06-29-2007, 02:09 AM | #21 | |
Formerly known as MudPhudCoug
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Land of desolation
Posts: 2,548
|
Quote:
|
|
06-29-2007, 02:10 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
And other nations suffer the consequences. How are we naked compared to other nations?
|
06-29-2007, 02:12 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
The fastest-growing economies in the past generation have mixed some level of planning into their market economies. For example, the WSJ has dubbed Japan "the most successful communist economy."
Especially in countries that are catching up, government can keep businesses at the forefront of technology. There are actions beneficial to an economy that private firms don't see. For example, in industrial organization (a branch of micro) there's a concept called "clusters." A tech company would benefit from having other tech firms around it. In this case, the government can build a science park to encourage firms to set up shop. The firm then has the assurance that there will be others firms near him which he can feed off of. As for government workers being idiots, we've created a culture of depicting bureaucrats as Dept. of Commerce idiots who waste taxpayer dollars posting on Cougarguard. In some cultures, there is historical prestige associated with bureacrats, as men who passed tough civil service examinations. Hence governments attract the best minds. Duty is enough to motivate him. John McCain appears to want to foster this kind of attitude, as he summoned the CEO of Sun to head to DC to help solve our problems. Things that benefit more than the person engaging in it, like health, R&D, are always underfunded by the private sector. It takes a social planner to get the country get closer to the optimal level. The government has recognized this and established the NSF, NIH, created the discipline of computer science, etc. There are some things the private sector just won't do. |
06-29-2007, 02:12 AM | #24 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Boise
Posts: 261
|
Quote:
By lowering barriers to trade with other nations, we increase total economic productivity, with at least some benefit being spread around to each side. The more free trade occurs, the more the wealth gets spread around, and the more averaged out we all become. The good news is that the averaged-out level increases by the increase in productivity due to specialization, low trade barriers, etc. The question is: would the averaged-out standard of living of a global, totally free market, economy be lower or higher than our current, national, standard of living? In my mind, it would be lower. |
|
06-29-2007, 02:16 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
|
06-29-2007, 02:24 AM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
higher. you said yourself that we will gain from trade, and that both sides will benefit. how can our standard of living get lower? you can't "average out" when both sides are going up. trade will definitely affect the distribution of wealth in the US. due to globalization, median wages have remained stagnant while major gains have been made at the top. |
|
06-29-2007, 02:32 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Gotham City
Posts: 7,157
|
Quote:
Exactly. If the disparity were slight, it wouldn't be a big deal. But the disparity is huge. If we want free market to run its course, that's fine, but we have to be realistic about what we're looking at here. We can't pretend that standard of living will remain the same. |
|
06-29-2007, 02:34 AM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
|
|
06-29-2007, 02:35 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
Barbara, the other countries are giving their kids steroids. It's bad for them in the long run. Don't insist our kids take them too. |
|
06-29-2007, 02:37 AM | #30 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Markets need to run freely in a manner most efficient.
Monopolies are not efficient and must therefore be opposed. Monopolies act therefore like governments, sluggish, bloated and inefficient. Around the fringes some minimal regulation is needed. And society demands certain minimum safety nets. But the best regulator of the markets are the money supplies.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
Bookmarks |
|
|