Economic Freedom

[Dragon]

It is no accident that those countries with the most economic freedom are also the most vibrant and growing.

While it's true that that is not an "accident," it is also not a fact. The most "economic freedom" as you are using that phrase is found in third-world dirt-poor countries. The most vibrant and growing economies are found in the advanced world: western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All of those countries, including the U.S., have more restraints on the rich and on big business than is typically found in poor countries.

 

[WatertheTree]

It is no accident that those countries with the most economic freedom are also the most vibrant and growing.

While it's true that that is not an "accident," it is also not a fact. The most "economic freedom" as you are using that phrase is found in third-world dirt-poor countries. The most vibrant and growing economies are found in the advanced world: western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. All of those countries, including the U.S., have more restraints on the rich and on big business than is typically found in poor countries.

If what your saying is true can you explain to me why virtually your entire list of advanced worlds are drowning in debt??

 

[Dragon]

If what your saying is true can you explain to me why virtually your entire list of advanced worlds are drowning in debt??

They are not. In debt, yes; "drowning" in it, no; the problem of public debt is grossly exaggerated as far as its seriousness. And the answer to why most of them (outside the U.S.) are in debt is simply because of the recent recession, which caused a temporary drop in tax revenues and an increase in public-welfare expense. No real mystery. (In the U.S., while that factor is operative, we also face the history of Republican governments that have used deficit spending as an underhanded way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich.)

Debt or no debt, the fact remains that the most prosperous economies in the world are all ones that adopt a mixed approach combining elements of capitalism and socialism, NOT the ones that approach closest to a "pure" free-market capitalist approach.

 

[flacaltenn]

If what your saying is true can you explain to me why virtually your entire list of advanced worlds are drowning in debt??

They are not. In debt, yes; "drowning" in it, no; the problem of public debt is grossly exaggerated as far as its seriousness. And the answer to why most of them (outside the U.S.) are in debt is simply because of the recent recession, which caused a temporary drop in tax revenues and an increase in public-welfare expense. No real mystery. (In the U.S., while that factor is operative, we also face the history of Republican governments that have used deficit spending as an underhanded way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich.)

Debt or no debt, the fact remains that the most prosperous economies in the world are all ones that adopt a mixed approach combining elements of capitalism and socialism, NOT the ones that approach closest to a "pure" free-market capitalist approach.

It CEASES to be a "mixed-market" approach when RISK is socialized while profit is privatized. It CEASES to a "mixed market" approach when GOVT favors BIG biz over newly created innovative competitors. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when GOVT blindly dictates the actual DESIGN of products. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" when GOVT officials can tell regulators "to back off". It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when products that are already CREATED and on the market continue to recieve subsidies. It CEASES to be "a mixed market" approach when GOVT INTENTIONALLY fuels and encourages bubbles. And so it goes.... The "social justice" meddling is one thing. Trying to dictate wages, benefits, and taxes. But it's another thing ENTIRELY when idiot pinheads with NO KNOWLEDGE of the market start to toss LOADS of taxpayer cash around.. Care to buy any shares of GM today given that we KNOW GOVT is sitting on a majority share that will eventually get dumped?

 

[MiddleClass]

If I can find someone who willingly works for a buck an hour, why should someone else, including the gov't, say that is unfair? If I can get parts and materials cheaper from foreign lands, isn't that my perogative?

Spoken like a true Capitalistic Pig - sounding much like those on Wall Street who destroyed our economy last decade. It is UnAmerican Swines like this one who should be rooted out and diminished. America Deserves better than this.

 

[flacaltenn]

If I can find someone who willingly works for a buck an hour, why should someone else, including the gov't, say that is unfair? If I can get parts and materials cheaper from foreign lands, isn't that my perogative?

Spoken like a true Capitalistic Pig - sounding much like those on Wall Street who destroyed our economy last decade. It is UnAmerican Swines like this one who should be rooted out and diminished. America Deserves better than this.

U need to THINK before you lash out.. Internships, tech co-ops, apprenticeships, and other starting positions can be just as valuable as PAYING for education. So while I agree with you that "dead-end" jobs should have a Minimum Wage -- and that those jobs should be considered transistory -- There's a very good argument for allowing entry level folks to be TRAINED at lower or even NO wages at all.. Did you ever see the movie "Pursuit of Happyness?".

 

[Dragon]

It CEASES to be a "mixed-market" approach when RISK is socialized while profit is privatized. It CEASES to a "mixed market" approach when GOVT favors BIG biz over newly created innovative competitors. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when GOVT blindly dictates the actual DESIGN of products. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" when GOVT officials can tell regulators "to back off". It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when products that are already CREATED and on the market continue to recieve subsidies. It CEASES to be "a mixed market" approach when GOVT INTENTIONALLY fuels and encourages bubbles

All true. In fact, a modern, advanced economy requires high levels of government intervention even to exist. As all of your examples show, it's not really a question of whether or not the government will intervene, but rather how and on whose behalf.

With a political system as corrupt as ours, that kind of perverse government involvement becomes inevitable.

 

[Old Rocks]

If what your saying is true can you explain to me why virtually your entire list of advanced worlds are drowning in debt??

They are not. In debt, yes; "drowning" in it, no; the problem of public debt is grossly exaggerated as far as its seriousness. And the answer to why most of them (outside the U.S.) are in debt is simply because of the recent recession, which caused a temporary drop in tax revenues and an increase in public-welfare expense. No real mystery. (In the U.S., while that factor is operative, we also face the history of Republican governments that have used deficit spending as an underhanded way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich.)

Debt or no debt, the fact remains that the most prosperous economies in the world are all ones that adopt a mixed approach combining elements of capitalism and socialism, NOT the ones that approach closest to a "pure" free-market capitalist approach.

It CEASES to be a "mixed-market" approach when RISK is socialized while profit is privatized. It CEASES to a "mixed market" approach when GOVT favors BIG biz over newly created innovative competitors. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when GOVT blindly dictates the actual DESIGN of products. It CEASES to be a "mixed market" when GOVT officials can tell regulators "to back off". It CEASES to be a "mixed market" approach when products that are already CREATED and on the market continue to recieve subsidies. It CEASES to be "a mixed market" approach when GOVT INTENTIONALLY fuels and encourages bubbles. And so it goes.... The "social justice" meddling is one thing. Trying to dictate wages, benefits, and taxes. But it's another thing ENTIRELY when idiot pinheads with NO KNOWLEDGE of the market start to toss LOADS of taxpayer cash around.. Care to buy any shares of GM today given that we KNOW GOVT is sitting on a majority share that will eventually get dumped?

Yes, the bubble was intentionally fueled. By those that passed the repeal of Glass-Steagal, by the Bush admin when it encouraged substandard lending. By those at the heads of the big banks when they purposely sold poisonous bundled of mortgages without regard to what that was going to do to the economy. A great deal of blame to be had by both the business community and the government. And the Democrats are only less to blame because they failed to come up with a K-Street Strategy.

Now, what do we do to get the economy going again? Stimulas? Let everything crash, and start over again? Continue down the path to oligarchy, and let the people that created this economy continue to run it?

I understand machinery, not complex economics. But I can see that more of the same is not the answer. And letting everything crash sure doesn't appeal to me. Nor do many of the solutions proposed by the outer wings of both parties. Time for some intelligent review of what went wrong, and how we can get it right.

 

[Old Rocks]

If I can find someone who willingly works for a buck an hour, why should someone else, including the gov't, say that is unfair? If I can get parts and materials cheaper from foreign lands, isn't that my perogative?

Spoken like a true Capitalistic Pig - sounding much like those on Wall Street who destroyed our economy last decade. It is UnAmerican Swines like this one who should be rooted out and diminished. America Deserves better than this.

U need to THINK before you lash out.. Internships, tech co-ops, apprenticeships, and other starting positions can be just as valuable as PAYING for education. So while I agree with you that "dead-end" jobs should have a Minimum Wage -- and that those jobs should be considered transistory -- There's a very good argument for allowing entry level folks to be TRAINED at lower or even NO wages at all.. Did you ever see the movie "Pursuit of Happyness?".

Well, my parents certainly had no spare money that would have allowed me to work for free. However, having said that, the government sponsorship of Community Colleges gave me the oppertunity to get a technical education while working at a entry level job. And exposed me to college level classes, which resulted in gaining an additional three years of classes in Geology.

Where I work we have Apprentice programs for Millwrights, Electricians, and Automation people. These are four year courses that start at entry level wages and end with a journey level wage. The company pays for the classes as long as the apprentice attends the classes and makes the grades. A modern factory has to have trained people, even the production people are no longer untrained.

And, for oldtimers like myself, they pay a higher wage to keep the knowledge working for them. And place many of the apprentices with us for periods to learn the many 'tricks' of the trade. We are non-union, yet we, because of a profit sharing plan, make more than most union shops. And we pay for and routinely use the training facilities of the unions.

 

[Wiseacre]

If I can find someone who willingly works for a buck an hour, why should someone else, including the gov't, say that is unfair? If I can get parts and materials cheaper from foreign lands, isn't that my perogative?

Spoken like a true Capitalistic Pig - sounding much like those on Wall Street who destroyed our economy last decade. It is UnAmerican Swines like this one who should be rooted out and diminished. America Deserves better than this.

Nice vitriol - but a little short on logic or explanation. If you apply for a minimum wage job, where the employer tells you what the benefits are, then it's your call as to whether or not to take the job if offered. Or you can leave at a later date if a better job comes along. There's no cheating, lying, or immorality going on here, both sides are essentially agreeing to a contract - services rendered for a specified compensation.

Some say the employer should offer a higher wage than what the job calls for. Nonsense, if you've got 10 guys applying for a minimum wage job, it makes no sense to pay somebody more than that. That's not immoral, that's keeping costs down and profits up, which is the basic right of every business person.

As far as I'm concerned, it's about time people starting taking responsibility for their actions. If you have no skills that are worth a larger pay check, that's on you not the employer. As evidenced in some of the posts here, we have a society that has come to expect more than they have earned. Sorry, not in my book; it is not an employer's duty to make your life easier, nor is it the gov'ts.


But who's fault is it that a prospective employee does not have the skills necessary to command a higher salary?

 

[Dragon]

One thing I've noticed about economic conservatives is that they want to look at everything in terms of a one-on-one interaction, and seem either reluctant or imperfectly able to consider things in a larger context. The real problem is the collective action that sets the rules and parameters governing who has the bargaining power in a supposedly "free" contractual interaction.

For example, suppose you are a computer programmer looking for a job. If the government, at the behest of the software industry and in response to its lobbying and bribes, hands out work visas like tissue paper to multitudes of Indian and Pakistani software engineers who flood the labor market and accept lower wages than the U.S. standard, the wage you are going to be in a position to ask for your work will be lower than it would be otherwise. This is a factor completely outside the one-on-one interaction between you and the employer which materially impacts your well-being. And it's just one example.

All negotiations occur in a context. Whether the company had an outsourcing alternative, whether there is a union, whether immigrants are driving the wages down, all of these impact the balance of bargaining power in one direction or another, and all of them are affected by government policies. Those policies and their consequences are the target of progressive criticism most of the time, rather than individual hiring decisions by individual companies.

 

[flacaltenn]

One thing I've noticed about economic conservatives is that they want to look at everything in terms of a one-on-one interaction, and seem either reluctant or imperfectly able to consider things in a larger context. The real problem is the collective action that sets the rules and parameters governing who has the bargaining power in a supposedly "free" contractual interaction.

For example, suppose you are a computer programmer looking for a job. If the government, at the behest of the software industry and in response to its lobbying and bribes, hands out work visas like tissue paper to multitudes of Indian and Pakistani software engineers who flood the labor market and accept lower wages than the U.S. standard, the wage you are going to be in a position to ask for your work will be lower than it would be otherwise. This is a factor completely outside the one-on-one interaction between you and the employer which materially impacts your well-being. And it's just one example.

All negotiations occur in a context. Whether the company had an outsourcing alternative, whether there is a union, whether immigrants are driving the wages down, all of these impact the balance of bargaining power in one direction or another, and all of them are affected by government policies. Those policies and their consequences are the target of progressive criticism most of the time, rather than individual hiring decisions by individual companies.

As a former Silicon Valley exec -- I can tell you that H1B visas need to be JUSTIFIED. Meaning that you have to show efforts to hire domestic workers. This is not hard at all considering that almost 35% of the folks graduating from our Colleges of Engineering and Sciences are already "foreigners" on student visas. HIGHER for Graduate slots!!! You keep blaming industry for perpetuating problems without realizing you are distracting from actually FIXING the workforce problems. And that would entail a TIGHTER FRIENDLIER relationship between industry professionals and education so that we could RECLAIM those "jobs that American kids just won't do"... I'd like to see a couple train loads of inner city black youth actually choosing to enroll in those College seats. You think laying siege to 300 Billionaires is gonna get that done eh Dragon?

 

[Wiseacre]

One thing I've noticed about economic conservatives is that they want to look at everything in terms of a one-on-one interaction, and seem either reluctant or imperfectly able to consider things in a larger context. The real problem is the collective action that sets the rules and parameters governing who has the bargaining power in a supposedly "free" contractual interaction.

For example, suppose you are a computer programmer looking for a job. If the government, at the behest of the software industry and in response to its lobbying and bribes, hands out work visas like tissue paper to multitudes of Indian and Pakistani software engineers who flood the labor market and accept lower wages than the U.S. standard, the wage you are going to be in a position to ask for your work will be lower than it would be otherwise. This is a factor completely outside the one-on-one interaction between you and the employer which materially impacts your well-being. And it's just one example.

All negotiations occur in a context. Whether the company had an outsourcing alternative, whether there is a union, whether immigrants are driving the wages down, all of these impact the balance of bargaining power in one direction or another, and all of them are affected by government policies. Those policies and their consequences are the target of progressive criticism most of the time, rather than individual hiring decisions by individual companies.

That's all true Dragon, but you're talking about gov't policies while many liberals are blaming the employers for making decisions about hiring and wages that the liberals think are unjust or immoral. We see threads in here every day or so about the living wage and why employers won't pay it and how wrong or unfair it all is. My point is, if the business is following the law then whatever their compensation policies are is really their issue to deal with and they'llhave to deal with whatever the repercussions are if they underpay their people.

If the business decides to outsource or build facilities outside the US, they have a right to do so. It's not wrong, it's not unfair, it's not unpatriotic, and it's not immoral to make as much money as possible as long as it's legally done. You can call me a capitalist pig if you want to, my feelings ain't hurt. But when we as a country start moving away from free market capitalism and adopt socialistic policies to control wages and prices, then our economy suffers. It will not be as strong or sustained as it would have been.

 

[WatertheTree]

If what your saying is true can you explain to me why virtually your entire list of advanced worlds are drowning in debt??

They are not. In debt, yes; "drowning" in it, no; the problem of public debt is grossly exaggerated as far as its seriousness. And the answer to why most of them (outside the U.S.) are in debt is simply because of the recent recession, which caused a temporary drop in tax revenues and an increase in public-welfare expense. No real mystery. (In the U.S., while that factor is operative, we also face the history of Republican governments that have used deficit spending as an underhanded way to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the rich.)

Debt or no debt, the fact remains that the most prosperous economies in the world are all ones that adopt a mixed approach combining elements of capitalism and socialism, NOT the ones that approach closest to a "pure" free-market capitalist approach.

Grossly exaggerated as far as its seriousness?

STOP SPENDING OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE ON YOUR INSTANT GRATIFICATION.

We year ago we were paying 337k a day in interest on the debt, today its almost double that. Thats not serious??? The dollar has lost 96% of its purchasing power, thats not serious??

Both the IMF and World Bank are calling for a new global currency, a direct threat to the dollar as a reserve currency, and thats not serious??

I dont know of a single economist other then greenspan that says the debt is not serious. Its really pretty simple. They have printed tons of money. Banks with have to increase interest rates to pull that fake money out of circulation to avoid huge inflation. When interest rates go up they go up for the government aswell. Then all the bickering about cutting spending will be a non issue, because interest on the debt will dominate all federal spending.

Look if you dont know what your talking about then just shut the fuck up. Nobody likes the guy who talkes like he knows something but doesnt know shit.

 

[WatertheTree]

One thing I've noticed about economic conservatives is that they want to look at everything in terms of a one-on-one interaction, and seem either reluctant or imperfectly able to consider things in a larger context. The real problem is the collective action that sets the rules and parameters governing who has the bargaining power in a supposedly "free" contractual interaction.

For example, suppose you are a computer programmer looking for a job. If the government, at the behest of the software industry and in response to its lobbying and bribes, hands out work visas like tissue paper to multitudes of Indian and Pakistani software engineers who flood the labor market and accept lower wages than the U.S. standard, the wage you are going to be in a position to ask for your work will be lower than it would be otherwise. This is a factor completely outside the one-on-one interaction between you and the employer which materially impacts your well-being. And it's just one example.

All negotiations occur in a context. Whether the company had an outsourcing alternative, whether there is a union, whether immigrants are driving the wages down, all of these impact the balance of bargaining power in one direction or another, and all of them are affected by government policies. Those policies and their consequences are the target of progressive criticism most of the time, rather than individual hiring decisions by individual companies.

As a former Silicon Valley exec -- I can tell you that H1B visas need to be JUSTIFIED. Meaning that you have to show efforts to hire domestic workers. This is not hard at all considering that almost 35% of the folks graduating from our Colleges of Engineering and Sciences are already "foreigners" on student visas. HIGHER for Graduate slots!!! You keep blaming industry for perpetuating problems without realizing you are distracting from actually FIXING the workforce problems. And that would entail a TIGHTER FRIENDLIER relationship between industry professionals and education so that we could RECLAIM those "jobs that American kids just won't do"... I'd like to see a couple train loads of inner city black youth actually choosing to enroll in those College seats. You think laying siege to 300 Billionaires is gonna get that done eh Dragon?

An inner city negro only cares about rap music, hoes, money, and drugs. They lack the mental capacity to learn advanced mathamatics. It requires to much effort to study.

 

[uscitizen]

Both in economics and public conduct, one's freedom only extends to where the next person's toes begin. That is the why and wherefore of enviromental laws.

Apparently you have a problem understanding socioeconomics...

Unlike supply and demand I'm talking about cause and effect..

Cause and effect like unregulated polloution causing problems for others?

 

[Dragon]

That's all true Dragon, but you're talking about gov't policies while many liberals are blaming the employers for making decisions about hiring and wages that the liberals think are unjust or immoral.

I believe you are misunderstanding the arguments that are being presented. Or at least, I would never advance an argument like that.

A corporation, after all, is a legal embodiment of naked greed in service to no purpose more noble than the enrichment of its owners. To expect it to act morally is quite unrealistic. In any competitive business environment, business sinks to the level of depravity allowed by law. Any action, however appalling, that provides a competitive advantage will be taken by business. Those that don't, will be driven out of business by their more ruthless competitors.

If the law allowed businesses to hire assassins to rub out the competition, it would be standard practice. Not because all businesspeople are murderers, but simply because those of them who are not, would not live long. That such actions are illegal makes room in the economy for business owners who are not murderous thugs.

Therefore, if business is behaving badly, the proper blame does not fall on business owners, whom we should expect to behave as badly as they are allowed to, but rather on government for allowing it.

 

[WatertheTree]

Both in economics and public conduct, one's freedom only extends to where the next person's toes begin. That is the why and wherefore of enviromental laws.

Apparently you have a problem understanding socioeconomics...

Unlike supply and demand I'm talking about cause and effect..

Cause and effect like unregulated polloution causing problems for others?

Causing pollution would be and should be resolved by simply empowing our justice system. Why do we need another branch of government, when we should just expand the judical system and the civil courts.

to sum it up, enviornmental policy is set and administered by the EPA, which is bought and paid for by big business. Tort reform aims to shield business from civil justice. And so that is why the EPA must go.

 

[uscitizen]

Apparently you have a problem understanding socioeconomics...

Unlike supply and demand I'm talking about cause and effect..

Cause and effect like unregulated polloution causing problems for others?

Causing pollution would be and should be resolved by simply empowing our justice system. Why do we need another branch of government, when we should just expand the judical system and the civil courts.

to sum it up, enviornmental policy is set and administered by the EPA, which is bought and paid for by big business. Tort reform aims to shield business from civil justice. And so that is why the EPA must go.

The judicial system is already overloaded.
Nor are they specialists in polution.

besides who enofrces the anti pollution laws is totally beside the point for my statement about cause and effect of polution.

 

[flacaltenn]

One thing I've noticed about economic conservatives is that they want to look at everything in terms of a one-on-one interaction, and seem either reluctant or imperfectly able to consider things in a larger context. The real problem is the collective action that sets the rules and parameters governing who has the bargaining power in a supposedly "free" contractual interaction.

For example, suppose you are a computer programmer looking for a job. If the government, at the behest of the software industry and in response to its lobbying and bribes, hands out work visas like tissue paper to multitudes of Indian and Pakistani software engineers who flood the labor market and accept lower wages than the U.S. standard, the wage you are going to be in a position to ask for your work will be lower than it would be otherwise. This is a factor completely outside the one-on-one interaction between you and the employer which materially impacts your well-being. And it's just one example.

All negotiations occur in a context. Whether the company had an outsourcing alternative, whether there is a union, whether immigrants are driving the wages down, all of these impact the balance of bargaining power in one direction or another, and all of them are affected by government policies. Those policies and their consequences are the target of progressive criticism most of the time, rather than individual hiring decisions by individual companies.

As a former Silicon Valley exec -- I can tell you that H1B visas need to be JUSTIFIED. Meaning that you have to show efforts to hire domestic workers. This is not hard at all considering that almost 35% of the folks graduating from our Colleges of Engineering and Sciences are already "foreigners" on student visas. HIGHER for Graduate slots!!! You keep blaming industry for perpetuating problems without realizing you are distracting from actually FIXING the workforce problems. And that would entail a TIGHTER FRIENDLIER relationship between industry professionals and education so that we could RECLAIM those "jobs that American kids just won't do"... I'd like to see a couple train loads of inner city black youth actually choosing to enroll in those College seats. You think laying siege to 300 Billionaires is gonna get that done eh Dragon?

An inner city negro only cares about rap music, hoes, money, and drugs. They lack the mental capacity to learn advanced mathamatics. It requires to much effort to study.

Actually -- my favorite all-time Leftist -- now Gov of California -- MoonBeam Brown, proved that to be wrong. After he took INCREDIBLE abuse from his own comrades in Oakland and created the "Oakland Military Academy" -- he showed that you COULD send trainloads of black inner city youth to college. Maybe even to great-paying science and engineering jobs.

It's difficult -- and you have to essentially re-mold their priorities with some tough discipline. But we SHOULD be offering inner city parents that options like that. If they manage to hip-hop thru High School or drop out -- you've lost the chance to produce something other than future inmates.