"Beyond all the prattle about big and small government, this is the mega-irony of the Republican Party: that of all people conservatives ought to have been the first to grasp the dangers of unregulated markets. If big government is susceptible to the abuses of “sinful” human beings, how much more susceptible is a corporate system that is bigger than any government?"
---Garret Keizer, "Shine, perishing Republicans" - Harpers Magazine, April 2009
I have seen this argument used as evidence the conservative movement is hypocritical several times. If government should not be trusted, and we should work to reduce its size and power, why should we trust private business?
Simply put, government exists as a result of power and security it has created for itself. The government really can not go out of business. It can charge as much as it wants for its services. It creates the social system, and subsequent law enforcement structure, that we as a society must live under. The only chance for the government to go "out of business" is a loss in war or mass anarchy; both of which seem unlikely in the short term.
All this is correct except for one key fact; government functions and operates based on the private sector (obviously there are exceptions to this statement and the ones that follow). The government does not create its own wealth; it creates a system in which wealth can be created privately. This free-market style economy allows for a society to automatically adjust for its needs and wants, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. Whereas change in government is planned ahead of time and based on politics, change in business is more immediate, and based more on economics. This system produces competition and raises the standard for production by the members of the society; when you have to earn your own way, you produce better results collectively than when you wait for someone else to keep you alive (the case for less Capitalistic societies).
Government can not be trusted compared with private enterprise because it does not create its own wealth. It would take a lot more for government employees to feel like they are about to lose their economic livelihoods than those in private enterprise. Over 95% of government decisions are carried out by non-elected officials. A Pentagon employee's goal is likely to keep hiss boss happy. Besides a change in budget allocation or the departure of his immediate supervisor, he has nothing to worry about. Similarly, a private employee is generally safe except under the same two exceptions. However, it is far more likely a private employee will experience the first two conditions due to the free market economy private enterprise operates under. This ensures that private employees are more productive, and more competitive, raising the production level at their companies and contributing to the growth of this country.
Just my thoughts...This is obviously an extremely difficult topic to fully explain in a four paragraph blog. Please let me know which part of this I need to explain in more detail!
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
More Sanctions?
It looks like the world community will go the route of sanctions in response to North Korea's missile launch today. It seems this is the best option; however, I am not really sure what else we can do to this country in terms of sanctions.
Although President Bush, in response to positive steps in nuclear disarmament talks, terminated the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea in June 2008, there are still extensive sanctions against North Korea held by the United States (let alone the rest of the world). The most notable of these sanctions prevents the import of North Korean goods into the United States, either directly or indirectly.
I think the most logical sanction would be to prevent the export of American goods into North Korea. I am not quite sure what they would buy from us, but I do know the enactment of this measure by other countries (especially China) would certainly have negative consequences for their already dire economy.
An even smarter idea would be for every country to prohibit the travel of North Korean government personnel over their airspace. Doing so would prevent North Korean scientists and engineers from visiting their friends in Iran for nuclear technology pointers. Of course, for this to be effective we should also look into doing the same for Iran. I am sure North Korea could get around this policy through telephone or Internet, (and it would probably not be wise to cut off those resources) but it would at least make things more difficult for them.
The only items we should provide for this country should be humanitarian in nature, and even then there needs to be regulation of their distribution.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Although President Bush, in response to positive steps in nuclear disarmament talks, terminated the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to North Korea in June 2008, there are still extensive sanctions against North Korea held by the United States (let alone the rest of the world). The most notable of these sanctions prevents the import of North Korean goods into the United States, either directly or indirectly.
I think the most logical sanction would be to prevent the export of American goods into North Korea. I am not quite sure what they would buy from us, but I do know the enactment of this measure by other countries (especially China) would certainly have negative consequences for their already dire economy.
An even smarter idea would be for every country to prohibit the travel of North Korean government personnel over their airspace. Doing so would prevent North Korean scientists and engineers from visiting their friends in Iran for nuclear technology pointers. Of course, for this to be effective we should also look into doing the same for Iran. I am sure North Korea could get around this policy through telephone or Internet, (and it would probably not be wise to cut off those resources) but it would at least make things more difficult for them.
The only items we should provide for this country should be humanitarian in nature, and even then there needs to be regulation of their distribution.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Give the Guy some Credit
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/03/30/gm.ceo.compensation/index.html
From what I can tell, General Motors is a terribly run company. They has been losing market share for to both foreign and domestic competition for years, have been forced to downsize their operations, have under-invested in energy efficient cars, and had to take billions in federal bailout money just to survive. More importantly, their products have a terrible reputation. When I went to buy a car in 2006, I barely even gave the Cobalt a chance for fear it would just end up back at the dealer before my payments were through.
But for all the failures former CEO Wagner has presided over, you can not take away the credit he deserves for personally sacrifice. According to this article, upon receipt of federal bailout money, Wagner agreed to drop his salary to $1.00. Seeing as how many CEOs and top executives from big corporations are hell-bent on ripping off the tax payer as much as possible, I thought it only fair to give some credit where credit is due.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
How bad would it suck to be told by the President of the United States, effectively, "you're fired?"
From what I can tell, General Motors is a terribly run company. They has been losing market share for to both foreign and domestic competition for years, have been forced to downsize their operations, have under-invested in energy efficient cars, and had to take billions in federal bailout money just to survive. More importantly, their products have a terrible reputation. When I went to buy a car in 2006, I barely even gave the Cobalt a chance for fear it would just end up back at the dealer before my payments were through.
But for all the failures former CEO Wagner has presided over, you can not take away the credit he deserves for personally sacrifice. According to this article, upon receipt of federal bailout money, Wagner agreed to drop his salary to $1.00. Seeing as how many CEOs and top executives from big corporations are hell-bent on ripping off the tax payer as much as possible, I thought it only fair to give some credit where credit is due.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
How bad would it suck to be told by the President of the United States, effectively, "you're fired?"
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Interesting Source
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29912977/
Well, at least Iran is contributing something to society besides oil! Do you hear that, Great Britain?!?!
Its 5:30am on Saturday morning; my choices were to post this or talk about North Korea getting ready to test fire a missile that could reach Hawaii with a nuclear warhead. Sweet Jesus, what is this world coming to! Besides labeling North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" and taking away Kim Jong Il's iPod accessibility, I do not really think we have done much of anything unilaterally to deserve this!
I was going to look up some statistics on the amount of humanitarian aid we give this country, but I stopped after reading this article. Apparently, our humanitarian assistance to North Korea is no longer required: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/north-korea-can.html. At least they will not send missiles over our food shipments.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Well, at least Iran is contributing something to society besides oil! Do you hear that, Great Britain?!?!
Its 5:30am on Saturday morning; my choices were to post this or talk about North Korea getting ready to test fire a missile that could reach Hawaii with a nuclear warhead. Sweet Jesus, what is this world coming to! Besides labeling North Korea as part of the "axis of evil" and taking away Kim Jong Il's iPod accessibility, I do not really think we have done much of anything unilaterally to deserve this!
I was going to look up some statistics on the amount of humanitarian aid we give this country, but I stopped after reading this article. Apparently, our humanitarian assistance to North Korea is no longer required: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2009/03/north-korea-can.html. At least they will not send missiles over our food shipments.
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Republican Proposal
The President stated in his press conference Tuesday night that Republicans have failed to propose their own budget. I knew it, everyone else listening knew it, and I am sure Obama knew it was coming as well; the Republicans unleashed their own budget today.
While very short on details, the differences between the two plans are startling. Obama's plan places a key emphasis on government spending to get the economy rolling again ($3.6 trillion in proposed spending with a conservatively estimated $1.2 trillion deficit, compared with Bush's final budget proposal of $3.0 trillion with a $400 billion deficit), while the Republican plan calls for massive tax cuts across the board.
How massive? Under the Republican plan, the tax rate would drop to 10% for people making $100,000 or less (I assume that means household income). Republicans also promise to lower capital gains taxes and give a 20% tax break to companies employing less than 500 people. The plan also promises to cut government spending below current levels, but does not give specifics as to which programs could be cut (I assume there will have to be some cuts).
Although I am not familiar with the details (and apparently either are the Republicans), I think it is a better long term strategy to cut taxes and government spending. Doing so will promote business growth here in the United States (companies will have more money to employee people and spend on research and development), and people will have more money at their disposal, allowing the free-market economy to work its magic. Less money going to the government will mean a better chance at increasing wealth in the country, and will help pay down the national debt and raise the value of our currency.
I do hope the Republican plan does not cut energy and education. In fact, I still maintain the position that I would be OK with increases in spending in these two areas (as I view them as essential to a strong economy).
Here are some pretty cool sites I stumbled upon:
1) United States total debt (updated daily): http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
2) History of United States budgets: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
3) Where the money went in fiscal year 2008: http://www.federalbudget.com/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
While very short on details, the differences between the two plans are startling. Obama's plan places a key emphasis on government spending to get the economy rolling again ($3.6 trillion in proposed spending with a conservatively estimated $1.2 trillion deficit, compared with Bush's final budget proposal of $3.0 trillion with a $400 billion deficit), while the Republican plan calls for massive tax cuts across the board.
How massive? Under the Republican plan, the tax rate would drop to 10% for people making $100,000 or less (I assume that means household income). Republicans also promise to lower capital gains taxes and give a 20% tax break to companies employing less than 500 people. The plan also promises to cut government spending below current levels, but does not give specifics as to which programs could be cut (I assume there will have to be some cuts).
Although I am not familiar with the details (and apparently either are the Republicans), I think it is a better long term strategy to cut taxes and government spending. Doing so will promote business growth here in the United States (companies will have more money to employee people and spend on research and development), and people will have more money at their disposal, allowing the free-market economy to work its magic. Less money going to the government will mean a better chance at increasing wealth in the country, and will help pay down the national debt and raise the value of our currency.
I do hope the Republican plan does not cut energy and education. In fact, I still maintain the position that I would be OK with increases in spending in these two areas (as I view them as essential to a strong economy).
Here are some pretty cool sites I stumbled upon:
1) United States total debt (updated daily): http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
2) History of United States budgets: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
3) Where the money went in fiscal year 2008: http://www.federalbudget.com/
Until we meet again, goodbye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)