John Stewart vs Marco Rubio

[Phatscotty]

Normally, when Republicans go on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, they tend to try to take their lumps and walk off without much damage to their image. That, or they simply destroy Stewart on the facts alone, without contesting his root philosophy.

But Marco Rubio apparently didn’t want to follow either path. He wanted to try doing some genuine education on the show, and was ready to take Stewart on as a sparring partner. The result was a veritable duel of an extended interview that stretched over a half an hour, in which Rubio studiously and calmly kept contesting every premise that Jon Stewart threw at him. And for once, Stewart was the one who seemed frustrated.

The battle began when Stewart began trying to back Rubio into a corner over the question of whether Republicans were too enthusiastic in their usage of the filibuster. Rubio, stressing his desire not to get technical, still managed to rebut Stewart‘s arguments by pointing out that the reason Republicans filibuster so much is because the Democrats don’t let them get in votes on amendments they support. Watch the exchange below:
The fight then moved onto the subject of taxes and budget ideas. And it was around here that Rubio really started showing his mettle, matching Stewart fact for fact and argument for argument, and even sometimes telling Stewart “That’s not accurate“ when Stewart brought up particular ”facts” that cast Republican budgetary ideas in a bad light. Rubio also completely blasted the idea of a “balanced approach” that Stewart kept repeating, pointing out that the goal for the Senate wasn’t to divvy up spoils between the two parties, but to solve the problems with the economy, which Rubio argued was only possible if sacred cows were scrapped:


But Rubio really hit his stride in the final stretch of the interview, where his refutations were so strong that Stewart was left with nothing to say other than his belief that Rubio and he weren’t even living “in the same solar system,” while still admitting that he admired Rubio’s sense of urgency in dealing with the issues. Ironically enough, Rubio even managed to shoot down Stewart‘s accusation that they didn’t agree on anything, pointing out that they did agree on getting rid of tax loopholes by painstakingly walking Stewart back through earlier parts of the argument:

One of the best exchanges I have seen this entire year. Check out the full interview

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/thats-n ... n-stewart/

[AndyDufresne]

It was fun to watch, but the Blaze makes it seem like Rubio was making a lot of sense and answering questions, but he was doing a pretty artful dodge act the whole interview. The Blaze also doesn't seem to understand the balanced approached Stewart was talking about.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

It was fun to watch, but the Blaze makes it seem like Rubio was making a lot of sense and answering questions, but he was doing a pretty artful dodge act the whole interview. The Blaze also doesn't seem to understand the balanced approached Stewart was talking about.


--Andy

The Blaze doesn't understand that because the balanced approach is not possible. Stewart just wants his chunk, while Rubio wants the solution and doesn't care about who get's what they want or don't want. It just isn't about that. What Stewart and Obama wants will only put is more into debt, hurt our economy more. We are already in the longest economic slump since the Great Depression. Perhaps it actually is all this debt that is causing it, and the more debt we take on the worse it will get, not better.

There is no "increase in spending/raising taxes" when the goal is to cut spending. It's one or the other. John Stewart could not get that through his head the entire interview, and it kept me laughing. I understand 100% where Rubio is coming from, mostly because he's right. Like I said though it was a great example of 2 intelligent people not being able to understand each other in the end. I attribute that to John Stewart viewing reality through a very rosy colored lens of a liberal media post, and Rubio's accuracy comes from trying to get solutions on the floor of the Senate. Stewart is stuck on talking points from the filtered media, Rubio is telling it how it is from the front line trenches.

A point I was screaming for Rubio to make was "how does pulling money out of the private sector help the private sector?" That's the rub. The balanced approach of raising taxes/taking more money out of the economy and artificial growth, runs contrary to balancing budgets and growing the economy naturally.

Basically if we did both, you would get your tax increases but the economy would shrink, mainly because you took a large chunk right out of it. We've already had our credit rating downgraded twice.....now is not the time to say "well, maybe we should slow down a little bit....." We needed to slow down a little but under Bush. Where we are now IMO and as Rubio points out, we don't have choices of where to cut. Everything has to be cut. We have to stop spending the next generations opportunities. This level of spending is inexcusable.

Anyways, thanks for watching and comments.

[Ray Rider]

Is there any way a non-US resident can watch the interview? It always says I can't watch the video from my location and when I tried using a proxy server, the video just couldn't load at all. There's a 10 minute segment of it on youtube, but that's all I could find. I have high hope for Marco Rubio if he can avoid the influence of the other career politicians skilled in saying one thing and doing another.

[AndyDufresne]

It was fun to watch, but the Blaze makes it seem like Rubio was making a lot of sense and answering questions, but he was doing a pretty artful dodge act the whole interview. The Blaze also doesn't seem to understand the balanced approached Stewart was talking about.


--Andy

The Blaze doesn't understand that because the balanced approach is not possible. Stewart just wants his chunk, while Rubio wants the solution and doesn't care about who get's what they want or don't want. It just isn't about that. What Stewart and Obama wants will only put is more into debt, hurt our economy more. We are already in the longest economic slump since the Great Depression. Perhaps it actually is all this debt that is causing it, and the more debt we take on the worse it will get, not better.

There is no "increase in spending/raising taxes" when the goal is to cut spending. It's one or the other. John Stewart could not get that through his head the entire interview, and it kept me laughing. I understand 100% where Rubio is coming from, mostly because he's right. Like I said though it was a great example of 2 intelligent people not being able to understand each other in the end. I attribute that to John Stewart viewing reality through a very rosy colored lens of a liberal media post, and Rubio's accuracy comes from trying to get solutions on the floor of the Senate. Stewart is stuck on talking points from the filtered media, Rubio is telling it how it is from the front line trenches.

A point I was screaming for Rubio to make was "how does pulling money out of the private sector help the private sector?" That's the rub. The balanced approach of raising taxes/taking more money out of the economy and artificial growth, runs contrary to balancing budgets and growing the economy naturally.

Basically if we did both, you would get your tax increases but the economy would shrink, mainly because you took a large chunk right out of it. We've already had our credit rating downgraded twice.....now is not the time to say "well, maybe we should slow down a little bit....." We needed to slow down a little but under Bush. Where we are now IMO and as Rubio points out, we don't have choices of where to cut. Everything has to be cut. We have to stop spending the next generations opportunities. This level of spending is inexcusable.

Anyways, thanks for watching and comments.

I am not sure you understand the balanced approach either.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

The balanced approach, from Stewart's side, is raising the top bracket to 39-41% right?

I think this exchange digs into the difference in philosophy a little better

[AAFitz]

It was fun to watch, but the Blaze makes it seem like Rubio was making a lot of sense and answering questions, but he was doing a pretty artful dodge act the whole interview. The Blaze also doesn't seem to understand the balanced approached Stewart was talking about.


--Andy

The Blaze doesn't understand that because the balanced approach is not possible. Stewart just wants his chunk, while Rubio wants the solution and doesn't care about who get's what they want or don't want. It just isn't about that. What Stewart and Obama wants will only put is more into debt, hurt our economy more. We are already in the longest economic slump since the Great Depression. Perhaps it actually is all this debt that is causing it, and the more debt we take on the worse it will get, not better.

There is no "increase in spending/raising taxes" when the goal is to cut spending. It's one or the other. John Stewart could not get that through his head the entire interview, and it kept me laughing. I understand 100% where Rubio is coming from, mostly because he's right. Like I said though it was a great example of 2 intelligent people not being able to understand each other in the end. I attribute that to John Stewart viewing reality through a very rosy colored lens of a liberal media post, and Rubio's accuracy comes from trying to get solutions on the floor of the Senate. Stewart is stuck on talking points from the filtered media, Rubio is telling it how it is from the front line trenches.

A point I was screaming for Rubio to make was "how does pulling money out of the private sector help the private sector?" That's the rub. The balanced approach of raising taxes/taking more money out of the economy and artificial growth, runs contrary to balancing budgets and growing the economy naturally.

Basically if we did both, you would get your tax increases but the economy would shrink, mainly because you took a large chunk right out of it. We've already had our credit rating downgraded twice.....now is not the time to say "well, maybe we should slow down a little bit....." We needed to slow down a little but under Bush. Where we are now IMO and as Rubio points out, we don't have choices of where to cut. Everything has to be cut. We have to stop spending the next generations opportunities. This level of spending is inexcusable.

Anyways, thanks for watching and comments.

I am not sure you understand the balanced approach either.


--Andy

I am sure you are right.

[AAFitz]

The balanced approach, from Stewart's side, is raising the top bracket to 39-41% right?

I think this exchange digs into the difference in philosophy a little better

And your balanced approach is to keep the percent 15% lower than the rest of the country?

[Phatscotty]

The balanced approach, from Stewart's side, is raising the top bracket to 39-41% right?

I think this exchange digs into the difference in philosophy a little better

And your balanced approach is to keep the percent 15% lower than the rest of the country?

Is that a tax rate?

[lynch5762]

Thanks for posting this... I wish I would have caught it live.

I have always considered John Stewart a very smart person (as well as colbert) but I am often confused at their narrow minded approaches to politics. Especially when our economy is as bad as it is.

I get the whole fascination with the "save the world" type of mentality but in realty it is nothing more than a power trip! If you think that for one minute our government is better suited to handle the money we earn on a daily basis then I don't what to tell you! Other than to move to Greece.

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Here's another fact for you.... 100% of all congressman's and senator's incomes exceed the national medium income and they don't even have to pay taxes on that income. Not to mention that they often have other ventures which puts 90% of them in the 5% bracket of income earners in this country.

Wake the F__K up people!!!!!

Whatever happened to saving money and preparing for your future?? Our grandparents are turning over in their graves right now! I wonder how willing John Stewart will be to pay 39% on his last year of income after he gets fired. My guess is that he won't like it.

I have to admit, I have thought for a long time that a major recession would put and end to the overpriced housing markets and the debt bubble but I was dead wrong..... I have absolutely no clue where this ends up!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

creating jobs should be very profitable. It's a good thing to have a system that encourages and rewards people who take risks and do that.

[Phatscotty]

Is there any way a non-US resident can watch the interview? It always says I can't watch the video from my location and when I tried using a proxy server, the video just couldn't load at all. There's a 10 minute segment of it on youtube, but that's all I could find. I have high hope for Marco Rubio if he can avoid the influence of the other career politicians skilled in saying one thing and doing another.

Try this
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episod ... enacious-d

It was the 26th of June

[Phatscotty]

It was fun to watch, but the Blaze makes it seem like Rubio was making a lot of sense and answering questions, but he was doing a pretty artful dodge act the whole interview. The Blaze also doesn't seem to understand the balanced approached Stewart was talking about.


--Andy

The Blaze doesn't understand that because the balanced approach is not possible. Stewart just wants his chunk, while Rubio wants the solution and doesn't care about who get's what they want or don't want. It just isn't about that. What Stewart and Obama wants will only put is more into debt, hurt our economy more. We are already in the longest economic slump since the Great Depression. Perhaps it actually is all this debt that is causing it, and the more debt we take on the worse it will get, not better.

There is no "increase in spending/raising taxes" when the goal is to cut spending. It's one or the other. John Stewart could not get that through his head the entire interview, and it kept me laughing. I understand 100% where Rubio is coming from, mostly because he's right. Like I said though it was a great example of 2 intelligent people not being able to understand each other in the end. I attribute that to John Stewart viewing reality through a very rosy colored lens of a liberal media post, and Rubio's accuracy comes from trying to get solutions on the floor of the Senate. Stewart is stuck on talking points from the filtered media, Rubio is telling it how it is from the front line trenches.

A point I was screaming for Rubio to make was "how does pulling money out of the private sector help the private sector?" That's the rub. The balanced approach of raising taxes/taking more money out of the economy and artificial growth, runs contrary to balancing budgets and growing the economy naturally.

Basically if we did both, you would get your tax increases but the economy would shrink, mainly because you took a large chunk right out of it. We've already had our credit rating downgraded twice.....now is not the time to say "well, maybe we should slow down a little bit....." We needed to slow down a little but under Bush. Where we are now IMO and as Rubio points out, we don't have choices of where to cut. Everything has to be cut. We have to stop spending the next generations opportunities. This level of spending is inexcusable.

Anyways, thanks for watching and comments.

I am not sure you understand the balanced approach either.


--Andy

I am sure you are right.

One of us is trying. If we could get one of you to give a little bit more detail, I'm sure we can all understand each other.

[Woodruff]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

[lynch5762]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

Your Joking here right? Please tell me you are. I think you need a serious lesson in economics to be honest with you. how many jobs do you think microsoft has created since its conception????? I guess just maybe a couple right? and what about all the jobs down the line of people working for companies that profit now from selling or using this software???

As far as the "vast profits" you refer to.... Why don't we just ask Chrysler, or Bank of America, or a thousand others how they are doing right now?

[Woodruff]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

Your Joking here right? Please tell me you are.

I am not joking in the slightest.

how many jobs do you think microsoft has created since its conception?????

How many jobs do you think Microsoft would have created if nobody wanted to buy their products?

I guess just maybe a couple right?

LOL, indeed.

and what about all the jobs down the line of people working for companies that profit now from selling or using this software???

Again, if nobody is buying the software, what jobs are being created? The consumer creates the jobs.

As far as the "vast profits" you refer to.... Why don't we just ask Chrysler, or Bank of America, or a thousand others how they are doing right now?

So you're saying that corporations aren't making vast profits these days? Because there are a lot of statistics that disagree with that position.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

I'm jumping in here with no regard for context, but to answer that question, we live in a time of great uncertainty. Those with lots of money (lenders) have the potential to authorize huge investments to borrowers; however, that isn't happening because these lenders and especially the borrowers essentially have too much uncertainty in finding the present value of their investments.

The uncertainty is largely caused by the government. Future taxes (or, lolol, "penalties"), changes with regulation, and future fiscal and monetary policy (QE3) marginally decrease the accuracy of these decision-makers' expectations. Thus, there is an unacceptable uncertainty.

There's also the issue that the major banks face: huge excess reserves (thanks to the Fed). If they were to release too much of these reserves, the economy would experience a possibly sharp rise in inflation, which would exacerbate our problems. So, banks generally are reluctant to lend for this reason as well.

There's more, but that's all I feel like typing. I guess my main point is that we can't view current outcomes as evidence that one particular group is to blame because we might be neglecting the bigger picture.


As far as purchasing things is concerned, people need savings to do so. If the interest rate is dropped to almost 0% by the Federal Reserve on 10-year T-bills, and since this affects the interest rates of 6-month CDs (or checking deposits, I forget the correct term), then people have a very weak incentive to save. Savings is the source of expenditures in the long-run. If you ruin the incentive for people to save, you can easily deprive the people with the means to make purchases.

[Phatscotty]

I suppose the Fed will have to stop charging banks to borrow, and start paying banks to borrow.

The interest rate can be -.05%

[lynch5762]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

Your Joking here right? Please tell me you are.

I am not joking in the slightest.

how many jobs do you think microsoft has created since its conception?????

How many jobs do you think Microsoft would have created if nobody wanted to buy their products?

I guess just maybe a couple right?

LOL, indeed.

and what about all the jobs down the line of people working for companies that profit now from selling or using this software???

Again, if nobody is buying the software, what jobs are being created? The consumer creates the jobs.

As far as the "vast profits" you refer to.... Why don't we just ask Chrysler, or Bank of America, or a thousand others how they are doing right now?

So you're saying that corporations aren't making vast profits these days? Because there are a lot of statistics that disagree with that position.

I am sorry Woodruff... but the argument that you are trying to make here is without a doubt one of the dumbest arguments that I have heard in a long time!

Before I try to help you understand some basic economic principles, I want to make one thing clear... either you misconstrued my statement, or you intentionally re-crafted your argument to be about corporations. I never said one bad word about corporations in general, however, I did mention that some of the executives in these corporations earn an incredible amount of money. I realize that this fact is unpopular with many, but it is most likely due to the fact that they lack the same understanding about economics as you do. It is quite clear that you suffer tremendously from class envy mixed with a bit of hatred for capitalism. This is most likely due to your lack of education about how capitalism works and the history of this country. I can neither assume responsibility for this, nor help you correct it. I can only hope that one day you can figure it out for yourself. The following thoughts are only a brief guide to help you on your path:

(1) You claim that corporations in general try to refrain from hiring to increase profits. (Question: please explain then how the rise of Walmart from a "mom and pop" store, to the 2nd largest private employer in the world, did not create jobs???) FYI... there are only 3 entities that employ more people than Walmart... the number 1 private employer (and the US and Chinese governments)
(2) Since we are on this subject.... I guess the #5 employer in the world is a bad example as well... McDonalds. I am seriously confused at how you can try to make the argument that these corporations did not create jobs.
(3) Now don't get me wrong.... I do understand the approach that you are trying to take, but I first wanted to squash your theory that existing corporations do not seek expansion and would prefer to not hire.
(4) Now we can address your theory about the fact that consumer's are the one's to create jobs and that corporations do not. I will admit that if one does not have the understanding of economic growth and what creates it, this is a very easy mistake to make. You have, however, overlooked one simple fact. And that is that consumers can not consume anything without first having a paying job that gives them money to consume with??? I know this may seem like a hard concept to grasp.... but somebody had to actually "create" the jobs before anyone had any money to buy things..... give that some thought.

Here are a couple thoughts to help you understand better...

Cars could not be bought until somebody made them correct?
Food could not be purchased until it was brought to market correct?
Televisions could not be viewed until they where made correct?
You could not read this forum until the computer was invented correct?

Obviously the list goes on and on but I would like you to answer one simple question.... What came first... the consumer or the product?
If you get that right then answer this one... Did somebody get paid for creating the products that had not yet been bought?
If you got that one also then you are on a role so answer this.... Where did the original purchaser's of the products earn the money to purchase these products???

If you answered all three questions correctly.... well then BINGO!!... you may have actually learned something tonight. I sure hope so because I feel like I wasted a bunch of my time trying to help you!

[Woodruff]

Let's make sure we are all clear on one thing.... Yes there are big time corporate executives out there that make ungodly amounts of money but do you know what else those corporations do??? Oh that's right... create jobs!!!!

Then why, in these times of vast profits and reasonable taxes for corporations, are jobs not being created? Because your idea of the process is inaccurate. What creates jobs is people buying things, period. Purchasers create jobs, not anything else. Demand creates jobs. Jobs are THE LAST THING an existing corporation will add to their business, because jobs are the most expensive part of a business, and their job is to make money, not spend it.

Your Joking here right? Please tell me you are.

I am not joking in the slightest.

how many jobs do you think microsoft has created since its conception?????

How many jobs do you think Microsoft would have created if nobody wanted to buy their products?

I guess just maybe a couple right?

LOL, indeed.

and what about all the jobs down the line of people working for companies that profit now from selling or using this software???

Again, if nobody is buying the software, what jobs are being created? The consumer creates the jobs.

As far as the "vast profits" you refer to.... Why don't we just ask Chrysler, or Bank of America, or a thousand others how they are doing right now?

So you're saying that corporations aren't making vast profits these days? Because there are a lot of statistics that disagree with that position.

I am sorry Woodruff... but the argument that you are trying to make here is without a doubt one of the dumbest arguments that I have heard in a long time!

Well, at least you have an open mind about things.

It is quite clear that you suffer tremendously from class envy mixed with a bit of hatred for capitalism. This is most likely due to your lack of education about how capitalism works and the history of this country.

You clearly don't understand anything about me. I have no "class envy" at all, nor do I have any hatred for capitalism...in fact, it doesn't even make any sense to me that I would.

(1) You claim that corporations in general try to refrain from hiring to increase profits. (Question: please explain then how the rise of Walmart from a "mom and pop" store, to the 2nd largest private employer in the world, did not create jobs???) FYI... there are only 3 entities that employ more people than Walmart... the number 1 private employer (and the US and Chinese governments)

WalMart is a bad example for your part because WalMart has also destroyed a great many jobs as well. Also, how many people would WalMart employ if nobody wanted to buy their products?

(2) Since we are on this subject.... I guess the #5 employer in the world is a bad example as well... McDonalds. I am seriously confused at how you can try to make the argument that these corporations did not create jobs.

How many people would McDonald's employ of nobody wanted to buy their products?

(3) Now don't get me wrong.... I do understand the approach that you are trying to take, but I first wanted to squash your theory that existing corporations do not seek expansion and would prefer to not hire.

So you don't agree that manpower is one of the last things that a corporation will add because of the high cost of manpower? It's shown over and over again to be true.

Here are a couple thoughts to help you understand better...
Cars could not be bought until somebody made them correct?
Food could not be purchased until it was brought to market correct?
Televisions could not be viewed until they where made correct?
You could not read this forum until the computer was invented correct?
Obviously the list goes on and on but I would like you to answer one simple question.... What came first... the consumer or the product?
If you get that right then answer this one... Did somebody get paid for creating the products that had not yet been bought?
If you got that one also then you are on a role so answer this.... Where did the original purchaser's of the products earn the money to purchase these products???
If you answered all three questions correctly.... well then BINGO!!... you may have actually learned something tonight. I sure hope so because I feel like I wasted a bunch of my time trying to help you!

You wasted a lot of time, but not for the reason you seem to believe.

[lynch5762]

I give up....

Apparently you think that consumers will magically have money to by products without first having a paying job that gives them the money to do so...

So be it... good luck with that premise

[Woodruff]

I give up....

Apparently you think that consumers will magically have money to by products without first having a paying job that gives them the money to do so...

So be it... good luck with that premise

I give up....

Apparently you think that corporations will magically create jobs without having consumers wanting to purchase their products.

So be it... good luck with that premise.

[lynch5762]

Ummm... Many try and fail every day....

Apparently they do this just for the hell of it

[Woodruff]

Ummm... Many try and fail every day....

So you're saying they...fail to create jobs, right? Why would that be...because people didn't want to buy their products for one reason or another, perhaps?

[lynch5762]

Ummm... Many try and fail every day....

So you're saying they...fail to create jobs, right? Why would that be...because people didn't want to buy their products for one reason or another, perhaps?

No... they fail mostly because of inferior products or the inability to compete with their competition.

Look... I understand what you are saying. Supply and demand, etc, etc..... I get that. But at some point there has to be an entity (or in many cases an individual) who assumes the risks of providing the product. If is was not for these people or corporations, this country would have never seen the growth that it did over the last 100 years. It is because of the ability of a few corporations to make products on a very large scale, that the products are even affordable for people to buy.

I am not going to argue this any more... It is a dumb argument