Forbes (and Data): Art Laffer is wrong... consistantly.

On any single product now? Clearly not.

On the history of the market over the last 500 years? Pretty good scholarship on that. We certainly have the benefit of perspective.

Or are you now going to now argue that the tobacco market was a social good?

SELLING SHIT MEANS GETTING THE CUSTOMERS TO THINK YOU MEET THEIR NEEDS.

QUALITY MEANS HOW GOOD THE PRODUCT ACTUALLY IS.

COMPANIES LIE. A LOT. THEY HAVE PEOPLE ON STAFF JUST TO DO THAT.

Can we stop with the caps now?

A superior product is nothing other than the one that sells the best? Yes, that's a circular argument. You are defining it based only on one criteria, and any other criteria is moot.

Again, it's someone that's read Econ 101 argument. It isn't a valid argument outside any other circle, and you define it to preclude anything else.

Bullshit.

Bullshit. No country today is completely free market, and the closes to a completely free market without structure is the fucking Sudan. Again, you are defining terms where no one else's point of view can be valid. You don't get to do that.

Even if they balloon to 500 pounds and need massive health care costs?

Even if they are lying about how bad it is for them?

The trusts led to economic servitude. So bad that an otherwise conservative president said fuck that and ruined his own political career by taking them down.

We've seen what unrestrained capitalism does. It does NOT induce freedom.

Uh huh. That's what I'm doing, clearly.

Oh, no - that's the only way you can accept my POV, by narrowing it to 'he wants to destroy everyone's wealth!' Because that's what your economic fundamentalism cites is the only possible answer to regulation.

In the meanwhile, countries with mixed economies are in many cases doing remarkably well for themselves, despite the assertions of the economic fundamentalists that they quite simply have to fail.

Cool story, bro. LOL.

The fact you think that has anything to do with what we are discussing is absolutely precious.

Another cool story. All sorts of anecdotes out there. If I'm a good CEO, I close that branch for the well being of the company. If I'm a great one, I provide generous severance and retraining while taking some of that out of my own compensation.

If I'm the average CEO, I cut that branch, then outshore the one in Ohio to Dubai, thus in the short term increasing stockholder value though in the long term encurring numerous quality issues and likely having to pay to move the plant elsewhere in the next few years. But hey, my stock went up.

If I'm a shitty CEO, I close that branch, and start selling off the company piece meal, while withdrawing what wealth I can for my own personal fortune and ensuring it's demise. But hell, I got $50 million out of it, my family will never want again, and some apologist will come around and say what I had to do was absolutely necessary. And if that doesn't happen, I hire someone to lie for me about it. Because now I can.

The take home package of that CEO can be entire departments. Yes, that matters. Especially to the health of the company. There could have been productive workers doing things that were needed by the company for that period of time. Instead, you layoff 10,000 you get a 3rd vacation home in Aruba.

No, not all executives act in the best financial interest of the companies they run. A good percentage of them are in it for themselves first, and if they get theirs, that's all that matters. Countrywide ring a bell?

WOW, that's a big lie. The South wasn't capitalist? Really? It certainly wasn't free, but it sure as hell was capitalistic. Slave markets. King cotton - to be exported. It was all about capitalism. Industrial does not mean capitalistic, and vice versa.

Really dumb.

Or if they don't, they'll fucking die. I don't think those 8 year old kids were working in that happy go lucky capitalist North because they wanted to lose their fingers in the machinery.

Man, you actually believe this ludicrous bullshit, don't you?

Strawman. Find a place where I argued that.

The EPA is a necessity. That evil left wing communist Richard Nixon was the one who invented it. Yes, it can go too far, and yes, sometimes it's obstructive. But no, it shouldn't be abolished, because I have friends with asthma and I don't want to see them die because of your foolishness.

Capitalism abolished child labor? Are you fucking serious?

Government regulation did that. If capitalism did it in the first place, there wouldn't have been a nationwide cry to have it done by citizens groups by regulating federally.

What finally caused it to happen was the great depression - because the parents were so desparate for work they would work for children's wages, and they didn't want the competition. The Federal law didn't pass until that great socialist FDR pushed in through in 1936. He predicated it on the need for education, but that was imposed from the top, not a great uprising by the businesses of America that they needed to keep children from doing manual labor for pennies on the dollar.

We still employ kids in agriculture, because they are cheap. Always an exception to every law, if the right people are paying.

The Soviet Union outlawed child labor before the US did, 1936 to 1938. Then you'll argue that the Soviets still used child labor in their conquered provinces such as Uzbekistan (true), and I'll counter that we still use child labor in agriculture such as that NOW.

The Communists beat us to that. While US businesses were suing to get the Fair Labor Act of 1938 that outlawed many forms of child labor thrown out, like they successfully did the first two times Congress tried that before the Great Depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby_Lumber_Co.

That's capitalism, saying don't force me out of business because I need to make 10 year olds work an industrial saw.

Per Capita GDP is functionally identical in several cases, we've been over that.

Your argument is that it HAS to be free market capitalism.

No, it doesn't. Mixed is working in some places in the world, and they live longer, are better educated, and happier than we are.

Why should I oppose that again?

You forgot Norway and Sweden.

No, you didn't, you purposely omitted them because they show that isn't true.

I'll thank myself for my intelligence, hard work, diligence, integrity and loyalty.

I expect the same.

You prefer a faerie tale. Your view of capitalism is just as flawed as Marx's view of Communism. It hasn't ever existed, it won't ever exist, and if it ever did in the manner you wanted it to, it would eat itself alive.

I'd suggest you apply more knowledge with that reason.

And at some point even Spock realized that simply wasn't enough.

Yet another strawman. I didn't argue for unlimited government, and have often argued against it.

Actually, completely wrong anyway.

There's loopholes being taken advantage of by the rich (what a shock!) that means that they are finding other ways to avoid the tax. Close the loopholes.

This is in no way, shape or form an indicator that the Laffer Curve is correct or incorrect. It's non-applicable.

Of course, fundamentally, you can raise taxes higher to what point it's sustainable. The funny thing is that the fundamentalist right economists lie to people at what point it is sustainable, always implying that more revenue could be gained by reducing the rate.

That's of course complete and utter bullshit, and why the Bush tax cuts were such miserable failures in everyhthing but increasing wealth disparity.

No, no. Don't let a real world example ruin the dogma.

Problem is, the real world is often more difficult than your little theories. The dogma here is certainly 'high tax rates hurt revenue' - which can be true, in some cases. Just not every case - which is YOUR dogma.

They used loopholes in the tax system is what is coming out right now.

Yes, we are all aware that there are far too many loopholes.

So close them.

But the same people that oppose high tax rates in any situation (and even Reagan raised rates when he realized his cuts were unsustainable) oppose having an efficient system that they can't manipulate.

If it turns out the incomes fled the country, I'd concede the point. That's one of the reasons Laffer suggests that is applicable.

But we'll hide our income? Easy - close the loopholes. Until then, you haven't proven one thing one way or the other.