First things first, show me a source that says free markets are not an efficient means of arranging most activity in regards to private goods (goods that are both rival and excludable).
Never said that and I dont deny that "free markets" are better. I did say there is no such thing as a free market, that all markets have some goverment intervention.. well maybe hookers dont
If there is no true free market then does that not show a government that is too powerful?
No, it shows the free market is not as good as it should be. Why is there goverment meddling in the free market? Because the free market is often slow to react, and very bad to do whats best of the "people".. free market focus more on the bottom line than other issues. If free market was so perfect, then the free market would long ago have made more fuel efficient and less polluting cars, but it did not.. goverment had to step in and force companies to do so.
Secondly, food subsidies are on the whole economically bad as well as tariffs. Just because there is such regulation does not mean it is necessarily good. Taxes tend to raise prices and create deadweight loss.
Yes subsidies are "bad" in one way, but also "good" in another way. If it was not for subsidies then many farmers would not be around, both in the US and in Europe.. and that would have been political sucide. The same goes for steel, and other industries in Europe and the US. I dont like subsidies but I do see thier political need at times, when the free market is no where near free and the political situation demands it.
You missed the point. As China has opened themselves up to trade they have seen massive economic growth.
They have opend up to trade on their terms and those terms are not free market. Big difference. India also has seen big growth, but they have also not opened up to the free market, but to their own controlled access free market.
Hong Kong proves this once again; it was once considered a 3rd World Country. It is now one of the most economically free countries and has a rather robust economy relative to where it was a few decades ago.
Okay, go read a history book. Hong Kong has been one of the financial capitals in the world for over 100 years. Under British rule it flurished. China kept the liberal laws in place for the most part, because they knew that it Hong Kong was a gold mine and they were right. Hong Kong was also a producing mega star for many years, especially within the clothing sector, but as in all booming societies things change over time. Hong Kong was a 3rd world area maybe over a 100 years ago, but hardly in the latter part of the 20the century.
This assertion of costs is a rather dubious statement considering you have no actual data to support such an assertion.
Acutually there is. The Euro launch. Cost billions in changes from everything from cash registers to vending machines and its the same principle.
Also, nearly every firm has to participate in a payroll tax, therefore the cost is widespread.
Yes but many companies use a 3rd party expert to do thier payrolls and hence their payroll tax. This limits the costs quite a bit.
Thirdly, most government regulations cost a good deal of money.
Yep it does.
The bureacracy and the paperwork involved in filling an income tax is enormous, it would then be reasonable to say it does cost just as much as a tax on income, if not more.
Dont understand this statement.. what costs more?
lol. Companies do not have to report their prices with taxes added.
To the normal consumer? Does that mean that the prices on the shelves in Walmart can be written without various taxes, that are only added at the cash register? So that if I buy say 1 gallon of Cola, the price listed on the shelf is say 1 buck, but with taxes of various kinds, it in reality 2 bucks when I have to pay at the cash register?
Secondly, your argument is non-unique. Nearly every firm in the U.S. has to comply with payroll taxes. The cost of raising a payroll tax has costs as well.
Yes its expensive, but see my comment when you mentioned this before.
Also, many firms computerize their cash registers so them changing their percentage would not be too hard.
Yep, many, but not all. And its not just cash registers is it now? Computer systems of various kinds, vending machines, billboards, advertising and so on.
The paperwork may be but that is true of any tax. However, when you lower the tax, in the long term, the benefit will outweigh the cost for firms.
I agree, but thats not what we discussing. We discussing the "benifits" of consumption tax.
Yes I do put too much faith in people having control of their own money.
And the way some European Bureacrats manage their economy and spend the people's tax money talks against giving them power over other's money.
And you base the last comment on? If you look at the most "socialist" countries in Europe, they are in fact matching (some even outpreforming) the US on many fronts, which is kinda funny. I dont deny that some European nations suck in some areas of managing their economies, but we Europeans have different priorities than Americans when it comes to such things. That dont mean the economies "suck", just that they are different.
I think you're not understanding the concept of people having the freedom to do what they want with the money they spend 9-5, 40 hours a weak earning. I do not think the government should have a large role in being their fiscal nannies.
I understand it fully and I agree the goverment should have a small as possible role in telling people what to do with their money. But we also have to be realistic. If it takes goverment ordered savings to make sure that the govmerment (and thats you and me too) in the future dont have to deal with massive amounts of old people who did not think to save up for their old age, or people who could give a rats *** about it... then I say force people to save. Its good for the economy in the long term and hence good for the nation as a whole. If this saving is done via the tax system or some sort of forced investment thingy... dont care, as long as its done.
lol So europeans have better money management skills? As proven by their better economies? I'm pretty sure this isn't what you're saying.
Nope, did not say European goverments.. I said europeans. We have lower personal debt rates and higher savings rates in general (which aint hard when comparing to the US).
But I will give you an example. About a decade ago, Danes recieved a tax cut that could be felt.. sent to them in a check even (first time ever I think, done this way). Did it spur a massive spending spree.. nope, it did however cut debts and increased savings, which was not the intention of the goverment. It took another tax break and lots of publicity to even see a bump in consumption which was the goal. Now lets look at the US. I know that americans recieved a tax break not long ago.. did they cut thier debts or increased saving? Or did they spend even more?
Firstly, just because cutting spending is politically difficult does not speak of whether or not it would be better.
Also, the U.S. got along just fine without these kinds of programs. Granted it had failures in monetary policy.
If you wish I can go through a number of places to cut spending in the U.S. It would be somewhat long-winded.
I dont agree with that the US got along just fine. Maybe for the rich, but not for the majority of the population. Much of the economic "boom" happened after the "socialist" ideas of SS and others were implemented. One can debate what impact said ideas had, but I know in Europe they had big impacts.
The problem is, all of these things come at the cost of someone else. If people really do feel that certain groups need a certain level of charity then why not make it voluntary. Why not make it so people can freely choose to help others out. I strongly believe that people can and will donate to charities they see fit to donate to.
See this is where Americans and Europeans differ. You seem perfectly willing to have millions of poor starving people, just as long as its not your problem. Europeans see such things as societies failure and societies (with the goverment in a natural front role) to fix these problems. I am guessing it comes from out secular life, where chruch is not part of the equation anymore... something about 1000+ plus years of the church keeping the ordinary man down in poverty thing.
Secondly, you do not end or completely cut social security overnight. You would have to lessen benefits slowly. But the point is, people should have the freedom to set that aside for their retirement.
People are able to set aside the money especially if they do not have a government taking away 1/3 of their earnings. The point remains, that by letting them keep that money they are given the same choices on whether or not to save it or spend it. The point is not how they spend it, but them having the freedom and choice to do so. Your argument presupposes the government is able to make better decisions with their money then they are. And this is simply not true.
And what if they dont spend it on a retierment fund? Who will pay for them when they get old then? Or would you just have them put down because they cant pay their own way? Or leave them to starve on the streets.. you do know that was why SS was put in place in the first place right?
I am all for giving as much money to people as possible. However I will not sit around and pay for someone who could not be bothered to save, when it could have been avoided by forcing every single person to save X% of their income in one or several forms of saving.. heck they could even chose which, just as long as they saved for their old age.
And SS dont prevent people from having their own retirement plan does it now?
Of course you have to pay for a good military. I am not arguing for no government. What I am arguing, is that when the government takes up too many roles it creates a concentration of power. Throughout history such concentrations of power have threatened the liberty and freedom of all. "A government that can give you everything you want can take away everything you have," (barry goldwater). Also, when the government takes up too many roles it becomes unable to execute its chief functions; among these is protecting the rights of its people.
I agree fully (well not the good military part). Its defining goverments role thats the problem.