[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If we remove government subsidy and selective regulations, which favor preferred companies, from corporate structure and budgets, AND remove government "welfare" for labor (pro-labor regulations by NLRB), we will be much closer to a free competitive market. That would create an interesting contest between global government subsidized business and free market U.S. business.

I guess I haven't considered the future of my children as an "interesting contest" but agree it would be interesting.

The long-term value proposition here may be if such action could accelerate global transformation towards a more free market. Would this offset potential short-term losses? What's really our endgame, to be true to an American-centric vision or transform others?

The peculiar process of raising corporate costs imposed by government giving labor the power to inflict those costs, but then reimbursing corporations with corporate welfare merely creates an inflationary rise in the "economy" and a fake rise in GDP. The only winner being a more powerful and controlling government.

But the raising of corporate costs often results in benefits for the consumer or workforce. Many corporate officers are certainly well intentioned stewards of their ship, but if history is any measure shareholder value is a difficult vice.

I don't see how this is a fake rise in GDP but perhaps a fake rise in shareholder value.

Remove the cost of corruptive manipulating government middle man, let market forces determine costs and prices, and I'd put my bet on U.S. corporations beating the socks off of subsidized and controlled foreign corps.The real short-termism is constant ad hoc government intrusion into and manipulation of the market for perceived immediate problems. True market forces ARE long term. Government manipulation outside of market forces is always a "now" fix and hope it works. That it usually doesn't is why the non-market fixes always have to be re-fixed and funded at greater levels and regulated further and further in micromanaged short term fixes.

That's a pretty generic rebuttal of Keynesian economics. So how do you make the argument to the people that they need to sacrifice short-term gain for long-term sustainability? Couldn't you make the same argument about the vision for the ACA?

Government fixes of that nature are always messy, full of fake rises in GDP, phony promises and compromises, a tangled web of lies and failed attempts which actually give government the illusory opportunity to present even more fixes.

I think people expect Government to provide a sense of stability that they don't believe will come from the free market alone. It's funny, even with all these "oppressive regulations" how much corruption and manipulation of the market is out there? It's massive.

Would ending all regulation lead to more stability? I don't believe this for a second.

So, are you saying China has gone from the traditional 5 year fixes that communism used to promise to decade fixes? Interesting how you put it--"China is working on decades long business plans." You so are stuck on the progressive ideology that it is government which must plan the commercial business of a nation.

I'm not sure what "progressive ideology" I've ever expounded on???

But certainly we're competing with nations that are playing by a different set of rules.

-spence