One can't help agree how bad public (government) policy impacts local manufacturing. High taxes make factories here uncompetitive with imports, no doubt about it.
But the investment of retailers is no less real than for manufacturers so why is it felt one industry deserves special favours and another doesn't?
Digging a little deeper, the question that should be asked is how society allows government to grow so large that it has such a voracious appetite for tax dollars, that they have to impose taxes on everything that moves in order to feed the beast?
Hence the problem faced by manufactures and importers alike.
So government picks winners and losers, in its wisdom, by supporting one group with tax breaks and concessions while others are taxed more to compensate. All in an attempt to gain support to continue their political agenda, not pursue policies that are best for economic growth.
This does not make the plea of manufacturers for these concessions wrong, it points to the bad public policy of borrowing and spending where tax levels have to be raised to pay for it.
Manufacturers are no less concerned with making a profit than other business people. Profits are vital to sustaining any business.
And there is something unseemly about having to cow tow to government to beg a reduction of a policy they know is damaging industry in general. But instead of reducing expenditures, they want to get more revenue. Something is wrong with that picture.
The cost of doing business is as real for everyone that attempts to run a profitable business and none can afford to lose money for long.
To quote Jim Powell from CATO.org, who says it better than me;
"Government attempts to pick winners are most likely to increase the amount of money lost betting on losers. This is because with the power to tax, subsidize and mandate, politicians are able to pour money into unprofitable projects that private investors would never touch voluntarily."
He closes his article by saying;
"As we know, entrepreneurs and investors back plenty of ventures that fail, but free market capitalism has a crucial advantage over government-run enterprises: namely, bankruptcy proceedings to limit the amount of money spent on unsuccessful business experiments. When a failed venture is shut down, resources are released for others to use. It is in free markets, where businesses must sink or swim, that entrepreneurs will have the easiest time attracting talent, capital and other resources needed for businesses of the future."
In the end, government pitting one industry against another to meet their lust for power off the backs of all taxpayers is maddening.
Revisiting the initial bad policy is the solution, not picking winners and losers.
