I'm a techie, and it seems to me, that this is what they call a hybridization problem. To be a people person, managing people, is a JOB, it takes alot of getting used to, and a lot of work. Same with programming, or IT in general, there's a lot of skills to keep on top of, and a continually changing marketplace. So getting a hybrid person who's great at managing people and knowing who to put in charge of what, but who's also great at knowing exactly how to harness and guide technology, you're probably going to have to sacrifice parts of one aspect or another. So better someone strong at getting the right people under him in the right positions (*coughs*) than someone who knows all their technology, but not how to delegate to get things -done-.

While I get what you were trying to say, your illustration sucks because you posit some product that costs the company 0$ to make. If the product costs 10$, then the company sells 10 and makes 900$ in the first case and sells 1000 and makes 0$ in the second case. The direct connection between lowered taxes and increased spending equaling increased government revenue is similarly much more complicated than you suggest. For my part, I don't know of many people who have the luxury of basing their spending habits on the insignificant changes to the federal tax rate. If they are going to buy something, they don't wait for the federal tax rate to lower, that's for sure.