked.

So for the benefit of lurkers and posters:

Centessimus Annus:

ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/JP2HUNDR.HTM

Let me tell you all how important Centessimus Annus is.

As far as I know, only two encyclicals have not been originally written in Latin.

Mit Brenender Sorge written in German by Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli and issued by Pope Pius XI … attacking the Nazi’s and which reportedly threw Adolph Hitler into a blind rage … of course you all know that Pacelli became Pope Pius XII.

And Centessimus Annus … supposedly reportedly ghost written by Michael Novak in American English.

Read it; it’s important.

 

[davidmlamb]

The Catholic Church, via the HIgh Scholastics at the School of Salamanca, are the ones that came up with the idea of the Free Market. Take it up with them. Also, the Church believes in the natural right of free property, stands steadfastedly against socialism. So what is your point, that a business owner, who risks eveything to create a business, has to pay employees to the point where it ruins his business. And don’t question my Catholicism until you get to know me a little better.

Scott, I have given you the teachings of the Catholic Church, none of it was my opinion and neither did I bring up socialism. I simply cited for you what the Church teaches. You cannot pick and choose which parts of divine revelation you’re going to believe and what you are going to reject. You will never have true liberty until you surrender your life to Christ.

The free market was meant to serve the entire human community so that everyone will benefit and not just employers. As much as employers have a “right” to profit so that they can live dignified lives, that same right to profit in the form of a just and fair wage belongs to the employees. God does not expect you to pay your employees in a manner that would put you in the poor house. Only that you pay a just wage as was spelled out in CCC 2426. When an employer witholds a just wage from his/her employees then that is stealing and therefore a violation of the 7th comandment. You should understand that in reality all the wealth in the world belongs to God and we are only stewards of what He has entrusted us with. The question then becomes; are we faithful stewards?

Do you have a business with employees? If so that business belongs to God and he has entrusted you with that business so that you can be a servant to others. Faithful stewardship brings liberty. Rebellion and unfaithfulness robs a person of their peace and liberty. I have given you the words of life, liberty, and true wealth. You should meditate on the words of life and pray for the grace to receive them in your heart.

Peace,
David

 

[davidmlamb]

So who is going to be appointed to ensure that the above is carried out? A federal bureaucrat? A federal agency? Who will flesh out what those statements mean in concrete situations?

I will Let Saint Paul answer this for you:

Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Here is what the Church further has to say about governing authorities:

I. AUTHORITY

*1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By “authority” one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church’s most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."19
1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22
1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

1904 "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the ‘rule of law,’ in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men."24 *

Peace,
David

 

[JimG]

I will Let Saint Paul answer this for you:

I’m sorry, but the quotes provided give no answer at all. They do not distinguish legitimate from illegitimate authority. They do not comment on the wisdom of rule by regulation rather than by legislation. If every authority is from God, then the U.S. should still be under British rule. North Koreans should acquiesce in their whims of their demented ruler. Communism should not have fallen. No one should have made war on Hitler. No attempt should be made to overrule Roe v Wade.

And of course the ultimate question remains: how are rules about “just wage” to be applied when there is insufficient money to go around? Just take it all and try to divide it equally?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

“Living wages” is very subjective.

But “profits” are very matter of fact. Mathematically precise. Absolutely concrete. Nothing subjective at all. Extremely and totally objective.

Profit is the arithmetic difference between revenues and expenses. That’s it.

[However, if your expenses are higher than your revenues, then you have a loss. ]

Revenues greater than expenses = profit

Expenses greater than revenues = loss

If you have a profit, you stay in business … you get to fight another day.

If you have a loss, you may have to close your doors … go out of business … let your employees go and become defunct.

I agree with this. However, my point is how much profit is “too much.” I can make $0.01 in profit or I can make $1billion in profit. I think what’s lost is what’s better for society in the long run… companies that only break even (or lose money) or companies that are healthly and profitable?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

David,

I have no idea how much a “living wage” would be for you … or if you are single and living in a 100 sq ft room or with your parents I would pay you minimum legal wage, but if you married a widow with six kids I would have to raise your living wage to $50,000 per year for the same work.

But if my business was struggling and had severe ups and downs in income … say we got paid only after completing a delivery and some of our customers delayed payment or like the customer out on the West coast who paid me with a check that bounced … when I asked him why he ordered from me when he knew he couldn’t pay, he said that I had more money than him and it was ok to rip me off… but he was wrong; I was struggling but he was able to read about my product and order it … and some went bankrupt without paying at all … then I could not hire you … or anyone else.

I guess another issue is: do you really want to work? Are you willing to work? Or are you going to be like my sister’s kid, who just wants to sit around in the air conditioning and who always has an excuse … last time I asked him to make a delivery he managed to rip the transmission out of the company delivery vehicle.

Do you really want to work? Or do you just want to negotiate a calculation?

I just keep wondering.

I was at a store and one of the younger employees was complaining to another employee was that all he wanted was a just wage, four weeks vacation, paid medical, and a pension plan. I didn’t want to engage him in debate, but as he went on and listed his wants, I kept adding up the dollar signs. Not sure that anybody could actually afford pay that much unless the guy was a real whiz bang in bringing in mucho sales. But he seemed to spend so much energy in bitterness about how he was being shortchanged, that I’m not sure how much work he would actually accomplish.

Maybe he felt he was worth it just by being there.

To simply state what you said - companies can only pay employees based on the value they provide to the company. If you want to be paid more, you need to bring more value to the company.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I will Let Saint Paul answer this for you:

St. Paul also said those that are unwilling to work should also be unwilling to eat.

 

[copperblade]

I agree with this. However, my point is how much profit is “too much.” I can make $0.01 in profit or I can make $1billion in profit. I think what’s lost is what’s better for society in the long run… companies that only break even (or lose money) or companies that are healthly and profitable?

Of course when you pose these kinds of questions, the answers can never be in numbers of a currency. They must be in terms of the percentage of wealth. For example, if 1 person makes 100% of the wealth, then the rest of us could be slaves.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Of course when you pose these kinds of questions, the answers can never be in numbers of a currency. They must be in terms of the percentage of wealth. For example, if 1 person makes 100% of the wealth, then the rest of us could be slaves.

I agree on percentage, but we are talking profits not “wealth” or “revenue.”

If I make 96% profit and make all my employees millionaires in the process, and still make what people would consider “obscene profit” how is that wrong? Would people still be pleading that employees don’t make enough?

If I make only 4% profit but don’t pay my employees as much, how is that wrong as well?

 

[JimG]

I agree with this. However, my point is how much profit is “too much.” I can make $0.01 in profit or I can make $1billion in profit. I think what’s lost is what’s better for society in the long run… companies that only break even (or lose money) or companies that are healthly and profitable?

Is it better to be Pan Am Airlines or Microsoft? That’s easy. A very successful company is better for employers, stockholders, and the economy.

 

[copperblade]

I agree on percentage, but we are talking profits not “wealth” or “revenue.”

If I make 96% profit and make all my employees millionaires in the process, and still make what people would consider “obscene profit” how is that wrong? Would people still be pleading that employees don’t make enough?

If I make only 4% profit but don’t pay my employees as much, how is that wrong as well?

Are you concerned about what’s fair, or are you concerned about whether or not people would complain about it? Those are really two different things. The only things I can think of which even remotely resemble this kind of example are multi-level marketing schemes, which I think are usually immoral.

Of course the numbers will vary based on a particular situation or set of circumstances, but I think a general rule of thumb is to watch out for anything where one person makes more than 50% of the total profits of labor-oriented work. Of course if the company is only 2 laborers and one of them works longer hours than the other, then this wouldn’t be the case. But in the scenario of someone owning a company, and presuming market forces are at work, it doesn’t seem moral to me that anyone should make less off of their own labor than someone else makes off of it. But I think you also need to add back the value of benefits packages and such to accurately make that calculation.

 

[davidmlamb]

I’m sorry, but the quotes provided give no answer at all. They do not distinguish legitimate from illegitimate authority. They do not comment on the wisdom of rule by regulation rather than by legislation. If every authority is from God, then the U.S. should still be under British rule. North Koreans should acquiesce in their whims of their demented ruler. Communism should not have fallen. No one should have made war on Hitler. No attempt should be made to overrule Roe v Wade.

And of course the ultimate question remains: how are rules about “just wage” to be applied when there is insufficient money to go around? Just take it all and try to divide it equally?

The qoutes were sufficeint to answer your question. All authority is established by God and when that authority becomes legitmetly abusive it will eventually fall which was the case of Nazi Germany and the USSR as well as many other oppressive empires throughout history. If the US government were to for instance require you to euthenize yourself at age 60 or for an illness then that is grounds to rebell against such authority. But if you feel the government is overtaxing you or overregulating you this is not grounds to rebell and that was clear from the CCC I cited. There is no moral teaching that overtaxation or overregulation is bad and I would say that unless the government is taxing you into poverty you simply have no ligitamate argument as your argument implies that some how the US is equivelently as oppressive as Nazi Germany, mideveil Britain, or North Korea. It is not and therefore you need to obey the teachings of the Church.

Again I will state that the free market was designed to serve the totality of humanity and not just employers or the wealthy. That is the teachings of the Church and if you want to rebell against divine revelation I pose this question once again; what do you profit if you gain the whole world and forfeit your soul? Or what will a man be willing to exchange for his soul? The Catholic and Christian thing for an employer to do is pay a just wage. And in my opinion which is supported by the Church the best way to assure a just wage is through collective bargaining. This is not government interference it is a negotiation of fair and equitable wages and benefits to derive a legal binding contract between you and your employees that allows the benefits of capitalism to serve everyone involved with economic dignity.

When you were baptized and confirmed you surrendered your life to the service of Christ and neighbor and if you have been entrusted by God with a business you are in service to your employees and become partly responsible for their economic well being. This is the very reason why you have been given a business, to serve first your family and then secondly your employees. Let the Holy Spirit bear witness that I speak the truth or else let me be struck dead as was Annanius and Sapharius.

Peace,

David

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Are you concerned about what’s fair, or are you concerned about whether or not people would complain about it? Those are really two different things. The only things I can think of which even remotely resemble this kind of example are multi-level marketing schemes, which I think are usually immoral.

Of course the numbers will vary based on a particular situation or set of circumstances, but I think a general rule of thumb is to watch out for anything where one person makes more than 50% of the total profits of labor-oriented work. Of course if the company is only 2 laborers and one of them works longer hours than the other, then this wouldn’t be the case. But in the scenario of someone owning a company, and presuming market forces are at work, it doesn’t seem moral to me that anyone should make less off of their own labor than someone else makes off of it. But I think you also need to add back the value of benefits packages and such to accurately make that calculation.

So me something even remotely theological that says that multi-level marketing is immoral.

I can’t wait for this.

 

[JimG]

The qoutes were sufficeint to answer your question. All authority is established by God and when that authority becomes legitmetly abusive it will eventually fall which was the case of Nazi Germany and the USSR as well as many other oppressive empires throughout history. If the US government were to for instance require you to euthenize yourself at age 60 or for an illness then that is grounds to rebell against such authority. But if you feel the government is overtaxing you or overregulating you this is not grounds to rebell and that was clear from the CCC I cited. There is no moral teaching that overtaxation or overregulation is bad and I would say that unless the government is taxing you into poverty you simply have no ligitamate argument as your argument implies that some how the US is equivelently as oppressive as Nazi Germany, mideveil Britain, or North Korea. It is not and therefore you need to obey the teachings of the Church.

Again I will state that the free market was designed to serve the totality of humanity and not just employers or the wealthy. That is the teachings of the Church and if you want to rebell against divine revelation I pose this question once again; what do you profit if you gain the whole world and forfeit your soul? Or what will a man be willing to exchange for his soul? The Catholic and Christian thing for an employer to do is pay a just wage. And in my opinion which is supported by the Church the best way to assure a just wage is through collective bargaining. This is not government interference it is a negotiation of fair and equitable wages and benefits to derive a legal binding contract between you and your employees that allows the benefits of capitalism to serve everyone involved with economic dignity.

When you were baptized and confirmed you surrendered your life to the service of Christ and neighbor and if you have been entrusted by God with a business you are in service to your employees and become partly responsible for their economic well being. This is the very reason why you have been given a business, to serve first your family and then secondly your employees. Let the Holy Spirit bear witness that I speak the truth or else let me be struck dead as was Annanius and Sapharius.

Peace,

David

You say that when an authority becomes abusive it will eventually fall. I agree. But when abusive regimes fall it is most often because they are pushed, often by its abused citizens, sometimes by outside forces acting to overthrow an unjust regime.

You also say that overregulation and over-taxation is not grounds to rebel. Yet I believe that it was those very factors which played a large part in the American Revolution.

Yes, the Catholic and Christian thing to do is to pay a just wage. And collective bargaining can help to establish a just wage. It is certainly preferable to having a government authority trying to establish a just wage. (Yet one of your previous quotes said that mutual agreement is not sufficient to consider a wage as just—an assertion which startled me.)

But the establishing of a just wage is a matter of prudential judgment, not doctrine.

Is a particular agreement negotiated between Cessna Aircraft and the Intl Assn of Machinists just or not? Other union organizations might agree or disagree. It’s a prudential judgment, not a doctrinal matter…

But collective bargaining, on the part of both management and unions, must take into account not just the needs of workers for a particular wage. It must, and usually does, take into account economic realities. A union so intractable as to demand a higher wage than is supported by economic conditions in the marketplace, or a management which accedes to unreasonable demands, would do no service to its workers if the company thereby went into bankruptcy, resulting in loss of everyone’s job.

Good companies recognize that workers who are treated well and compensated justly are good for business. Let me give an example. Immediately following 9/11, airlines shut down for many days. It was uncertain at the time when they would be able to fly again. Many airlines laid off thousands of workers at the time. Southwest Airlines made an early decision that there would be no layoffs. That was a good decision, because it kept workers employed, and when business returned, they had enough employees on hand while other airlines did not.

But it was also a calculated risk. Had the shutdown lasted too long, the company could have been forced into massive layoffs or gone out of business. But here’s the key: it was not that the CEO said at some point, “let me consult the catechism and the encyclicals to see what is the best thing to do.” No. He made a prudential business judgment based on the good of the company and the good of the workers. It was not risk free.

And I can pretty much guarantee that any business decision turned over to a government bureaucrat will very likely turn out badly.

Yes, regulations can be evil. Some regulations are evil. Some regulations have evil consequences. When President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy on his first day in office, that was a morally wrong decision. But that’s just one example. Laws can be perverse, with evil results. Judges can make evil decisions. And when they do, I cannot say that they exercise God’s authority.

And I will agree with you that the free market was designed to serve the totality of humanity and not just employers or the wealthy. And in fact the free market does serve humanity better than regulation.

 

[davidmlamb]

St. Paul also said those that are unwilling to work should also be unwilling to eat.

This is a non-sequitur! Not in any of my posts have I stated or implied that those who do not work should receive a salary. What I have been clearly saying is that those who do work need to be paid a fair and just wage. Workers have an obligation to put in a full days work for full days pay. If they don’t then they break the 7th commandment. Likewise, if an employer does not pay a fair and just wage they too break the seventh comandment.

I will give an example, Walmart is a multibillion dollar corporation. Their workers who are working on the floor, cashiers, maintenance, ect are typically paid a wage that keeps them in poverty even though Walmart has the power to improve their pay and benefits which would improve their lives. Many workers at Walmart have to supplement their incomes with foodstamps and medicaid and Walmart aggressively prevents their workers from forming unions and use tactics of fear and intimidation to stop unions from being formed.

If the Employers Free Choice Act were to become the Law of the land it would prevent Walmart from these tactics and allow their workers to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. The results would be literally millions of people could get off wellfare, be able to pay taxes, and buy homes and cars. The free market was not meant to serve the Walmart corporation alone but also the employees who work for them.

Peace,
David

 

[copperblade]

So me something even remotely theological that says that multi-level marketing is immoral.

I can’t wait for this.

I’m glad you care so much about my responses… or wait did you just mean to say I dont’ know what I’m talking about?

Why does it have to be theological? It’s a no-brainer for a lot of people, even non-religious people. Making money simply by having enormous downlines without doing any work yourself, or on the converse side not getting paid even a normal sales rate for your work because so many people above you are taking a cut should already start to send you a red flag. The whole thing is essentially a scam (in most cases).

Multi-level marketing is getting kind of too far off-topic, so if you really want to know why MLM is (again, usually) immoral, I can point you to a couple of links that describe why better than I can:

quatloos.com/mlm/mlm.htm
vandruff.com/mlm.html
consumerfraudreporting.org/MLM_ethics.php

Or maybe you’ve already read those, and that’s why you were asking for specifically *theological *references to MLM.

So I guess I was wrong about you being a Distributist? I think Distributism is my pet theory for right now.
distributistreview.com/mag/2011/06/the-political-economy-of-distributism/

 

[JimG]

If the Employers Free Choice Act were to become the Law of the land it would prevent Walmart from these tactics and allow their workers to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits. The results would be literally millions of people could get off wellfare, be able to pay taxes, and buy homes and cars. The free market was not meant to serve the Walmart corporation alone but also the employees who work for them.

Peace,
David

Otherwise known as “Card Check.” It’s impossible to predict the results if this were passed. Two things I don’t like about it:

!. It eliminates the secret ballot. In theory I don’t have a problem with workers checking off a card indicating whether or not they wish to organize a union. But it ought not be required to be done in public with organizers, or managers, looking on. That’s undue pressure. Let the card check be done in private just as a secret ballot would be.

1. If the workers approve a union, management and union have 120 days to reach an agreement. If that doesn’t happen in time, guess who gets involved. You guessed it–a government bureaucrat, doing mandatory arbitration. Someone who knows nothing about the business.

And if WalMart were unionized, would workers pay and benefits improve? Probably. At least, I think so. But there would also be fewer workers and higher prices.

I guess I can’t say much about Wal-Mart. I don’t particularly like to shop there. But lots of people do. My wife worked there for a few years and liked it.

 

[copperblade]

!. It eliminates the secret ballot. In theory I don’t have a problem with workers checking off a card indicating whether or not they wish to organize a union. But it ought not be required to be done in public with organizers, or managers, looking on. That’s undue pressure. Let the card check be done in private just as a secret ballot would be.

I have to agree with that.

And if WalMart were unionized, would workers pay and benefits improve? Probably. At least, I think so. But there would also be fewer workers and higher prices.

And result in possibly fewer Walmarts in areas that could use the employment. Out of all the companies in the U.S. to hate, Walmart just isn’t one of them if you ask me. They’ve got a highly efficient operation and provide a good value to society as far as I can tell.

I do think people have the right to unionize without financial penalty (except for being laid off), but I also think Walmart has the right to refuse to employ unionized workers if they want to.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I agree with this. However, my point is how much profit is “too much.” I can make $0.01 in profit or I can make $1billion in profit. I think what’s lost is what’s better for society in the long run… companies that only break even (or lose money) or companies that are healthly and profitable?

The second question after: “What is profit (or loss)?” is what is profit used for?

The answer is that profits are used for three things: to pay taxes, to buy new equipment, and to provide a return to the people who put up the money to start the company.

Without profits, there are no tax payments.

And if government takes its money up front … then the company may lose money … not have enough to pay operating expenses … wages.

Without profits, you cannot buy new equipment. If you need to modify or build a production line, or buy a delivery truck, it comes out of profits. You can then depreciate the capital investment and charge the depreciation to operating expenses … BUT, when you buy a truck, you have to pay for it on delivery … and depreciation only is allowed in little annual dribs and drabs … there is a whole huge manual on how a company can calculated depreciation.

A company CAN rent or lease a delivery truck or buy it on time with monthly payments, so they can match what the depreciation would be. BUT that adds hugely to the cost of the item. Maybe double or triple the original cost. And commercial operations usually pay much higher interest rates than home mortgages … often in the 10% to 20% range. And they have to prepare enormous documents of projected revenues and expenses. Another expensive item.

Finally, some companies pay dividends to their shareholders. Some people invest in a company’s stock because they need the dividends to live off of. The telephone company(-ies) and utility companies are famous for being “widows and orphans stocks”.

If you look up on Yahoo Finance … and type in a ticker symbol, you can see what the companies actually earn and if you look at the cash flow statements you can see how much they pay in taxes and in dividends and also in capital investments.

All that comes out of profits.

Also, no company can figure out ahead of time what their profits are going to be. That’s why that constantly look at their costs and revenues and constantly analyze how well or poorly they are doing. They hope things work out well, but they can never be absolutely sure. So they try to do the best that they can … knowing that if they raise their prices too much, the competition will swoop in and take their markets away from them.

It’s all very complicated and difficult.

Just consider how many big, established companies go bankrupt.

The railroads went under …while they were regulated! And most of the airlines have declared bankruptcy … and KMart and just recently, Borders Books. How can that be if earning unreasonable profits is so easy and so prevalent?