For some reason they have a difficult time understanding that it is a system. It cannot function only with one side or the other. Those that want to advocate that it is only investment fail to recognize that without consumers, that investment is wasted. Likewise, those who want to look only at consumption fail to recognize that if there aren't incentives for investment, the goods to consume will not exist. Only when there are consumers for goods, and investments in creating those goods will the system function. It is a simple concept that so many fail to understand. The hard part is that there is no "crystal ball" that tells investors what to create that consumers will purchase. That takes knowledge and some bit of luck. Beta was a better format, Blackberry had better security, and Lotus 123 was a better spreadsheet, yet they all have fallen (OK, BB isn't dead yet, but they're on life-support).

And we're all riding around on Segway's, aren't we? There are 2 aspects, and both are essential. There are many more failures than successes.

Actually, Microsoft never developed anything themselves that was worth anything. Remember Bob? They were good at buying up technology then getting the gov't to mandate its use. They also gave the operating system away to computer manufacturers that then locked in DOS and later Windows use.

Don't get me wrong, we need to drastically reduce the scope/expanse of gov't. But, if we're going to collect tax, then consumption is better than income. That's the only point that I'm making.

That could be prevented by using a system where income is reported, and savings are reported (which would need to be distinctly defined - capital investment would be included). The difference is consumption.

Don't forget Google.

Unions at FMC were unnecessary. The same is not true for GM. The problem with unions (and any hierarchy of power) is that those in positions of power see maintaining that power as more important than the mission of the organization.

As has been said and proven by centuries of demonstrated examples: Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. One of the reasons our founders tried to craft a system with very little power, or at least little in any particular branch.

True enough, but if there were no demand, there would be no consumption. Lots of businesses have invested and gone bust due to over estimating the customer demand. You cannot merely have investment, which is what BG seems to be alluding to. It is a mathematical equation and both elements are required. If either is zero, then the outcome is zero.

Correct. If there are no controls, then you have no sovereignty. It is the very essence of control that conveys sovereignty.

Yes it does. Gates, Microsoft, and other high tech companies are perpetually in front of congress demanding that H1C visa quotas be increased. They say there aren't the workers in the US, but what they really mean is that there aren't enough CHEAP workers. Those with the skills are here.