[besson3c]

I've heard on multiple occasions people saying that the government should just stop meddling and let the free markets do their own thing, and that will create all the jobs we'd ever need.

I believe this is an obsolete way of thinking in this global economy.

As American employers are hiring overseas workers and have to buy health insurance for their employees, and as our markets continue to be infiltrated with Chinese products, American companies need to make up for these deficiencies. It seems like we haven't fully come to grasp with the rise of China and how quickly it is urbanizing. With all of this comes an opportunity, an opportunity to create new consumers and create new jobs in being able to increase business by increasing sales abroad. We obviously have been doing so, but China is rising quickly. Are we setup to meet this demand?

This is not going to happen without proper trading relations and policies in place, who else is equipped to provide this than our government? I also mentioned health insurance, who else is going to not set expectations that employers provide health insurance to American workers than the government by way of new policy?

Before the more reactionary among us go off on another rant about how the government sucks (we get it), let me reiterate, all I'm saying here is that the government *does* have a role in our economy, and the "hands off" philosophy simply doesn't have its place anymore. This is not to suggest that they should meddle with domestic business, but I happen to think that in the coming years our global relations could become just as important to our economic growth, if not so already. China has infiltrated our markets with their products, as long as this infiltration continues the slice of pie that is the size of American jobs setup to cater only to American markets will continue to shrink. We cannot pay off our deficit without thinking about our trade relations, and thus, the government is important in all of this.

[Big Mac]

Nice straw man there, besson. No one claims that government should have no role in the economy or trade policy. What we argue about is the form and degree of intervention that's necessary and proper.

[besson3c]

I've actually heard people saying that the government should simply step back and let the free markets work with no concessions or qualifications. Maybe it is my fault for not recognizing this as rhetoric if it indeed is, but this has indeed been said.

[besson3c]

That being said, I'm glad that we agree Big Mac! I will add though that our trade relations and recognizing and dealing with non-domestic markets is not something we talk about much, it seems. China and India are a very, very big deal.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Nice straw man there, besson. No one claims that government should have no role in the economy or trade policy. What we argue about is the form and degree of intervention that's necessary and proper.

I do. Well, very nearly so.

It is exactly the government imposing itself upon business that makes their continued intervention "necessary". They create thousands of laws, regualtions and requirements and try to micromanage markets in order to create a desired effect based upon arbitrary criteria. Then they declare, with resounding support, that they must be the ones to handle the economy because certain things need to be a certain way.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I do. Well, very nearly so.

It is exactly the government imposing itself upon business that makes their continued intervention "necessary". They create thousands of laws, regualtions and requirements and try to micromanage markets in order to create a desired effect based upon arbitrary criteria. Then they declare, with resounding support, that they must be the ones to handle the economy because certain things need to be a certain way.

So, how should international trade be conducted?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've heard on multiple occasions people saying that the government should just stop meddling and let the free markets do their own thing, and that will create all the jobs we'd ever need.

I believe this is an obsolete way of thinking in this global economy.

As American employers are hiring overseas workers and have to buy health insurance for their employees, and as our markets continue to be infiltrated with Chinese products, American companies need to make up for these deficiencies. It seems like we haven't fully come to grasp with the rise of China and how quickly it is urbanizing. With all of this comes an opportunity, an opportunity to create new consumers and create new jobs in being able to increase business by increasing sales abroad. We obviously have been doing so, but China is rising quickly. Are we setup to meet this demand?

This is not going to happen without proper trading relations and policies in place, who else is equipped to provide this than our government?

Why can't American business A simply negotiate with Chinese business B, and Chinese business C negotiate with American business D, E and F, and where necessary American business A, D, E, and F negotiate with the Chinese government directly?

I also mentioned health insurance, who else is going to not set expectations that employers provide health insurance to American workers than the government by way of new policy?

I don't quite understand what you are saying here...

Either way, the state of employer provided healthcare insurance is a disaster and is directly attributable to government interference during the last century. Really, they need to drop all the idiotic regulations, requirments and incentives and just let the people and businesses sort it out. We would all be better off.

Before the more reactionary among us go off on another rant about how the government sucks (we get it), let me reiterate, all I'm saying here is that the government *does* have a role in our economy, and the "hands off" philosophy simply doesn't have its place anymore.

There has never been a hands off approach to business in this country or any other. So I really don't know why you act as if we've "been there and done that."

This is not to suggest that they should meddle with domestic business, but I happen to think that in the coming years our global relations could become just as important to our economic growth, if not so already. China has infiltrated our markets with their products, as long as this infiltration continues the slice of pie that is the size of American jobs setup to cater only to American markets will continue to shrink. We cannot pay off our deficit without thinking about our trade relations, and thus, the government is important in all of this.

The "pie" you speak of is not static. The Chinese can "infiltrate" all they like but in the absense of government interference that pie is free to grow which benefits all of us.

[besson3c]

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I have to ask, are you just sort of thinking outloud here and have not really thought this through carefully, or do you really think that there would be no problems with companies just importing and exporting stuff with no restrictions?

Issues/factors/variables/considerations:

- health/safety
- Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- security
- free trade has a whole plethora of economic side effects, good and bad (North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
- Fair trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- sustainability
- environmental consequences
- diplomacy with countries

No offense, but this is a terrible idea. Not until you can account for all of these factors... These details are important!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't mean to sound confrontational, but I have to ask, are you just sort of thinking outloud here and have not really thought this through carefully, or do you really think that there would be no problems with companies just importing and exporting stuff with no restrictions?

Issues/factors/variables/considerations:

Who reported the various problems you cite?

- health/safety

Take Toyota for example. It was the consumer that brought this problem to light, not the NHTSA (an entity we're paying for) that reacted to numerous reports of problems dated back to 2001. It was people suing that brought this to light. Gone are the days of Upton Sinclair when people were not literally enveloped in information and the ability to communicate that information. I submit that folks are far more empowered than they were and are more responsive to problems than government. The government entity was there to ensure safety, not react to it after the fact. Anyone can do that for free... as was done in this case. Now take health/safety to the field of medicine. How many people die waiting for new drugs or procedures to come to market because of regulations compared to the number of people spared death or illness due to shoddy drugs in the market? Angie's list, Consumer Reports, Edmunds.com... all means of verifying all aspects of a company/products' performance in the market, all at the hands of the consumer. I'm certain Toyota is more concerned about their market share than they were the NHTSA.

- Tariff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would tariffs (Assuming you're speaking more of the Protective variety) be necessary if the products themselves were more competitive and competitively priced? Are there other areas where the government might get out of the way of the free market that might make protective tariffs less necessary? I say yes. This is also encouraging governments to jack with their monetary policy to undercut other countries.

- security

Our ports (where this international trade comes and goes) are among the least secure entities in our country. Again, we're paying for an entity to react when we can do this ourselves. Security is important, but I don't think you'll find too many people saying; "thank god the government is handling security here or we'd be screwed."

- sustainability

This has been the problem with government intervention. It has created a model that is not sustainable. The more it intervenes historically, the less sustainable a model it creates.

- environmental consequences

Perhaps among the more important reasons why China is in an explosive state of growth while the US is struggling.

- diplomacy with countries

Such as? I don't see how government has helped the image of the US abroad can you?

I don't think anyone is saying the government should have no role, but that it should move itself more out of the way of the free market in order that the healthy churn of the free market addresses much if not all of your concerns in a more efficient and complete way. Conversely, I'd argue the current paradigm of more government is obsolete and let the evidence speak for itself.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Perhaps among the more important reasons why China is in an explosive state of growth while the US is struggling.

But would you rather have a growing economy with China's environmental problems? I wouldn't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

But would you rather have a growing economy with China's environmental problems?

Hang on a minute. China has more environmental problems and at the same time a much more centralised government-run economy.

So that's blown the more "government control = more environmentally sound" argument out of the water.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Hang on a minute. China has more environmental problems and at the same time a much more centralised government-run economy.

So that's blown the more "government control = more environmentally sound" argument out of the water.

While China is an authoritarian state, it has chosen to not exercise much government control over environmental issues so no, that doesn't blow the argument out of the water.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

As American employers are hiring overseas workers and have to buy health insurance for their employees, and as our markets continue to be infiltrated with Chinese products, American companies need to make up for these deficiencies. It seems like we haven't fully come to grasp with the rise of China and how quickly it is urbanizing.

I have a theory as to why China is doing better than America.
Simply: Chinese products are better quality than American ones.

America, the land of "customise it yourself in your garage", tends to come out with half-completed junk because the manufacturers expect you to customise whatever it is you've just bought, so why bother finishing it in-factory?
Obviously, I only really have major experience with US-built music gear. But a good 90% of it's complete shite which you have to gaffer tape up so it doesn't fall apart when you look at it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

just as important to our economic growth

Uh oh. You said "growth". Fail!
Try "stability" for a while instead.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

While China is an authoritarian state, it has chosen to not exercise much government control over environmental issues so no, that doesn't blow the argument out of the water.

Once in a full government-control situation, any country will choose economic issues over environmental ones. All you'll end up with is multiple countries in an all-out economic arms race.
Eating trumps being green every day of the week.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Once in a full government-control situation, any country will choose economic issues over environmental ones. All you'll end up with is multiple countries in an all-out economic arms race.
Eating trumps being green every day of the week.

Perhaps. All I am saying is that if we are going to point to China as an example of how productive we can be economically with less government involvement in the economy regarding environmental issues, it's worth noting the costs of those environmental issues. I would not take that trade (in fact, China's government has been spending a lot more money on this stuff recently).

[BadKosh]

Just sit back and let our 'Government' regulate (Censor) the internet. The UN and the Obama admin are both looking at ways to keep us from finding out how horrid and stupid they are. Taxing and monitoring are yet another way tehy are tampering with the economy. Libs do seem to be the new party of NO!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think anyone is saying the government should have no role, but that it should move itself more out of the way of the free market in order that the healthy churn of the free market addresses much if not all of your concerns in a more efficient and complete way. Conversely, I'd argue the current paradigm of more government is obsolete and let the evidence speak for itself.

And once again, ebuddy nails it.

Annnd.... cue besson to abandon his own thread.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Take Toyota for example. It was the consumer that brought this problem to light, not the NHTSA (an entity we're paying for) that reacted to numerous reports of problems dated back to 2001. It was people suing that brought this to light. Gone are the days of Upton Sinclair when people were not literally enveloped in information and the ability to communicate that information. I submit that folks are far more empowered than they were and are more responsive to problems than government. The government entity was there to ensure safety, not react to it after the fact. Anyone can do that for free... as was done in this case. Now take health/safety to the field of medicine. How many people die waiting for new drugs or procedures to come to market because of regulations compared to the number of people spared death or illness due to shoddy drugs in the market? Angie's list, Consumer Reports, Edmunds.com... all means of verifying all aspects of a company/products' performance in the market, all at the hands of the consumer. I'm certain Toyota is more concerned about their market share than they were the NHTSA.

But this is a different argument.

I'm not saying that the government is better at catching health and safety risks, I'm saying that it is their job to do something about it whether they catch something or not. Who else has the authority? Who else should have the authority?

Would tariffs (Assuming you're speaking more of the Protective variety) be necessary if the products themselves were more competitive and competitively priced? Are there other areas where the government might get out of the way of the free market that might make protective tariffs less necessary? I say yes. This is also encouraging governments to jack with their monetary policy to undercut other countries.

Tariffs are a complicated subject, no? Aren't they there in part to prevent major undercutting of our own resources? At any rate, is this probably tangential to my point.

Our ports (where this international trade comes and goes) are among the least secure entities in our country. Again, we're paying for an entity to react when we can do this ourselves. Security is important, but I don't think you'll find too many people saying; "thank god the government is handling security here or we'd be screwed."

Who else should be in charge of our border security? If a private company is (and I might be fine with that), whose job is it to decide which company to employ, and how to oversee them, if at all? My point is, again, that this is the government's job, hopefully backed by the people.

This has been the problem with government intervention. It has created a model that is not sustainable. The more it intervenes historically, the less sustainable a model it creates.


Perhaps among the more important reasons why China is in an explosive state of growth while the US is struggling.


Such as? I don't see how government has helped the image of the US abroad can you?

I don't think anyone is saying the government should have no role, but that it should move itself more out of the way of the free market in order that the healthy churn of the free market addresses much if not all of your concerns in a more efficient and complete way. Conversely, I'd argue the current paradigm of more government is obsolete and let the evidence speak for itself.

I didn't respond to things point by point because I'd just be repeating myself. It seems like since you are interested in playing devil's advocate you have glazed over my point so you can twist what my argument actually was. Again, my point is not that the government is somehow superior to anything, but that that have an important role. You have acknowledged this in your final paragraph. If you think that a private business can serve certain facets of this role better, fine, you can make that argument, but the point is that for now they have an important role, that is all.

As far as your counter argument. More government becomes ineffective at a certain point, this is also correct.