An oil company makes a profit and funnels some of that profit into R&D, or building new drilling rigs, or exploring for new productive wells--if successful, their business will grow, more jobs will be provided, and more tax revenue collected. Because it is choosing to invest the money in the business, instead of taking it in profit, that money is tax exempt. Obama calls this private investment "corporate welfare".

The government funnels taxpayer money, in the form of grants and loans, into "green" businesses--which can't convince private lenders to invest their own money, and thus must rely on taxpayers and bureaucrats instead. Many of these businesses, coincidentally, I'm sure, are headed by major Democratic party donors, who take large salaries and kick back more donations. Many of these companies promptly go broke (proving the reluctant private investors correct in their assessments.)

Obama calls this corporate welfare "investment".

Note: Just to be clear...the word "is" appeared several times in the above paragraphs. "Is," a form of the verb "to be". In the first instance above, it is used with the past participle of the transitive verb "to choose" as a passive-voice auxiliary. In the second appearance, it should be taken to mean that the subject of the clause has the qualification or characterization specified in the antecedent.

Independent bookstores vs. Amazon: Buying books online is better for authors, better for the economy, and better for you. - Slate Magazine

I'd have to agree. I don't see much point in local bookstores...even B&I doesn't get a visit very often anymore. It's just much easier to say "let's see if it's on the Kindle" and start reading it 30 seconds later, than it is to get in the car and go to the B&I at the mall.

We have Amazon Prime as well, which is a great thing. We do all of our Christmas shopping from the comfort of home, then it appears at mom's house half way across the country just 2 days later. Then there are all the Amazon Prime videos, which seems superior to Netflix anyway.

Steve Says: Yes, I agree too. Going to the bookstore might be "something to do" still, i.e. something to get you out of the house. But the bookstore book selection is clearly inferior (especially for science and math), and I often find the reviews of other readers you find on line quite useful. Links to related books are useful too. You can even peek into most books online now. All in all, it's a winning combination.

Dear California: I’m Leaving You. Here’s Why…Erica Douglass

Yep, that's about the size of it.

I've decided I'm posting too much to Facebook that could also be posted here. So, I downloaded a Firefox ap which will make it easier to do both.

This article points out the importance of small startups and the way the government has been acting to suppress their creation. The whole Bruce Bartlett theme is a bit dumb, but the core of the article is good.

A Decline In U.S. Startups Through the Eyes of Bruce Bartlett - John Tamny - Political Economy - Forbes

Though Reaganomics is 30 years old, Bartlett made a point that likely remains true today that “the largest proportion of important new inventions are still the result of individuals working virtually alone, rather than by big corporate laboratories.”

What a simple way of saying it:

Professor Epstein characterizes Obama’s economics as “primitive” and explains: “First, it is not possible to gain more money for the public treasury by taxing heavily those practices that are efficient for a firm. Putting a special tax on corporate jets will cut corporate profits, leaving nary a dime to fund the worthy causes that the president promotes.

Efficiency is the hidden driver that government seems to want most to ignore. Renewable energy sources are less efficient; government doesn't care. Overwhelming pro-union and other work rules (such as mandated paternity leave) make companies less efficient; government doesn't care. Picking winners and losers by bailing out, waivering, or taxing some and not others, reduces efficiency; government doesn't care. Arcane and overly-complex tax law reduces efficiency; government doesn't care.

Every time government doesn't care about efficiency, it pushes down on the economic brake pedal.

The original of this post disappeared in the Blogger Blackout.

[ Politifact ] Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin.

Moore began her remarks by referring to the keynote speaker, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, and his new memoir, A Reason to Believe.

"I was thinking: How in the world can you believe, what reason would you have to believe in anything, when you had just elected a governor who says that Wisconsin was open for business and therefore closed to every single human being in the state," Moore said to applause.

This is someone who flatly and openly hates business. The logical inference from her comment is that Wisconsin should not be open for business, because businesses hurt people.

This is the mindset of the loony left. Where is Pat Moynihan where you need him? I believe he once said that the Democrats had to come to terms with the fact that you can't be pro-employee without being pro-employer. Apparently, such thinking is dead and mouldering right along with the much-missed Moynihan.

Moore is undoubtedly someone who wants lots of public services and lots of taxes, but doesn't understand that it takes productive people and businesses to pay those taxes.

It's the therefore in Moore's comments that really gets me: you're pro business? Therefore you must, you simply MUST, be anti-human.

Wow is this piece from Reuters idiotic. The headline and lede:

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes

(Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

Note the conflation of sales and income (a pet peeve of my Dad's, as I recall.) Reading the article, we see that in the 8-year period studied, 57% of corporations paid no income taxes in at least one year. First of all, how does that get translated into "most"? Wouldn't "most" mean at least 50% each year?

But, more important, couldn't this mean that 57% of corporations don't make any money in 1 or more of 8 years? Note that 57%/8 = 7%. Is it reasonable to think that about 7% of corporations make no money in a given year? Seems reasonable to me.

Of course the article doesn't give us any details. It's just an anti-corporate hit piece, and giving details would likely spoil the fun.

Ok, so there are probably a billion reasons why I am not a billionaire. But the one that keeps coming to mind is that I have no clue why some companies, reportedly worth billions, are worth anything at all. The messaging service Twitter is said to be worth 8-10 billion dollars.

... what's remarkable is the money that people familiar with the matter say frames the discussions with at least some potential suitors: an estimated valuation in the neighborhood of $8 billion to $10 billion. This for a company that, people familiar with the matter said, had 2010 revenue of $45 million but lost money as it spent on hiring and data centers and estimates its revenue this year at between $100 million and $110 million.

So Twitter took in $45 million last year (from companies advertising on their site) but it cost more than that to run their computers. Where does the $8 billion come from then? Twitter, like Google and Facebook, seems to provide me with excellent services in return for absolutely nothing from me. How do they make up the cost of running the computers that do all this for me? Volume?

I recently switched from Internet Explorer to the Google Chrome browser. Google provides this browser for free. With a few more clicks, I installed AdBlock as well. AdBlock, also free, effectively blocks all ads on Google, Facebook, Twitter and practically everywhere else. It's great! So here is Google, providing me with free tools to avoid the only hope that Google has to make money off me. Estimates of how much Google is worth? 100 billion? Beats me.

Facebook makes money on ads too, or supposedly will some time in the future. Even before I installed Chrome and blocked all ads, I can't recall ever seeing an ad on Facebook. I think they are off on the side somewhere, but I certainly never clicked on one. I don't even think their presence registered in my brain. I recently saw a discussion on the Bloomberg business cable channel about Facebook. The analysts were raving about it, saying how it is going to revolutionize marketing. They were estimating a worth of $50 billion or more. In their vision, Facebook users will network with their friends to rate and recommend products targeted to them. Who is going to bother? Why? Is that why people use Facebook? So they can tell their friends how much they like Jiffy Pop?

Then there is Groupon. Groupon started in November 2008, and expects to have a $15 billion IPO this year. It is said to be the fastest growing company ever, going from a value of zero to a billion in about a year. At least Groupon has a kind of product. Essentially, you get an email every day offering you a coupon for a deal at a local business. If enough people commit to the deal, the business is bound to it. If not, then the deal is off. I don't really see why this appeals to businesses. Is there some economy of scale where only if a certain number of people want, say, 50% off a haircut, is it worth it to offer? Or are businesses hoping most wont bother to redeem the coupon? I don't get it. Anyway, I signed up for this a month or two ago. After a couple of weeks I cancelled it. I just wasn't interested in the items they were offering at a discount. Half off a dinner at a restaurant I've never heard of. Twenty percent off a ticket to a band I don't like. When you think about it, what are the chances that a random coupon offered to you is going to be something you are interested in having? There are millions of products out there, of which I purchase I tiny, tiny fraction.

Are these businesses really worth this much? Is this all some sort of bizarre market bubble/speculation phenomenon? A modern-day Tulip mania? Maybe if I were a budding billionaire I would understand.