7 ms·

65% of Americans have no clue what it takes to run a business of any scale. They can barely calculate a tip at the restaurant, yet they think they are qualifie

65% of Americans have no clue what it takes to run a business of any scale. They can barely calculate a tip at the restaurant, yet they think they are qualified to make decisions on taxation. The flavor of democracy we practice has been good. However, we must be honest enough to admit it can degenerate into mob rule, which generally means decisions are made by the most gullible and ignorant among us on any specific topic. Simple example: There is no way my vote on a whole range of medical issues should have the same value as that of a medical professional, such as my wife. While I have a reasonable understanding of biology, the difference in knowledge and understanding in this area of knowledge is massive. In other words, I am as ignorant about medical matters as she is about engineering. It isn’t an insult to classify me as ignorant in this category. It’s the truth. Why do our votes have the same value? So, yes, 65% of Americans want to raise business taxes. They are ignorant fools being led by the nose by politicians using this ignorance to gain votes at their expense. The most important reality to understand us that politicians are never negatively affected by some of the nonsense they push. They don’t lose their jobs, careers or level of pay. On the other hand, the fools who buy their nonsense very often end-up with the short end of the stick. Raise business taxes? No problem. More businesses will go to China if they are able to. If they can’t, they’ll reduce costs through automation. Some will do both. In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Anyone who thinks otherwise suffers from a serious deficiency in perspective.

realityking 5y ago
> In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Isn’t that point precisely addressed by the Biden administrations of setting a global minimum tax rate? If every country, or at least every country without signify the trade barriers (who cares what happens in North Korea) has the same tax rate than there’s no incentive for companies to move their profits - or the entire company - abroad to save on taxes.
- zapdrive 5y ago
  That's what the OP is saying. If the US had 0 corporate tax, no company would ever have to move out.
- robomartin 5y ago
  If you think China and others will abide by this nonsense you might need to review how business is supported by government in China. Did you know they can export products at cost and still make up to 15% on their international sales? The world is not a level playing field. Did you know it costs them darn near zero dollars to ship products within the US, while US companies have to pay full fare? The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Either we are a nation of pro-business entrepreneurs to the core or we resign ourselves to living in outsourced utopia. That’s how bad it has gotten. Pick any product and try to source all of its components and manufacturing in the US or Europe. You won’t get far. In most cases it is simply impossible. If we want a solid future we need to stop vilifying business. The 65% who don’t have a clue will learn this only when it is too late to do anything about it. Perspective: We couldn’t make PPE, the materials they require and the machines we would need to make them.
  - Leherenn 5y ago
    It seems to me China would generally be in favour of this. They're a large country with large internal consumption, and they would rather some of this money goes into their coffers than somewhere else. Generally, fiscal paradise are small countries which have little to lose by lowering taxes (to local business), and a lot to gain by attracting revenues from bigger countries. China's corporate taxes are much higher than 15%, so it's not like they would be directly affected by this. They might oppose the plan (I have no idea), but it's unlikely to be on an economical aspect of that's the case.
    - robomartin 5y ago
      You need to understand the business equation of a Chinese export company in order to understand what I am talking about. Books have been written on the subject. I can't do it justice here. Let's just say things don't run like they do in the US and Europe. Not even close.
  - imtringued 5y ago
- kelnos 5y ago
  I don't really see the point to all of this. There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains? And the US already has a personal tax system where it doesn't matter where you earn income: if you're a US citizen, you have to consider US income taxes, period. So the problem where people try to push their personal income out of the country to avoid tax just doesn't crop up as much.
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    > There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. There will always be loopholes, but these loopholes will be harder to exploit, so while the solution is not perfect, it is (probably) better than what we have now. > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero I said probably, because there's an argument that it is good that large corporations pay zero taxes: it allows them to grow faster and sell goods worldwide, while the US still profits profits from high skilled workers income/shareholders income and generally faster economy growth. > instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains Or maybe not raise taxes at all, but cut government spendings instead.
  - jlokier 5y ago
    > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a company that buys components for $100 and assembles them into a widget they sell for $105 to shops. (Who sell it for $110.) Let's ignore other costs. Corporation tax at 20% would charge the company $1 per widget. Income (as revenue) tax at 20% would charge the company $20 per widget, and the company would immediately have to stop producing widgets altogether, or substantially raise the price of widgets. It wouldn't have a choice. You as the end user would see the prices of everything in shops shoot up, and many things would disappear from the shelves. If you used a lower tax rate, say 1% so that companies like this can continue, it will be far too low for companies that pay $50 for components and sell their widget for $100. Those would be charged only $1 on their profit of $50, keeping $49. You want to incentivise (and indeed help) the former type of company. It's selling widgets at close to the cost of making them, and if it is so minded, it may use the highest quality materials it can afford. But you have designed a tax that strongly incentivises, even requires, the latter type of company: Only pursuing opportunities that use the cheapest possible materials while selling at high prices. Never doing anything that brings in just a small profit.
amznthrwaway 5y ago
It is absolute nonsense to claim that taxing profits would encourage accelerated automation. These aren’t just uncorrelated trends, but more automation will mean higher profit margins, which will mean more taxes…. This sort of lie is common amongst a certain class of exceptionally dishonest right-wing shill who wishes to pretend that something inevitable (automation costs keep going down wildly) is actually the fault of the government. It’s a shame that people like you insist on making such dishonest bad-faith arguments.
tomp 5y ago
> There is no way my vote on a whole range of medical issues should have the same value as that of a medical professional, such as my wife. In June last year, the medical crème de la crème were proclaiming that COVID antibodies last 3 months. I (an engineer with no formal biology training past high school) read some obscure studies that past Sars-Cov-1 infection seems to still provide protection against severe Sars-Cov-2 infection, and it was also what my understanding about the mechanics of the immune system suggested (why would antibodies only last 3 months? how could the human race survive?!) Lo and behold, I was right, the "medical professionals" were wrong. TL;DR: common sense is worth at least as much as a medical degree. Also, never trust people whose incentives aren't aligned with yours.
- robomartin 5y ago
  > common sense is worth at least as much as a medical degree I had to read that twice. The only way someone can have that thought is if they have no clue --at all-- about what a medical degree entails. Sorry my friend, you don't know what you are talking about. Try this: Next time you need serious medical care...don't go to the ER or any doctor for that matter...just use common sense. Let's see how far that takes you. Doctors are human beings. They are not gods. They are not perfect. And yet a medical degree --the knowledge and perspective that comes with it-- DWARFS even the most informed common sense. Don't confuse politics with science.
caeril 5y ago
> Zero would be an even better number. Looking at monetary policy since 2008, I sometimes wonder if taxes are even necessary. It's increasingly clear that central banks can print and fund ~20% of their host governments' budget without any risk of lasting inflation. Why not try ratcheting that up?
- native_samples 5y ago
  But there is inflation, it's just not in consumer price indexes. It seems to have mostly flowed into financial instruments of various kinds. Also remember that inflation is compound. 4% a year inflation isn't a steady increase.
sumedh 5y ago
> More businesses will go to China if they are able to. So let them go, other business would fill up that place.
- robomartin 5y ago
  Please think this through. Businesses don't go to China because they want to. They do so because they have no other choice. When the combination of regulatory, tax and labor regulations makes it so it is impossible to compete you are left with two choices: Embrace China or close the doors. While "other business would fill up that place" might sound like a nice heart-warming idea, it is a fantasy. The only businesses that will fill that place are Chinese businesses selling directly in the US and Europe (an ever-increasing category, just search Amazon) or US and European businesses who have outsourced enough of their operation to China to be competitive.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > Chinese businesses selling directly in the US So dont allow those business to sell in the US
RhysU 5y ago
> There is no way my vote on a whole range of medical issues should have the same value as that of a medical professional, such as my wife. Strongly disagree. Your wife should educate the voters around her on issues that she cares enough about to invest the time (or treasure) doing so. Those better-informed votes should all count equally. It's a slippery slope to suggest that being well-versed in an area should grant extra power. Who determines who is well-informed? Hell of a conflict of interest. Also, consider how wildly primitive (and often wrong) medicine was two centuries ago but how respected the practioners were at the time. Things are better today but the medical profession is not infallible. Lastly, should business people get extra votes on economic policy and taxation?
- robomartin 5y ago
  I am not proposing we have classes of voters. I am simply highlighting that votes are equal despite the massive range of understanding from voters, from ignorant to expert. This is very real problem. Yes, experienced business people are far better at understanding the range of issues pertaining to economic and taxation policy. That is self evident. Most people have zero experience and very little understanding of this, once again, particularly as it pertains to a connected global economy. Here's a simple example of this: Today politicians in the US are pushing for a truly massive-beyond-description infrastructure spending plan. Removing political intent (buying votes with our tax dollars by throwing money at large groups through these programs), one of the most typical targets of this infrastructure spending are roads, bridges and government buildings. Simple question for anyone: Name just ten companies who, in the last, say, 50 years, decided NOT to base their operations in the US because our roads and bridges are deficient. Just ten. Fifty years is a long time. If this is a real problem it should be very easy to rattle-off ten, if not twenty or more companies. Any? Nope. Not one. In other words, this "infrastructure" thing is a solution looking for a problem. Or, put a different way, it is a waste of time and money at a massive scale. OK, that's a tough question. Fine. Same question. Only this time, within the US. Name ten companies who, in the last fifty years, chose to move to another US state because of the condition of the roads and bridges in their original state. No? It's a fantasy, isn't it? Spending money like that is irresponsible. It will waste a decade or more. You can't recover the opportunity cost. You see, lay people buy this crap without perspective and analysis. Our roads and bridges are just fine. Sure, maybe some here and there. And yet this should not be the focus of our spending. I just watched our local transit agency tear-up and re-pave a one mile stretch of road near our home. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the road. In fact, you could argue what they have done is actually worse. The prior road was gray-colored. The current topping is black tar-based. In other words, they created a mile-long super-heating surface in an already hot summer area. Anyhow, the obvious question then, might be: If not roads and bridges, where should we invest? Where it matters. Ask companies what it would take to have them come back. Ask business people what they need. You are likely to compile a list that looks something like this (not complete): - Lower taxes, federal, state and local - Lower regulatory burden - Faster (light-speed fast) building permits and process - Sensible, fair and fast legal immigration policy - 10 to 25 year manufacturing subsidies aimed at in-shoring the supply chain - Invest whatever it takes to bring in not-trivial capacity in semiconductor and other essential manufacturing - Stop the minimum wage madness that is killing competitiveness - Cancel the treaty that allows Chinese companies to ship for free within the US - Tort reform - Stop funding and guaranteeing student loans (this raises costs) - Create an intense pro-business entrepreneurial culture - Stop throwing money at military crap and use it to fund an industrial revival This list could be hundreds of lines long. And, yes, some of the items would be controversial and might not make sense. That does not mean they should not be discussed. As someone in manufacturing, one of the things I want the most is a short and relatively local supply chain. If you are manufacturing microwave ovens in China your supply chain is insanely short. Almost everything you need is within a truck drive from your plant. In the US your supply chain stretches all over the world. Long supply chains cost a lot of money, hence the decision by many to migrate their manufacturing to China. If the glass, screws, wires, chips, displays, plastic you buy is made in China...well, it's hard to justify making your microwave oven in the US when all you can source here might be the box and instruction manual. An investment in a localized, efficient, low cost supply chain spanning a range of products --from low tech to high tech-- is the single most important decision the US could make. Investing in roads and bridges is going to bring NOTHING to the US. An efficient local supply chain would change the game in ways one can hardly imagine. Can this be done? Well, it's hard to say until we start focusing on it and getting the right people around the table. We have been focusing on the wrong things for years. Others, like China, have not. This comes with consequences. The uninformed don't have a wide enough view and deep enough expertise to understand where we are and what we need to do to avert disaster. Perhaps this is the point: When things are good it is OK to make bad decisions here and there because you have a buffer zone. You can make mistakes, survive them and go on. However, when you find yourself in the emergency room, what you need is deep and wide expertise and the right knowledge for someone to be able to make the right decisions. No more amateur night or well-intended-but-dangerous decisions rooted in ignorance. The US and Europe are in the same place with regards to China. They have intelligently sucked in every industry of any value from both regions. It is hard to create a list of the massive segments of industry that have migrated operations from the US and Europe to China. You have to be in awe of what they have accomplished in about fifty years. If the US and Europe don't change their approach to business we will both suffer further erosion of whatever job-generation we have left. This is no longer a hypothetical. This is very real. And, yes, people with expertise need to be making decisions, not politicians or ignorant voters.

realityking 5y ago

> In a globalized economy we need lower taxes. Zero would be an even better number. Isn’t that point precisely addressed by the Biden administrations of setting a global minimum tax rate? If every country, or at least every country without signify the trade barriers (who cares what happens in North Korea) has the same tax rate than there’s no incentive for companies to move their profits - or the entire company - abroad to save on taxes.

zapdrive 5y ago
That's what the OP is saying. If the US had 0 corporate tax, no company would ever have to move out.
robomartin 5y ago
If you think China and others will abide by this nonsense you might need to review how business is supported by government in China. Did you know they can export products at cost and still make up to 15% on their international sales? The world is not a level playing field. Did you know it costs them darn near zero dollars to ship products within the US, while US companies have to pay full fare? The ONLY way the US and Europe could rebuild a solid industrial base lost to China is to be so pro-business it would make most of the uninformed projectile vomit. If we can do that and maintain it for 25 to 50 years we might have a shot at it. Nothing else will work. Either we are a nation of pro-business entrepreneurs to the core or we resign ourselves to living in outsourced utopia. That’s how bad it has gotten. Pick any product and try to source all of its components and manufacturing in the US or Europe. You won’t get far. In most cases it is simply impossible. If we want a solid future we need to stop vilifying business. The 65% who don’t have a clue will learn this only when it is too late to do anything about it. Perspective: We couldn’t make PPE, the materials they require and the machines we would need to make them.
- Leherenn 5y ago
  It seems to me China would generally be in favour of this. They're a large country with large internal consumption, and they would rather some of this money goes into their coffers than somewhere else. Generally, fiscal paradise are small countries which have little to lose by lowering taxes (to local business), and a lot to gain by attracting revenues from bigger countries. China's corporate taxes are much higher than 15%, so it's not like they would be directly affected by this. They might oppose the plan (I have no idea), but it's unlikely to be on an economical aspect of that's the case.
  - robomartin 5y ago
    You need to understand the business equation of a Chinese export company in order to understand what I am talking about. Books have been written on the subject. I can't do it justice here. Let's just say things don't run like they do in the US and Europe. Not even close.
- imtringued 5y ago
kelnos 5y ago
I don't really see the point to all of this. There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains? And the US already has a personal tax system where it doesn't matter where you earn income: if you're a US citizen, you have to consider US income taxes, period. So the problem where people try to push their personal income out of the country to avoid tax just doesn't crop up as much.
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  > There will always be loopholes that allow multi-national companies to avoid tax to some extent. There will always be loopholes, but these loopholes will be harder to exploit, so while the solution is not perfect, it is (probably) better than what we have now. > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero I said probably, because there's an argument that it is good that large corporations pay zero taxes: it allows them to grow faster and sell goods worldwide, while the US still profits profits from high skilled workers income/shareholders income and generally faster economy growth. > instead raise taxes on income and -- especially -- capital gains Or maybe not raise taxes at all, but cut government spendings instead.
- jlokier 5y ago
  > Wouldn't it be simpler to just set corporate tax rates to zero, and instead raise taxes on income Do you mean income as in profit (= revenue minus expenses), or income as in revenue (not subtracting costs)? If you mean profit... that's what corporation tax is already. So I'll assume you mean revenue. No it wouldn't. It would kill many businesses overnight, and incentivise the worst behaviour in the rest. Consider a company that buys components for $100 and assembles them into a widget they sell for $105 to shops. (Who sell it for $110.) Let's ignore other costs. Corporation tax at 20% would charge the company $1 per widget. Income (as revenue) tax at 20% would charge the company $20 per widget, and the company would immediately have to stop producing widgets altogether, or substantially raise the price of widgets. It wouldn't have a choice. You as the end user would see the prices of everything in shops shoot up, and many things would disappear from the shelves. If you used a lower tax rate, say 1% so that companies like this can continue, it will be far too low for companies that pay $50 for components and sell their widget for $100. Those would be charged only $1 on their profit of $50, keeping $49. You want to incentivise (and indeed help) the former type of company. It's selling widgets at close to the cost of making them, and if it is so minded, it may use the highest quality materials it can afford. But you have designed a tax that strongly incentivises, even requires, the latter type of company: Only pursuing opportunities that use the cheapest possible materials while selling at high prices. Never doing anything that brings in just a small profit.

amznthrwaway 5y ago

It is absolute nonsense to claim that taxing profits would encourage accelerated automation. These aren’t just uncorrelated trends, but more automation will mean higher profit margins, which will mean more taxes…. This sort of lie is common amongst a certain class of exceptionally dishonest right-wing shill who wishes to pretend that something inevitable (automation costs keep going down wildly) is actually the fault of the government. It’s a shame that people like you insist on making such dishonest bad-faith arguments.

tomp 5y ago

> There is no way my vote on a whole range of medical issues should have the same value as that of a medical professional, such as my wife. In June last year, the medical crème de la crème were proclaiming that COVID antibodies last 3 months. I (an engineer with no formal biology training past high school) read some obscure studies that past Sars-Cov-1 infection seems to still provide protection against severe Sars-Cov-2 infection, and it was also what my understanding about the mechanics of the immune system suggested (why would antibodies only last 3 months? how could the human race survive?!) Lo and behold, I was right, the "medical professionals" were wrong. TL;DR: common sense is worth at least as much as a medical degree. Also, never trust people whose incentives aren't aligned with yours.

robomartin 5y ago
> common sense is worth at least as much as a medical degree I had to read that twice. The only way someone can have that thought is if they have no clue --at all-- about what a medical degree entails. Sorry my friend, you don't know what you are talking about. Try this: Next time you need serious medical care...don't go to the ER or any doctor for that matter...just use common sense. Let's see how far that takes you. Doctors are human beings. They are not gods. They are not perfect. And yet a medical degree --the knowledge and perspective that comes with it-- DWARFS even the most informed common sense. Don't confuse politics with science.

caeril 5y ago

> Zero would be an even better number. Looking at monetary policy since 2008, I sometimes wonder if taxes are even necessary. It's increasingly clear that central banks can print and fund ~20% of their host governments' budget without any risk of lasting inflation. Why not try ratcheting that up?

native_samples 5y ago
But there is inflation, it's just not in consumer price indexes. It seems to have mostly flowed into financial instruments of various kinds. Also remember that inflation is compound. 4% a year inflation isn't a steady increase.

sumedh 5y ago

> More businesses will go to China if they are able to. So let them go, other business would fill up that place.

robomartin 5y ago
Please think this through. Businesses don't go to China because they want to. They do so because they have no other choice. When the combination of regulatory, tax and labor regulations makes it so it is impossible to compete you are left with two choices: Embrace China or close the doors. While "other business would fill up that place" might sound like a nice heart-warming idea, it is a fantasy. The only businesses that will fill that place are Chinese businesses selling directly in the US and Europe (an ever-increasing category, just search Amazon) or US and European businesses who have outsourced enough of their operation to China to be competitive.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > Chinese businesses selling directly in the US So dont allow those business to sell in the US

RhysU 5y ago

> There is no way my vote on a whole range of medical issues should have the same value as that of a medical professional, such as my wife. Strongly disagree. Your wife should educate the voters around her on issues that she cares enough about to invest the time (or treasure) doing so. Those better-informed votes should all count equally. It's a slippery slope to suggest that being well-versed in an area should grant extra power. Who determines who is well-informed? Hell of a conflict of interest. Also, consider how wildly primitive (and often wrong) medicine was two centuries ago but how respected the practioners were at the time. Things are better today but the medical profession is not infallible. Lastly, should business people get extra votes on economic policy and taxation?

robomartin 5y ago
I am not proposing we have classes of voters. I am simply highlighting that votes are equal despite the massive range of understanding from voters, from ignorant to expert. This is very real problem. Yes, experienced business people are far better at understanding the range of issues pertaining to economic and taxation policy. That is self evident. Most people have zero experience and very little understanding of this, once again, particularly as it pertains to a connected global economy. Here's a simple example of this: Today politicians in the US are pushing for a truly massive-beyond-description infrastructure spending plan. Removing political intent (buying votes with our tax dollars by throwing money at large groups through these programs), one of the most typical targets of this infrastructure spending are roads, bridges and government buildings. Simple question for anyone: Name just ten companies who, in the last, say, 50 years, decided NOT to base their operations in the US because our roads and bridges are deficient. Just ten. Fifty years is a long time. If this is a real problem it should be very easy to rattle-off ten, if not twenty or more companies. Any? Nope. Not one. In other words, this "infrastructure" thing is a solution looking for a problem. Or, put a different way, it is a waste of time and money at a massive scale. OK, that's a tough question. Fine. Same question. Only this time, within the US. Name ten companies who, in the last fifty years, chose to move to another US state because of the condition of the roads and bridges in their original state. No? It's a fantasy, isn't it? Spending money like that is irresponsible. It will waste a decade or more. You can't recover the opportunity cost. You see, lay people buy this crap without perspective and analysis. Our roads and bridges are just fine. Sure, maybe some here and there. And yet this should not be the focus of our spending. I just watched our local transit agency tear-up and re-pave a one mile stretch of road near our home. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the road. In fact, you could argue what they have done is actually worse. The prior road was gray-colored. The current topping is black tar-based. In other words, they created a mile-long super-heating surface in an already hot summer area. Anyhow, the obvious question then, might be: If not roads and bridges, where should we invest? Where it matters. Ask companies what it would take to have them come back. Ask business people what they need. You are likely to compile a list that looks something like this (not complete): - Lower taxes, federal, state and local - Lower regulatory burden - Faster (light-speed fast) building permits and process - Sensible, fair and fast legal immigration policy - 10 to 25 year manufacturing subsidies aimed at in-shoring the supply chain - Invest whatever it takes to bring in not-trivial capacity in semiconductor and other essential manufacturing - Stop the minimum wage madness that is killing competitiveness - Cancel the treaty that allows Chinese companies to ship for free within the US - Tort reform - Stop funding and guaranteeing student loans (this raises costs) - Create an intense pro-business entrepreneurial culture - Stop throwing money at military crap and use it to fund an industrial revival This list could be hundreds of lines long. And, yes, some of the items would be controversial and might not make sense. That does not mean they should not be discussed. As someone in manufacturing, one of the things I want the most is a short and relatively local supply chain. If you are manufacturing microwave ovens in China your supply chain is insanely short. Almost everything you need is within a truck drive from your plant. In the US your supply chain stretches all over the world. Long supply chains cost a lot of money, hence the decision by many to migrate their manufacturing to China. If the glass, screws, wires, chips, displays, plastic you buy is made in China...well, it's hard to justify making your microwave oven in the US when all you can source here might be the box and instruction manual. An investment in a localized, efficient, low cost supply chain spanning a range of products --from low tech to high tech-- is the single most important decision the US could make. Investing in roads and bridges is going to bring NOTHING to the US. An efficient local supply chain would change the game in ways one can hardly imagine. Can this be done? Well, it's hard to say until we start focusing on it and getting the right people around the table. We have been focusing on the wrong things for years. Others, like China, have not. This comes with consequences. The uninformed don't have a wide enough view and deep enough expertise to understand where we are and what we need to do to avert disaster. Perhaps this is the point: When things are good it is OK to make bad decisions here and there because you have a buffer zone. You can make mistakes, survive them and go on. However, when you find yourself in the emergency room, what you need is deep and wide expertise and the right knowledge for someone to be able to make the right decisions. No more amateur night or well-intended-but-dangerous decisions rooted in ignorance. The US and Europe are in the same place with regards to China. They have intelligently sucked in every industry of any value from both regions. It is hard to create a list of the massive segments of industry that have migrated operations from the US and Europe to China. You have to be in awe of what they have accomplished in about fifty years. If the US and Europe don't change their approach to business we will both suffer further erosion of whatever job-generation we have left. This is no longer a hypothetical. This is very real. And, yes, people with expertise need to be making decisions, not politicians or ignorant voters.