Parker, thank you for the questions.
Karl Sjogren
1

1. Ah yes, the book that every leftist cites and none have read. His analysis was flawed and conclusion wrong due to very basic false assumptions, i.e. treating disparate taxpayers as the same year over year. The myth lives on despite ensuing corrections and complete rebuttal by empirical data. The rich have not gotten richer, new rich have instead arisen.

2. It’s not about ‘liking’ the method, it’s about establishing any concrete measurement. It’s completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless.

3. Calling for taxing capital formation is calling for reduced capital formation.

4. Did China, India, and Vietnam all of a sudden become more productive or did it take investment in manufacturing plants to make it so? Capital, i.e. investment, is necessary for increasing productivity. I make one widget a day. The next day I still make one widget, but I get paid half as much. The productivity of labor has remained the same.

5. Trade is a form technology. Full stop. It has the same effect as increasing productivity through technological advances. It is a new way of producing things.

6. The biggest beneficiaries of trade have not been the central states, arguable some segments have been net losers. Heavy industries that have undergirded these areas have been devastated by competition and a lack of regulatory flexibility, while the information sectors driving massive gains on the coasts have been barely touched by the regulatory arm of the government. Much of this has been driven by market forces, but exacerbated by government intervention. No easy solution, further government intervention is most definitely not it.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.