Posted on 08/12/2004 10:07:01 AM PDT by rmlew
Ping
Oh for God's sake! What a moronic statement.
The answer, obvious enough once one thinks about it in the way implied by our experiment, is this:
People are better off with less freedom when they would use that freedom to hurt themselves.
Yes. Also this argument assumes that gdp growth is zero.
And we work more hours that most coutnries.--> Not decadent.
The author left out that the US is also the worlds largest producer. I don't condone the level of deficit the US is running now, but it is the price we have to pay for the 8 years of the Clinton Administration ignoring terrorism.
11+ Trillion economy growing at 3.5% to 4% plus 45 trillion in net worth ---
Which has never been higher.
I would rather go back to bilateral trade, instead of the WTO.
That would mean severe restrictions on China, which not allow too much concentration of treasuries and strict enforcement of our intellectual property rights.
Also need to reduce regs in this counry, including making all states right to work states.
Oh for God's sake! What a moronic statement.
You actually know this guy? This stuff is bizarre! The restraint of freedom for the collective good is socialism. The restraint of freedom for the individual good is slavery. However, laws restraining criminal behavior is neither. Doesn't he get the difference?
Oh yes! He's an engineer. Well so am I, at least that's what my diploma says, BSME. I never used it, by the time I graduated, I was in commercial real estate. I learned that engineers do not understand business, unless they succeed at one.
I agree for reasons in the disparities of living standards and human rights. GATT is not a level playing field for producer or consumer. It was a nice try, but the rest of the world, China, etc., that is exploitive of their own people, need to catch up with the "Moral Capitalism" of the US. I know that sound like an oxymoron, but that is what America strives for.
the answer is not to reduce freedom but to promote thift, prudence, and long-term planning... and reduce the tax-based "safety net" for those who squander their resources and live beyond their means.
While it's necesarily limited in scope, this is a nice rebuttal to some aspects of modern free-trade theology.
This is a false assumption. When Japan was buying up LA real estate in the late '80's, everyone was in a panic. I thought it was great. The Japanese had to pay property taxes on over appraised property. These assets are also immovable. The Japanese could not put a downtown LA building on a ship and float it to Tokyo. So the above theory that to assume debt and sell assets will only forestall collapse is unfounded. When the Japanese economic bubble (that the author seems to favor) tanked, commercial real estate in LA tanked with it. The Japanese sold the bldgs. back to US buyers at fire sale prices. American buyers made a bundle while the Japanese paid the taxes. All and all, in the whole deal, the US made money and the Japanese lost a shipload of Yen.
What the author describes as a desirable economic model is "Mercantilism" and an authoritarian society.
No,thanks. I prefer being free to hurt or benefit myself. The beauty mathematics not-with-standing.
Socialist thinking at its best (which is not very good).
I guess this is why we are forced to participate in Social Security.
Does he ever think that the individuals (whichever society they are in) that save, are the ones that deserve to end up owning the most property?
...;^)
Oh for God's sake! What a moronic statement.
It's a simple statement of fact. (In the same vein, you could say people would be thinner with less food if they would use that food to make themselves fatter.) I assume the real issue for you is who decides (and how) what 'better off' means. If so, you're confusing the statement of a simple fact with a statement as to how it should be acted upon.
Concise?
On my planet that word has a different meaning than where you're from.
I am sure that a long unpaid vacation in some country ruled by a dictatorship will cure him of his delusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.