>I understand where you're coming from.
>
>I should clarify: reducing taxes only has benefit when the role and size of the government overall is reduced.
>
>And you're right....it just doesn't "happen". And Reagan is an excellent example (though not for the reasons many would believe)
>
>The grandest irony (or fraud) of "Reaganomics" and the "supply-side" theory was the plan of tax incentives to stimulate the economy and ultimately generate MORE revenue for the govt.
>
>The joke was on Reagan (in many ways), as some took the additional money and elected to invest. Overall, it backfired, and led to deficits. Stockman, for all his issues, was really the only one advocating a reduction in the size of the federal govt.
>
>What came out of it was the common notion of equating Republican policies with free market economics, and concluding that capitalism leads to these problems. (Sort of like blaming free market economics with the start of the Great Depression, because it occured under Herbert Hoover).
>
>As much as people slammed Jimmy Carter, the truth is that the size of the federal govt increased DRAMATICALLY under Reagan, and not just because of defense spending.
>
>If Nike starts selling shoes for $200, it won't take long for someone to come in and offer same/comparable value for less money.
>
It's been a sort of truism in the cosmetics industry that if you want to increase sales, you raise the prices. I think the same is true in the athletic shoe industry. It's not a question of Nike and others starting to sell shoes for $200.00; they already do, and people buy them. My brother is a good example of "if it costs more, it must be better". It's pretty much how he and my sister in law shop. And they're not alone.

>The greatest strength of a country in a free market is the middle class.
>
>Kevin