Occupy Wall Street

Denying a fact doesn't make it false; it merely makes you wrong.

In summary: Requiring American companies to employ American workers is nothing other than central planning of the mode of production, namely labour. This is something both Hayek and Mises opposed on the basis of it being inefficient. It is a law that falls under what conservatives would call "nanny statism," as it is state intervention into the job market.

So based on your own ideal: the market would be free except outside of America's borders. That's not a free market. That's a command economy. Your idea would by definition move away from the concept of free enterprise.

The government stating "American companies may only employ American workers" essentially turns the American job pool into state workers, where they are the only potential candidates for hire by companies and their government partner. It sounds more like a kind of socialism than a free market to me. Please tell me that American nationals can, at least, work for foreign companies....

"America is a free country. You are free to hire anyone you want as long as he or she is American. You are free to buy anything you want as long as it's American."

"But what if I wanted to---"

"PRO-AMERICA IS A FREE AMERICA!"

"...but I don't want to be a Pro'merican...."

Eddie, this sounds like the basis for a dystopian novel.

Pro-America stuff can take other forms, and OWS is already looking at ways to give the country back to the people. Reform regarding banks and corporations is exactly what OWS wants. They are raising important issues such as tuition and student loan reform (student debt is poised to become the single largest category of debt, btw), bringing back Glass-Steagall, revoking corporate personhood, electoral reform (e.g., campaign contributions), etc., which are certainly pro-America if you think about it, and they make much more sense than heavy-handed regulation of the job market.

Don't blame a global economy and a free market. Blame how government responds to it within the context of capital flows. America is very wealthy, but that wealth is flowing far too fast to the top. Think about why that is. It's not simply a problem of globalization.

This somewhat contradicts your response to roachboy regarding countries that don't allow unions.

 

Q.E.D.: 2002 United States steel tariff – Wikipedia

 

You seem to lack a fundamental understanding of macroeconomics. America's prosperity was built on global trade, not insular protectionism. When I talk about global economics, I'm not suggesting that America is somehow responsible in a charitable way to make other nations prosperous. That's silly. Americans value freer markets where they can buy and sell in a global economy. It's been that way for centuries. I don't know why you want America to suddenly oppose it now, for the first time ever. I don't get it.

While rebuilding your economy and fixing government is important, your ideas are not the way. It's not a good example to follow by any means. I don't know why you can't see that. Your ideas are radical and completely unprecedented.

Isn't federal legislation forcing companies to hire Americans and preventing Americans access to global markets anti-Constitutional and pro-big government? And depending on the particulars, it could be pro-socialist too.

You will need to demonstrate how the issues brought up by OWS are the same. I don't think you've done that yet. You just keep repeating labels. You can keep calling OWS demonstrators Muppets, but that won't turn them into Muppets.

Do you oppose tuition/student loan reform? Reinstating Glass-Steagall? Revoking corporate personhood? Reforming electoral practices such as campaign contributions?

I don't see why you'd be so much in support of severe big government interference such as what you've proposed but be against the more moderate and sensible items listed above.

You may be more in support of OWS than you'd be willing to admit. That's my view anyway.

Otherwise, you seem to contradict yourself.

 

You disagree with a fact? That's nice. But you should know that America didn't get rich on feel-good platitudes, self-congratulatory cleverness, or reciting countless Hail Marys. These things may make Americans feel good, but they don't have any basis in practical and measurable reality.

Even so, you are basically wanting the government to move toward a command economy, dictating what Americans can and cannot buy. In the past, measures to restrict trade have proved damaging to the economy.

The steel tariffs of 2002 are a good example. Limiting trade via tariffs (i.e. artificially making imports more expensive than local resources) often leads to trade wars. In this example, America wanted to restrict steel coming into the country so that American steel would be used instead. As a result, the EU instated its own tariffs. So what this means, basically, is that if the U.S. starts restricting imports, it's going to become similarly restrictive to export. This would prove disastrous to global trade, and especially the U.S. domestic market. It would raise prices across the board.

And why the hangup on American manufacturing? Is that all this is about? Doesn't that make up less than 20% of your economy?

1) The separation of corporation and state, and preventing the finance industry from gambling with people's wealth.

2) Legislation limiting the political influence of corporations, and further regulations on the finance industry forcing it to mitigate market risk when using other people's money. No more political favours via corporate clout. No more blank cheques for speculation.

 

It isn't so much Obama as it is what Obama isn't doing. He appears to be going for half-measures, most likely to keep Republicans from opposing everything he does.

They need to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

 

I think they are working on something else.

Hence the importance of separating corporation and state.