Screw your question. You have yet to answer mine: Bamaslammer, I was actually wondering if you had an answer to this. Can you please name some of these less regulated, libertarian economic powerhouses that you feel we should emulate? I'm still waiting; and by the way, try not to say Hong Kong, that didn't work out too well. EDIT: btw, I'm not going to debate the merits of regulation with you in and of themselves straight up, because I'll simply cite to your xenophobic points on immigration which make you a complete fraud of a libertarian, who believes on regulating the labor market on a totalitarian level, then you'll get all huffy and start shooting your six shooters up in tha air.
The answer of course is yes a state can, and in fact must, tax and regulate itself, to achieve prosperity. Do you seriously dispute this? The real question is what mix of taxes, regulation, and social support systems (education, housing, healthcare) best promote the general welfare. Right now in the U.S. we have a mix of taxes, regulation, and social support systems that very effectively promotes the welfare of the wealthy, as evidenced by the ever increasing gap between the rich and the rest of us. There are some positive aspects of the U.S. economic system. It's pretty good at promoting innovation and entrepreneurship, for example. However, the problems are not that we are over taxed, over regulated, and that our social safety net is too robust. The problems are mostly related to the reality that the wealthy have been able to game the system so that they are undertaxed, regulations are too often distorted to benefit the few, rather than the many, and our social support systems and safety net is pathetic patchwork that is a disgrace in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Again, I submit that one of the most effective ways of dealing with the root causes of these problems is serious campaign finance reform, so that the wealthy are less able to exert undue influence on the system.
So typical, so typical. If you're not going to answer my question, well, then there it ends. Most of the world agrees with your statist, socialist leanings and thus suffer the economic consequences. I could state a billion examples of socialist nations you so want our nation to emulate with their budget busting cradle to grave nanny state that are frankly in the economic toilet because of it. You're wrong about economics, just as your buddy Krugman and all the other statists on your side are. Free markets and a geniuine rule of law are the most liberating forces in the world today. Just because I don't want my country invaded by a bunch of uneducated folks from south of the border doesn't make me xenophobic. We can not and never should have an open and free immigration policy, because we are just asking for trouble. Illegal immigration is destroying this country. So call me a nativist or whatever little smug label you'd like to pin on me, but at least I want to defend my country's sovereignty and not allow our nation to be turned by the uneducated immigrant masses into a third world hellhole. And why is it that only I am criticized when I take a position opposite to that of the political party I identify with? So many of you liberals like to say well, I'm not so liberal on this or that issue, yet I'm the one who gets targeted for being a fraud? Give me a break. You are ridiculous and a trifling bore to argue with.
For the last time Yosemite, I'm not a socialist, maybe we could measure paychecks to illustrate this point? The rest of this is your same boriing act, but humilliating you is fun because you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in your backwoods ass. Ta-ta, must go and sip some chardonnay. P.S., my question remains open: Bamaslammer, I was actually wondering if you had an answer to this. Can you please name some of these less regulated, libertarian economic powerhouses that you feel we should emulate? I'm assuming by now that you're stumped.
The example used by Milton Friedman in the 60's and 70's is Hong Kong, which collapsed even before unification when it's economy was exposed in the general Asian currency crisis. It's not even laissez faire except where Milton wants to look. There is even fear now that most of the jobs now done in Hong Kong will be outsourced to *India*.
These teenagers need to make room for us adults at McDonalds. Jeez..., my neighbors talk about the Depression, and this isn't like it, except their children are unemployed, now. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...ens_often_the_losers_in_competition_for_jobs/ Teens often the losers in competition for jobs By Charles Stein, Globe Staff, 3/4/2004 Claribel Aguilar almost got a job. Her interview at Target went well and she was sure she would be offered a position at the discount chain's new store in the South Bay Center in Dorchester. But when the letter arrived in the mail, it was another rejection. At 18, Aguilar has plenty of experience with rejection. A senior at Dorchester High School, she has been looking for a job for more than a year. She has been to supermarkets, drugstores, retailers -- the kind of places that teenagers traditionally work -- but the answer is always the same: no openings. "My mother says I must not be trying hard enough," said Aguilar, "but I don't know. No one is hiring. It is discouraging." For people of all ages, the current job market is a tough one. For teenagers it is brutal. The weak economy has forced adults to seek the low-skill, low-wage jobs teens usually occupy. On top of that, a continuing inflow of immigrants has created still more competition at the bottom of the job market. The net result: Teenagers are being elbowed aside. "The youth labor market is in a depression," said Neil Sullivan, president of the Boston Private Industry Council, a group that finds jobs for Boston's young people. The problem is not unique to Boston. According to a new study by Andrew Sum, a professor at Northeastern's Center for Labor Market Studies, the percentage of 16- to 19-year-olds holding jobs nationally is the lowest it has been since the government began tracking statistics in 1948. . . .
Guess you proved my point that you are a liberal elitist snob with your terms "backwoods" and talk about sipping some chardonnay. If you're not a socialist, why do you advocate increased transfer of wealth from the producers in society to the non-producers? Hmmm...... I still stick by Hong Kong. Read this, you snobbish SOB. Read it and WEEP..... Hong Kong remains world's freest economy Hong Kong has been ranked the freest economy in the world for the 10th consecutive year in the Heritage Foundation's 2004 Index of Economic Freedom. Welcoming the news today (December 9), the Financial Secretary, Mr Henry Tang, said the government was firmly committed to maintaining Hong Kong as a free market economy that accords maximum scope to the private sector. "We see the role of the government as a facilitator that provides a business-friendly environment where all firms can compete on a level playing field," he said. "The government will also maintain an appropriate regulatory regime to ensure the integrity and smooth functioning of a free market." As in previous years, the Index of Economic Freedom ratings reflect an analysis of 50 different economic variables, grouped into 10 categories encompassing banking and finance; capital flows and foreign investment; monetary policy; fiscal burden of government; trade policy; wages and prices; Government intervention in the economy; Property rights; Regulation; and informal, or black, market activity. In 2003, 161 economies were rated one to five in each category, one being the best, five the worst. These ratings were then averaged to produce the overall Index score. Hong Kong recorded an overall score of 1.34, which was an improvement over last year's winning score of 1.44. Singapore, in second place, scored 1.61, the same as a year ago. Third-ranked New Zealand scored 1.7. Hong Kong's strengths included: *duty-free port; *very low level of government involvement in business activities; *very low inflation; *very low barriers to foreign investment; *very low level of restrictions in banking and finance; *low level of intervention in wages and prices; *strong property rights; *very low level of regulation; and *low level of informal market activity "We will spare no effort in preserving our strengths and in further improving ourselves where we can," said Mr Tang. The Index of Economic Freedom report said: "Once again, Hong Kong is the poster city for economic freedom, both in the region and around the world." "With a duty-free port, Hong Kong is a model for free trade. It also is the world' 10th largest trading entity." Ends/Friday, January 9, 2004 link link The Heritage Foundation has just published its second Index of Economic Freedom, which scores countries on 10 economic factors -- trade, tax policies, monetary policies, wage and price controls, banking, foreign investment, property rights, the size of the public sector, regulation and black market activity. The scoring is designed to determine which countries are the freest in economic terms. Some of the findings: The world's freest economy is Hong Kong -- with rent controls being one of the few economic interferences. Nor surprisingly, Hong Kong's per capita income has increased fivefold since 1965. The U.S. ranked seventh on the Index -- its score reduced by high marginal tax rates. More than 70 countries -- nearly half of which have gotten U.S. foreign aid for over 35 years -- were ranked as "mostly unfree" or "repressed." Moreover, 14 of these unfree countries are actually poorer now than they were in 1965 and 26 are no better off now than they were then. Nations showing the most improvement include Botswana, Indonesia, Israel, Panama and Portugal. Experts warn that foreign aid is often economically counterproductive. And studies long ago established an undeniable link between economic freedom and civil liberty. Source: Perspective, "Free Markets, Free People," Investor's Business Daily, December 13, 1995. link Do you like apples? How 'bout them apples, punkass!!!!!
Free-est economy - in recovery from a *lengthy* recession, even with help from their communist overlords and the ever weakening *US* dollar. They have an extremely narrow economy and by luck of geography have a port at the nexus of the Pacific. Nowadays they have an umbilical cord straight to China. That's a great example. I have to admit the full employment quote you have is pretty funny. http://www.bm.ust.hk/~ced/nw_fore0104.htm Can't believe they put Israel in there. Take out our three billion dollars a year in welfare payments to them and tell us what you get.
Hong Kong has been ranked the freest economy in the world for the 10th consecutive year in the Heritage Foundation's 2004 Index of Economic Freedom. Interesting that you use this index and then simultaneously argue for Bush. In the last year, the U.S. fell 4 spots (from 6 to 10) in this index because of bad fiscal policy.
I've been extremely of the President on that and I haven't been shy about it either. I don't like the ridiculous amounts of spending and I've said so here. I argue for Bush strictly on the grounds of tax cuts and his successful excercise of the war on terror.
Boy, no form of subtlety or sarcasm flies over your head, does it Yosemite? I'll spell it out for you: I don't use the phrase "Ta-ta" in everyday conversation unless referring to an exotic dancer (and even then there's several phrases I'd use instead); likewise, I don't recall if I have ever knowingly sipped chardonnay, It's great, not only do you act like a caricature, but you do battle with caricatures as well. I guess that's the only context in which your schtick makes sense. Yes, that would explain my rabid support for the Producer-Non Producer Increased Wealth Transfer Act of 1998. You need to take an intro level poli sci class to keep you from calling everyone who doesn't advocate complete, unfettered, unregulated laissez faire capitalism a socialist. Since you are a xenophobe in favor of a highly regulated labor supply, in direct contravention one of the central tenets of economic libertarianism, I guess that means I can call you a socialist too right? Regarding the HK stuff: I give credit where it is due and applaud you for backing up your claims with some form of factual basis rather than just ranting. While I don't know enough about the survey to actually digest it, I note that the US, which you said has a comparatively "byzantine" system, came out 7th out of 161 economies. Indeed, if we were a comparatively byzantine regulatory state, as you claim, shouldn't we come out a bit lower? Actually, what I'd like to know is why libertarian paradises like Iraq and Afghanistan don't come out higher. Iraq is a right wingers wet dream; it's got free & easy access to guns & ammo, little to no government regulation of anything, at all, ever, state sanctioned theocracy is on the way; that's like the right wing holy trinity. The icing on the cake is that it's got oil! and tons of it! Hell, it's like a better version of Texas! Why does it not get more props? But anyway, you're right, we should emulate a small asian port city state (which, ironically, owes the lions share of its economic success to having access to cheap foreign labor across the border in the Shenzen Special Economic Zone -- hint hint). What could go wrong there? I move that we emulate Hong Kong's libertarian paradise ideal and call for increased regulation of external bamboo scaffolding via increased inspections, as HKOSHA has recently done.
Number one, I double-majored in Journalism and political science, so don't look your condescending nose down (actually, you'd be looking up at me, I'm quite tall) at me. And might I add that I do believe that anyone believes that in higher taxes, increased regulation and bigger govt. is by nature at least a quasi-socialist. Marx said "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Isn't that the driving force in the Democratic party today? Your comment about a "highly regulated" labor supply has nothing to do with why I oppose an open border with Mexico. No nation has ever survived such a ridiculous amount of foreign immigration for a culture patently hostile to the country into which they migrate. Illegal immigration, along with terrorism and the out of control growth in the size and power of the Federal Govt, are several of the biggest problems facing our nation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56562-2004Mar13.html A couple of stats stick out: 48 % unemployment rate for blacks in NYC About 15% of the unemployed gave up looking for work, otherwise unemployment rate would be 20 percent instead of 8.4 in NYC. Whatever happened to that rebuilding of NY that the administration promised?
