more deregulation, please!

[Alex]

I can just hear the supply-siders now: "If the government would just get out of the way, the free market can save us." Less regulation, and more free trade - the Walmart Nation is here. Right David?

Subprime Nation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 14, 2008
9:29 p.m. Eastern

By Patrick J. Buchanan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2008

Since it began to give credit ratings to nations in 1917, Moody's has rated the United States triple-A. U.S. Treasury bonds have been seen as the most secure investment on earth. When crises erupt, nervous money seeks out the world's great safe harbor, the United States. That reputation is now in peril.

Last week, Moody's warned that if the United States fails to rein in the soaring cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's credit rating will be down-graded within a decade.

Our political parties seem oblivious. Republicans, save Ron Paul, are all promising to expand the U.S. military and maintain all of our worldwide commitments to defend and subsidize scores of nations.

Democrats, with entitlement costs drowning the federal budget in red ink, are proposing a new entitlement – universal health coverage for the near 50 million who do not have it – another magnet for illegal aliens. Moody's is telling America it needs a time of austerity, while the U.S. government is behaving like the governments we used to bail out.

California has already hit the wall. With an economy as large as a G-8 nation, the Golden State is looking at a $14 billion deficit in 2009 and a $3 billion shortfall in 2008. Gov. Schwarzenegger has called for slashing prison staff by 6,000, including 2,000 guards, early release of 22,000 inmates, closing four dozen state parks and a 10 percent across-the-board cut in all state agencies. The Democratic legislature is demanding tax hikes, which would drive more taxpayers back over the mountains whence their fathers came.

Meanwhile, Washington drifts mindlessly toward the maelstrom. With the dollar sinking, oil surging to $100 a barrel, the Dow having its worst January in memory, foreclosures mounting, credit card debt going rotten, and consumers and businesses unable or unwilling to borrow, we appear headed into recession.

If so, tax revenue will fall and spending on unemployment will surge. The price of the stimulus packages both parties are preparing will further add to the deficit and further imperil the U.S. credit rating. This all comes in the year that the first of the baby boomers, born in 1946, reach early retirement and eligibility for Social Security.

To stave off recession, the Fed appears anxious to slash interest rates another half-point, if not more. That will further weaken the dollar and raise the costs of the imports to which we have become addicted. While all this is bad news for the Republicans, it is worse news for the republic. As we save nothing, we must borrow both to pay for the imported oil and foreign manufactures upon which we have become dependent.

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.

We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called "isolationism."

And the chickens of globalism are coming home to roost.

We let Europe to get away with imposing value-added taxes averaging 15 percent on our exports to them, while they rebate that value-added tax on their exports to us. Thus, the euro has almost doubled in value against the dollar in the Bush years, as NATO Europe begins to bail out on Iraq and Afghanistan.

We sat still as Japan protected her markets and dumped high quality goods into ours and China undervalued its currency to suck jobs, technology and factories out of the United States. Now, China and Japan have $2 trillion in cash reserves. The Arabs have an equal amount of petrodollars. Both are headed here to spend their depreciating dollars snapping up U.S. assets – banks, ports, highways, defense contractors.

America, to pay her bills, has begun to sell herself to the world.

Its balance sheet gutted by the subprime mortgage crisis, Citicorp got a $7.5 billion injection from Abu Dhabi and is now fishing for $1 billion from Kuwait and $9 billion from China. Beijing has put $5 billion into Morgan Stanley and bought heavily into Barclays Bank.

Merrill-Lynch, ravaged by subprime mortgage losses, sold part of itself to Singapore for $7.5 billion and is seeking another $3 billion to $4 billion from the Arabs. Swiss-based UBS, taking a near $15 billion write-down in subprime mortgages, has gotten an infusion of $10 billion from Singapore.

Bain Capital is partnering with China's Huawei Technologies in a buyout of 3Com, the U.S. company that provides the technology that protects Pentagon computers from Chinese hackers.

This self-indulgent generation has borrowed itself into unpayable debt. Now the folks from whom we borrowed to buy all that oil and all those cars, electronics and clothes are coming to buy the country we inherited. We are prodigal sons, and the day of reckoning approaches.

[kestrel]

We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy

More than that. We borrow from China, to buy Chinese made goods. Supporting Chinese jobs.

Borrowing should be done for one purpose: short term construction of infrastructure or emergency spending.

[dcannady]

You think this is caused by de-regulation? Hecks bells, it's the "regulators" that have put us into this mess.

It wasn't regulations that brought about American economic ascendency and it's not the lack of regulation that is bringing it down. It is the non-productive, non-value added parasites who leech the blood from our economy from top to bottom. It's government induced inflation and unstable taxation.

If the government would announce and adhere to a taxation plan that was guaranteed to last for a minimum of ten years, then business could develop a ten year plan. That can't happen in this current environment because the laws are subject to change from year to year. The government is the worst enemy of a stable and prosperous economy.

This self-indulgent generation has borrowed itself into unpayable debt. Now the folks from whom we borrowed to buy all that oil and all those cars, electronics and clothes are coming to buy the country we inherited. We are prodigal sons, and the day of reckoning approaches.

Bull-cookies. The same scary things were said about the Japanese taking over our economy. The day of reckoning isn't half as scary as it's made out to be, the purpose of it being to scare us into the arms of some fearless leader.

[Rafael]

Originally Posted by dcannady

You think this is caused by de-regulation? Hecks bells, it's the "regulators" that have put us into this mess.

It wasn't regulations that brought about American economic ascendency and it's not the lack of regulation that is bringing it down. It is the non-productive, non-value added parasites who leech the blood from our economy from top to bottom. It's government induced inflation and unstable taxation.

If the government would announce and adhere to a taxation plan that was guaranteed to last for a minimum of ten years, then business could develop a ten year plan. That can't happen in this current environment because the laws are subject to change from year to year. The government is the worst enemy of a stable and prosperous economy.



Bull-cookies. The same scary things were said about the Japanese taking over our economy. The day of reckoning isn't half as scary as it's made out to be, the purpose of it being to scare us into the arms of some fearless leader.

Applause -

[speaktothesky]

Perhaps this is a case of too little too late, BOHICA anyone?

[Rafael]

A Freer World is a Better World
By John Stossel
Wednesday, January 23, 2008

This week's newspapers are full of predictions of an impending recession, and maybe they're right. But the great untold story is the good news: the worldwide boom in economic growth.

"I think one of the best kept secrets is that the world is in the midst of an economic boom, and it is largely driven by increases in economic freedom," says economics professor James Gwartney, director of the Stavros Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Economic Education at Florida State University. "The world has become more free, and, at the same time, growth is soaring to new highs. During 1995 to 2005, the growth rate of per capita GDP in99 countries for which data are available has increased to 2.2 percent, nearly twice the rate of recent decades. Since 2000, the annual growth rate of per capita GDP has been even more rapid, 3.2 percent."

As the world gets freer, says Gwartney, it gets richer.

He should know. For years, Gwartney and Robert Lawson of Capital University have compiled an index showing the solid relationship between economic freedom and economic growth. The latest index, covering 2005, was recently published by the Economic Freedom Network, which comprises more than 70 policy institutes worldwide, from Albania to Zambia.

The story the index tells couldn't be clearer: Economic freedom produces high living standards.

This insight shouldn't come as news, but unfortunately it will because prejudice against the profit motive and property rights leads many to believe that government coercion is better than free markets at making life better.

What is economic freedom exactly? As the report puts it, "individuals have economic freedom when they are free to use, exchange, or give their property as long as their actions do not violate the identical rights of others."

The researchers ranked countries according to five criteria: size of government, security of property, access to sound money, freedom to trade internationally and level of regulation.

The top five freest countries in 2005 were Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States. That's a slight slip for the United States, which in 2004 came in third. We've never placed higher than second (in 2000).

The next five are the United Kingdom, Canada, Estonia, Ireland and Australia. The bottom five are Republic of the Congo, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

It's hard to miss the point: The freest countries are far more pleasant places in which to live. Countries with little or no economic freedom make life hellish for all but the politicians or dictators in charge (and even for some of them).

The good news, says Gwartney, is that economic freedom is increasing. "The average rating of the 99 countries for which data are available continuously since 1980 has increased from 5.5 in 1985 to 6.6 in 2005," he says. "The primary factors underlying this increase are lower top marginal tax rates, more stable monetary policy, lower tariffs and less regulation of international trade and some relaxation of restrictions on the movement of capital."

Gwartney's data also show the relationship between economic freedom and income. As countries get freer, per capita GDP rises. The least-free nations have a per-capita GDP of about $3,300. The next group up the freedom ladder has a per capita GDP of about $6,100; the next, $10,773. The freest group of nations comes in at more than $26,000.

Gwartney's data show that it's better to be poor in a more-free country than in a less-free country. In the freest countries, the poorest 10 percent earn on average more than $7,300 a year versus $905 in the least free countries. And, of course, in a free society, people often move out of the poorest groups.

Finally, the study also finds a strong correlation between economic freedom and environmental quality.

It is beyond dispute. Economic freedom leads to good things, while government coercion leads to poverty and oppression.

It's stunning that some people still find the free market controversial.

[rachel]

the purpose of it being to scare us into the arms of some fearless leader.

And to scare us into giving up more of what we earn and allowing even more stringing "regulation" of everything.

[gary]

I keep hearing about state control and no control as if those are the only options. Both are harmful to the ecconomy. The truth is that our ecconomy was not the giant it is today nor was it at all stable prior to WWII. If you take a good look at the way the ecconomy has gone over the years you find that it was long periods of depression with short spikes of prosperity prior to WWII and after it has reversed. Pure capitolism brings about a lot more misery than prosperity.

The same is true for over regulation. Over regulation brings about something that looks just like pure capitolism, lots of depressions not much real prosperity. All one has to do is take a look at the old Soviet Union to prove this true.

So what is the answer? Well there needs to be some regulation. The trick is to find the minimum not the maximum. Take electricity. OK is regulated and TX is not. The people of OK pay 9 cents per kwhour. The people of TX pay upward from 11 cents. Why? The reason is simple. The actual source of the electricity is a monopoly. There is no competition at the source. This sort of industry has to be regulated or it will do what is being done in TX, abuse the rate payer.

Safety needs to be regulated too. I really doubt that any of the pure capitolism would want to go back the days when the packing houses were not inspected. This is regulation that is needed. We all really do know this, we just don't like to face it.

For me a blended ecconomy works best with the minimum regulation necessary to accomplish a hand full of goals, such as safe food and medicine, gasonline that burns right in our cars and trucks, monopolies regulated so that they do not gouge, and big companies not dumping their products and services at below cost to drive smaller ones from the market place.

gary

[speaktothesky]

Less control leads to better production, in the thirties when things were getting really bad it had more to do with governmental meddeling instead of capitalism. FDR was a triumph of fascism, melding government and the corporation(a government creation) to form a promised outcome. Jonah Goldberg has a book about this, I have not read it yet.

[gary]

Speak, I agree that less control leads to better production. Afterall if there are no labor laws then we can put 9 year olds on factory floors and pay them a dollar a week and work them 16 hours a day. But that is not right.

The truth is that regulation has to have a valid purpose, the purpose has to be one that benifits all or most of society, the regulation has to be constitutional, and it has to be minimal. When these rules are kept then the government works and the regulations are not onerous nor are they distructive.

Now some would say that it cost meat packers a lot of money not to be able to use contaminated meat. However, I doubt that you would want them to be allowed to sell that to you, your kids, or their school.

gary

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by gary

Speak, I agree that less control leads to better production. Afterall if there are no labor laws then we can put 9 year olds on factory floors and pay them a dollar a week and work them 16 hours a day. But that is not right.

The truth is that regulation has to have a valid purpose, the purpose has to be one that benifits all or most of society, the regulation has to be constitutional, and it has to be minimal. When these rules are kept then the government works and the regulations are not onerous nor are they distructive.

Now some would say that it cost meat packers a lot of money not to be able to use contaminated meat. However, I doubt that you would want them to be allowed to sell that to you, your kids, or their school.

gary

I don't believe that there is anyone who would promote the use of contaminated meat by meat-packers, not even meat-packers. But, problems can occur even with regulation.

A California meat company on Sunday issued the largest beef recall in history

Now, potentially bad meat has been consumed by school children, despite the regulations. But, how many people would go out and by a package of meat from a company that is caught selling bad meat? The fact is that market forces do much more to prevent such occurrences than Federal regulation because it is the reputation of a company that drives it's continued profitablity, especially in food.

By the way, when I was nine years old, I was hoeing cotton, picking cotton and, when I was eleven years old, driving a tractor eight hours a day. What's wrong with letting kids work? Are they better off sitting around in their bedrooms playing video games? Safety is a different issue, but child labor laws have ruined opportunities for many children to learn the value of work. Also, there is no way to determine how wages and hours might be structured, at this point, in the absence of labor laws. Competition between employers for employees may have had a much more positive effect than the laws that have been imposed on us, had this been left to market forces. We'd certainly be less likely to have businesses failing from the excessive burdens placed on them by unions.

[gary]

DC, you are arguing against history. Besides how did that meat packer that the meat was from cows that should not have been slaughtered?

gary

[speaktothesky]

Gary, I doubt anyone would FORCE a nine year old to go to work.
Second I think that even if some kids did work it would be a good thing.
Who do you think was cutting lawns before your competition moved here from further south?
I started working when I was 11 with a paper route, now even though I want my daughter to get a small job it is nearly impossible without a big mess logistically. I think that those regulations that Nixon stuck us with, combined with out of control labor unions have brought us to this point.
Then of course the corperate raiders came in like locusts and destroyed what was left. Just tell me what industry is left that is still viable?

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by gary

DC, you are arguing against history. Besides how did that meat packer that the meat was from cows that should not have been slaughtered?

gary

Which history?

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by gary

DC, you are arguing against history. Besides how did that meat packer that the meat was from cows that should not have been slaughtered?

gary

I gave you a link to the story. It, also, points out how ineffective the FDA is at preventing such things from happening. Picture the irony of contaminated beef bearing the FDA approval stamp.

[gary]

DC, part of the problem that we face when it comes to regulaton is that there is way too much of it. This caused there to not be enought assets, you can read that as mostly money, to do the inspection that really does need doing. Now some here think that all regulation is evil and should end. My point is that we really do not want to go back to those days. They were really bad.

The thing is that we need some regulation but not regulation to the extent that we have it today.

gary

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by gary

DC, part of the problem that we face when it comes to regulaton is that there is way too much of it. This caused there to not be enought assets, you can read that as mostly money, to do the inspection that really does need doing. Now some here think that all regulation is evil and should end. My point is that we really do not want to go back to those days. They were really bad.

The thing is that we need some regulation but not regulation to the extent that we have it today.

gary

The point of having the FDA is to prevent someone from getting bad food or drugs. The problem with it is that the regulators are drawn from the same pool of humanity from which the producers come and are just as fallible. They can be just as lazy, incompetent or corrupt as the people they are supposed to be regulating.

There have been times when unscrupulous people have sought to sell something bad to the public, but an established business that expects to stay in business has ever incentive to insure that they do not sell anything that isn't top notch. Having a bunch of inspectors on the payroll that are really just rubber-stamping what the producers are producing only lulls people into a sense of false security.

All that is needed are laws that let producers of goods and services know that there will be serious consequences for harm done to victims, if they deliver goods or perform services that cause that harm. Reputable companies don't require excessive regulation and disreputable companies won't comply with it.

The true answer is that we are all just a blink away from harm anyhow and no amount of nanny state protection can be substituted for individual judgment. Buyer beware is not a slogan, it's a survival mechanism.

[speaktothesky]

Curious didn't the fda approve vioxx(sp), if so why is Merck evil?
I had a perscription for vioxx a couple of years ago, it worked great.
But low an behold it "doubled" the chance of a heart problem in people who already were predisposed to such things. From a .7% chance to a 1.4% chance, but by golly we have to sue the b@stards into the ground, and save us all from that evil drug! Now my wifes great aunt can barely function again because they took that great drug off the market. So tell me how did the fda help anyone here, they threw Merck under the bus and then allowed for them to be nearly destroyed! Yeah gotta love the fda and the governmental regulations there to "protect" us.
I am not buying it!

[gary]

Speak, vioxx is not off the market. The only change was labeling. The truth is that Vioxx is no more dangerous than Ibuprofin.

DC, is it safe to say that you do not want any regulations at all in any area of business?

gary

[dcannady]

Originally Posted by gary

Speak, vioxx is not off the market. The only change was labeling. The truth is that Vioxx is no more dangerous than Ibuprofin.

DC, is it safe to say that you do not want any regulations at all in any area of business?

gary

I suppose it's safe to say it, but that would contradict what I've written just 2 posts down from the yours.

Originally Posted by dcannady the Crazy Anarchist

All that is needed are laws that let producers of goods and services know that there will be serious consequences for harm done to victims, if they deliver goods or perform services that cause that harm.

I'd say that would cover the potential green weenies that might be foisted upon us by unscrupulous meat-packers(I always laugh at that term).