-----signature-----

You're complaining about simple reality and claiming that States attracting business is the "Govt picking winners and losers" and you're not sure if I am serious?

Regardless of your original point (whatever the hell it was) your attempt to lump normal state business practice in with it is ignorant and shows you have no understanding of the process you are whining about. Perhaps you can explain how they are going to "stop the game being played" without Govt interference?

I'm all ears.

In fact you still haven't really addressed your brilliant notion that having a new company open it's doors in your region results in a loss of tax revenues. I sure would like to see the math on that.

It is a function of state and local govt to work with businesses and the Chambers of Commerce to attract businesses and improve the economy of the region. This is something they are SUPPOSED to do. Yes, in some cases one state wins and another loses. CA has been losing big time, but it's still a natural process. If CA was willing she would adjust to be more attractive, as she did when all the businesses came here in the first place. It's all about free market and competing priorities.

This is what's called competition and free enterprise and it's how our system works. You are pointing to a necessary and fundamental function of state and local government and claiming it is "interference" that should stop. You don't say how it could stop, since to do so would be to admit that in your scenario it would require federal (most likely, maybe some state) govt regulation of state incentives to stop something that occurs naturally in a competitive market.

You've talked yourself into a corner.

And no, I don't expect you to be man enough to admit it.

 

-----signature-----

Whatever you say fisted badger.

 

-----signature-----

You always end up taking the cowards way out don't you?

 

-----signature-----

Badger I would be happy to educate you on all the ways you are wrong if I thought you were capable of listening. You are not. You have already demonstrated your block headed thinking in this thread.


Your ignorance makes this conversation impossible to have.


Mercantilist practices are not an example of free enterprise. They are literally polar opposites and you keep equating them which is then topped off with you equating what amounts to free trade agreements to government market manipulation.


You are living in a 180 degree world.

 

-----signature-----

So attracting commerce is NOT a function of local and state Govt?


You aren't going to explain because there's nothing to defend your poorly thought out argument. You haven't been able to defend one point, from the inane idea that adding a new business decreases tax revenue to the ridiculous contention that local govt is interfering in commerce by performing one of it's necessary functions. You claim that it's a problem and that "we all lose", for some nebulous reason that you can't fully articulate and then say nothing about how we should stop this horrible practice when confronted with the obvious, that it is something that would only change if the govt itself worked to stop it.


180 degrees indeed.


I tried to have an actual discussion with you. I forgot that despite your verbosity you really don't have much to say.

 

-----signature-----

More accurately, a race between ANYONE in our current system of campaign funding should give you little hope of anything other than continued corporate welfare.


Right now, the only way to win a national campaign is with massive corporate funding. The rest should really be too elementary for debate.

The argument is basically as old as the study of economics and you have failed to even begin to grasp what is being talked about even after multiple people have tried to explain it to you.


Enjoy your ignorance.


BTW something is not nebulus just because you don't understand it.

 

-----signature-----

You've utterly failed to connect states vying for business growth to your original whine. Mercantilism? What part of businesses have a right to choose where they go don't you get?

I've worked with three states to locate 2 chemical plants and 1 distribution center. I am intimately familiar with the subject. Unlike you.

Despite your BS bravado you've been your usual mealy mouthed self, avoiding every straight question I put before you.



I'll state it a third time, please outline your plan for "stopping the game" without Govt involvement.

 

-----signature-----

Start here


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations


or live in your delusions, whatever.


The subsidization of business by government has replaced the tariff system as an accpeted way for governments to practice a form of mercantilism. When you don't understand what mercantilism is then you won't understand what people are talking about when they talk about free markets, free trade, and government intervention. You are a confused little idiot and your bravado only makes it all the more pathetic.


Your question has been ignored because it is stupid. If two governments agree to a free trade deal that is not an example of government intervention the distorts economies. Obviously governments are involved and they are intervening but you have completely lost site of why government intervention is considered bad in the first place. Which is basically the first economic debate.

 

-----signature-----