|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Sense (For a New American Century)
| quote: | Originally posted by DaveSaenz
I don't advocate more restrictions on guns at the federal level and would leave that up to the states, I don't favor taxing those who can least afford to pay as the current administration has done (directly or indirectly), and furthermore, if we had no government regulation over matters economic, 10 year olds would be working 15 hour days in dangerous American factories for one dollar a day as they once did in times past, and as young children are working presently in many third world countries that American companies outsource jobs to in order to exploit the indigenous people for the increased wealth of a few at the top. Answer me this Occrider, who is going to be able to afford Nike shoes, Levi's jeans, SBC internet service, AT&T phone service, or Dell PCs if all of our American jobs are sent overseas to exploit the workforce there? It's not even solely manufacturing jobs anymore, but now public service, hi-tech, and engineering jobs as well.
|
Outsourcing is an inevitable necessity needed to modernize and facilitate economic development and productivity of the work force. Essentially one must think of it this way ... if an American company were to not outsource unecessary labor that could be accomplshied far more cheaply overceas, what would become of that company in the face of competition with foreign firms that possess that distinct competitive advantages? One could simply look at the failing steel industry that has attempted to maintain jobs in the US as an example of what would happen. In the end the only result are unproductive industrities and inefficient markets that arose as a result of misconceived trade protectionism policies. Bush tried it and it failed. Are we to criticize bush on every policy except the ones that go against typical party doctrine? Here's a somewhat decent analysis of what exactly goes on with outsourcing that I posted in another thread:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/inve...,565912,00.html
| quote: |
If we had no government regulation, industry would have carte blanche as they do in Texas to pollute as much as they want without accountability to the health of the air, water, land, and therefore to public health. Of course the Bush Administration in 3 years has almost completely dismantled, or rewritten all of our Nation's environmental laws, and has tried its best to impose the failed Texan pollution model on America. Please spare me the bullshit about how all market regulations are bad and harmful to the people, because I just came back from the most polluted city in America (Houston), where grass hardly even grows, and you can barely see the full moon at night through the brown choking cloud that you can smell miles before entering the city (let alone the stars). Thank you President Bush for your wonderful "voluntary compliance" gubernatorial mandate for big industry. Those people in Houston who drink the Radon contaminated drinking water, those with asthma, emphysema, chemical allergies and sensitivities, those mothers bearing children with horrible birth defects due to pollution are all so much better off. Thank you President Bush, you truly are a man's man.
Remind me again Occrider how "free markets" are truly free if they are rigged against the health, safety, and prosperity of the common man, woman and child? I’d love to hear it.
|
I never stated that all market regulations are bad. As a matter of fact, I think that if you would care to do a search for my history of economic analysis on this forum I always took note of the theory of market externalities. Market externalities being that when the activity of one entity (person or firm) directly affects the welfare of another in a way that is not transmitted by market prices, that effect is called an externality, and as a result, reuglations need to be put in place to compensate for said externalities(and in actuality, market incentives would be a far better approach towards acheiving change rather than regulation). Any accredited economist who does not take into account this clearly established economic theory is an idiot. Trust me, I majored in Public Finance which specializes in the theory of public goods and when the government should involve itself in free markets .
With respects to your last statement:
| quote: |
"Remind me again Occrider how "free markets" are truly free if they are rigged against the health, safety, and prosperity of the common man, woman and child? I’d love to hear it."
|
I love a challenge ... so allow me to explain. Free markets are rigged against health, safety, and "prosperity" of the common man because they are inherentely flawed and not truly "free" to their full economic extent. Fundementaly, an externality is a consequence of the failure or inability to establish property rights. If a company were to pollute a river, it would have no incentive to NOT pollute that river because it is not owned. If someone owned that river, a price would have to be paid for its use and no externality would materialize.
For example, if Lisa owned the river, she could charge Bart, the factory owner, a fee for polluting that river reflecting damage done to her catch. Bart would then take these additional costs into account when factoring in decisions to emitt wastes. As long as someone owns a resource, its price reflects the value for alternative uses, and the resource is therefore used efficiently (in the absence of other market failures). In contrast, resources that are owned in common are abused because no one has incentive to economize their use. Therefore free market technically propogate the well being of all parties involved ... the fact of the matter is that the application of free markets are inherentely flawed and therefore SOME government intervention is needed.
___________________
Retro ...
|
Dean is the most promising candidate? Dean's main strategy was to simply rip Bush off of his pedestal (which that was amusing- for a while) and to insult Bush and his tactics throughout his campaign. He avoids answering major questions dealing with the economy and decisions he would make and goes around in circles. Take a look 
. Which makes him all the more attractive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Common Sense (For a New American Century)
)
You're right about Clark though, I doubt Karl can do as much against the guy.
