Posted on 11/21/2006 12:14:53 PM PST by presidio9
Norway is living off the gains of North Sea oil. When that abates, you will see mass problems sustaining their welfare state.
Free enterprise to me means that I have the freedom to buy goods and services from whomever I want.
States with 'no income tax' are more attractive than ever--better job markets, better business environment, and no state income taxes.
I honor your 'entrepreneurship'. Small business owners are the backbone of our economy--something that liberals just don't realize. Our tax code should REWARD people like you,,,NOT PENALIZE YOU!
Unfortunately, states in the Midwest like Ohio are now addicted to big government (hence their high taxes and high COST OF DOING BUSINESS) due largely to legacy costs resulting from high rates of unionization combined with the hemorrhaging of our industrial base. The high taxes and 'high cost of doing business' only serves to drive more people out of the area (in particular its most productive citizens like you).
It's a vicious circle that I don't see a solution for--other than lower taxes to help existing businesses grow--and new businesses to come to the Midwest. Unfortunately, those types of politicians will find it almost impossible to get elected in states that continue to get BLUER by the day.
You're arguing from a viewpoint of the federal budget as a static entity.
If politicians realized what they could get from taxing wealth, and that 99% of Americans would then be exempted from taxation, the amount of federal programs to alleviate whatever problem anyone might have would simply explode.
Why stop at 1% of wealth ? Why not 3% or 5% or 10% ? After all, those eeevil rich don't deserve their wealth. (On the other hand, neither do the Heintz Kerrys. And that's probably why you only hear the Kerrys, the Kennedys, the Rpockefellers and the like argue for an income tax.)
You all need to stop writing about this like it's a force of nature.
It's the result of national economic policy, it's harmful, and, as long as the people rule, it's going to be stopped and reversed.
The only questions are which political party is going to stop it, whether or not new political forces will emerge, and how much damage will be done in the process.
You might be right.
It looks like the American people are going to kill the golden goose and make us all poorer as a result.
Oh well.
Pennsylvania is only "blue" because of rampant voter fraud in Philly and Pittsburgh.
It is.
The only alternative MORE control over the economy. We can build all the walls and pass all the laws but information is low cost and fast moving. That information is so quick and easy means people will know where they can get a better deal. This is going to be a real challenge to say the least for trade restricitonist politicians.
Liberals see us all as slaves.
I would disagree, I for one have no faith in free trade.
Any system made by man can be just as easily changed or done away with by man.
Well we might end up seeing if a "managed economy" works better. I shudder at the thought.
See "free trade" deals, as all treaties, are basically nothing more than expressions of a reality that already exists. Just as peace treaties generally follow military victories, trade treaties generally just recognize an already developing reality. You don't cut a deal with someone you aren't already trading with.
And in an age when anyone in the U.S. can figure out what a widget costs in Mexico, China, the U.K. near instantaneously I'm not sure people will put up with paying more than the world price. Heck, the smuggling opportunities, shell corporations, and other work arounds could be the next great growth opportunity.
But the laws of supply and demand can no more be altered than the laws of gravity.
The flood of illegal aliens is the reason that wages in bottom have fallen further behind. Here, the one-world globalists are at fault. They really believe in this stuff. Guess who benefits. The privileged elites get the lion's share of the gains in productivity -- not the hardscrapple workers and the middle class. The middle class is also squeezed by medical expenses, which can be blamed on two main causes: illegal aliens driving up the cost of medical care, which is shifted to middle class users and a system that does not promote competition among health care providers.
That's what's at issue.
"Us all" - what do you mean by that term?
It is quite unlikely that ALL of "us" would be poorer under a strict protectionist scheme.
OTOH, it is VERY likely that all of "us" will be poorer under a global political scheme.
Unless you want governance to go the way of the economy, you'd better get behind national economics.
Great point - thanks...
By "us all" I mean every last American. We are all consumers. The first thing that would happen under a protectionist scheme would be tarrif (tax) increases. This would mean the cost of everything would go up, foreign and most likely domestic. This alone would make us poorer.
And since nothing occurs in a vacuum other countries would follow suit and hike tarriffs on our exports, which are not insignificant. This means job losses.
OTOH, it is VERY likely that all of "us" will be poorer under a global political scheme.
I think I see the root of the disagreement.
You view world trade as some sort of managed scheme for the beneifit of some shadowy cabal. I see it as the recognition that capital and labor flow to where they are most efficient and trade frees up people to not only enjoy a higher standard of living but also produce the things in which they have a comparative advantage.
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.