For those of you who desire government centrally controlled economies

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

Fair enough. I just thought that there was a correlation there. In both situations, our emotions (emotions arent bad) tempt us to give or do something for someone in order to provide rewards that they would have otherwise been able to obtain for themselves had they been sufficiently skilled or competitive in the first place. But because they weren't sufficiently skilled or competitive, the end result is the team/community/society as a whole is probably worse off. Is that way off base?

You're just assuming that the Coach's son isn't trying out, and a whole bunch of other things. But I get your point.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Like I said to begin with, It's not a vacuum. Other nations protect their workers. Why shouldn't we do the same?

You don't send your team onto the field naked if the opponents wear pads and helmets.

And other nations suffer the consequences. How are we naked compared to other nations?

[ChinoCoug]

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.

[Lost Student]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

And when our kids get cut from the football team, let's go yell at the principal and MAKE him/her force the coach to put our kids on the squad. The win/loss record for the team be damned, our kids should be on the team!

I don't know, I kind of agree with BG that eventually, the free market benefits of increased overall production will be outweighed by the reduction in standard of living in this country. Where is that point? I don't know; ask me when I lose my job to some guy in Jakarta.

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.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

And other nations suffer the consequences. How are we naked compared to other nations?

I agree. If other countries wanna screw themselves, let'em. Don't retaliate with more of the same.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Lost Student

I don't know, I kind of agree with BG that eventually, the free market benefits of increased overall production will be outweighed by the reduction in standard of living in this country. Where is that point? I don't know; ask me when I lose my job to some guy in Jakarta.

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.

Lost:

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.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

And other nations suffer the consequences. How are we naked compared to other nations?

We're asking our workers to compete with protected employees in other first-world nations (shorter work week, protection from layoffs). We're also asking them to compete with 12-year-olds in third-world countries. Perhaps ideally it would be a free market, but it's not. So we shouldn't pretend like it.

Originally Posted by Lost Student

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.

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.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

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.

explain to me how our standard of living gets lower when productivity is higher.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

We're asking our workers to compete with protected employees in other first-world nations (shorter work week, protection from layoffs). We're also asking them to compete with 12-year-olds in third-world countries. Perhaps ideally it would be a free market, but it's not. So we shouldn't pretend like it.

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.

[Archaea]

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.