Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 02-11-2010, 07:19 AM

Pan, I don't disagree with your stated problems; I disagree with your plan, and despite what you say, promoting the well-being of all people is a focus of liberalism and various forms of socialism.

Your plan will eliminate many imports (i.e. some products would seek markets other than the U.S.), and raise the prices on many others (raised costs = raised prices). This will spike the CPI and inflation, as would arbitrarily raising wages domestically.

I'm a proponent of a balanced mixed economy. That means I value markets that are regulated and fair. I also value market values being set primarily by market forces: namely, supply and demand. Too much intervention in this is a bad thing, as it discourages/dampens competition, which hurts everyone.

I would like it very much for Third World countries to raise their standard of living. Unfortunately, this would come at the cost of the standard of living in developed nations. Put another way: a higher quality of life to the Third World will come at the cost of the developed world: average prices around the world would go up. America would see an end to cheap goods. And they would have tougher competition for labour pools as well. This would send shockwaves through world markets, and I think you would find an even greater disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S. Though the Third World would have more livable lives, which I guess isn't such a bad thing. Sacrifices would have to be made, I suppose. America (et al) has had to too good for too long.

Like you said, you can't have it both ways.

I'd sooner support a plan in the form of widespread subsidies, grants, and tax breaks.

02-11-2010, 07:19 AM	#80 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Pan, I don't disagree with your stated problems; I disagree with your plan, and despite what you say, promoting the well-being of all people is a focus of liberalism and various forms of socialism. Your plan will eliminate many imports (i.e. some products would seek markets other than the U.S.), and raise the prices on many others (raised costs = raised prices). This will spike the CPI and inflation, as would arbitrarily raising wages domestically. I'm a proponent of a balanced mixed economy. That means I value markets that are regulated and fair. I also value market values being set primarily by market forces: namely, supply and demand. Too much intervention in this is a bad thing, as it discourages/dampens competition, which hurts everyone. I would like it very much for Third World countries to raise their standard of living. Unfortunately, this would come at the cost of the standard of living in developed nations. Put another way: a higher quality of life to the Third World will come at the cost of the developed world: average prices around the world would go up. America would see an end to cheap goods. And they would have tougher competition for labour pools as well. This would send shockwaves through world markets, and I think you would find an even greater disparity between the rich and poor in the U.S. Though the Third World would have more livable lives, which I guess isn't such a bad thing. Sacrifices would have to be made, I suppose. America (et al) has had to too good for too long. Like you said, you can't have it both ways. I'd sooner support a plan in the form of widespread subsidies, grants, and tax breaks. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 02-11-2010 at 07:26 AM..