From: mjkugel@iastate.edu (Michael J Kugel)
Subject: Re: Flip-flop?!?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:56:02 GMT

In article <30754@castle.ed.ac.uk> barryb@castle.ed.ac.uk (Barry A T Brown) writes:
>|> |> And on to Barry...
>|> |> >|> Really now, we should all know buy now that government intervention in
>|> |> >|> the market place means increased inefficiency.  
>|> |> 
>|> |> Barry writes:
>|> |> >If anything the contrary is true - The Japanise, Korean and German governments>all take a very active government intervention policy.  Countrys that don't-
>|> |> >e.g Britain + America have less successful economys.
>|> |> 
>|> |> In addition to the responses of others, I'd point out to Barry the current
>|> |> position of Japan and Germany, namely recession.  Also, that Germany and
>|> |> Japan the industialized countries... are privatizing their economies.
>|> |> Example, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph, Volkswagen, Matra, St.-Gobain,
>|> |> Paribas, Compagnie Generale d'Electricite, Havas, British Aerospace,
>|> |> British Telecom, BAA, and Air Canada.
>
>
>Germany is NOT in recession (if you define recession as a drop in GDP four quarters in a row) which is suprising considering the effects of unification.
>|> 
>Japan's internal problems are results of bad political decision making and government
>corruption in the eighties.   It is still in a far stronger position for long term 
>growth than America.  Japan is also suffering from it's own success - i.e the price of the Yen against the dollar.
>
>The whole world is in recession! America however has a extreamly lax monetary policy 
>which is still not dragging itself our of its own low growth.  
> 
>Most of the privitisation you mention was carried out in the Eighties by governments
>desperately trying to push down their inflation figures by setting taxes and public spending at unrealisticly low levels.  Many of these countries are now facing tax increases (i.e Britain + Germany).  Also when I think of state intervention I don't  nece|> ssarily mean state owned firms - a rather clumsy form of state intervention.  Better examples are Japanise and German examples of joint public-private works and the state setting up independent institutions to control industry. (i.e how British se
>
>
>
>he German investment system)
>
>|> |> 
>|> |> Active intervention doesn't work.  In Japan, state supported monopolies
>|> |> are falling apart.  The companies that were allowed to grow so "amazingly"
>|> |> are fracturing.
>|> |> 
>|> |> On the other hand, the U.S. is leaner on intervention, and more productive.
>|> |> There is a direct connection... less intervention = greater precision and
>|> |> productivity.
>
>I admit that bad state intervention (i.e South America) can be a death call for industry but well run and thought out state intervention can produce more productive companies which also take responsibility for there action rather than mercilous persuit of the profit instinct.  The scandanavian countries all enjoy high standards of living yet cause far less damage to the enviroment than comparitive American firms.

Isn't Sweden abandoning social democracy (or at least drastically
reducing its scope).


>
>|> |> >|> If Clinton wanted to give
>|> |> >|> the country a real economic stimulus, he could do it by pushing for the
>|> |> >|> removal of restrictive regulations and taxes.  
>
>|> |> 
>|> |> >This is what Bush+Regan had been promissing for 12 years.  IT CANNOT BE DONE!
>|> |> 
>|> |> Saying it can not be done... first doesn't refute that it is the right
>|> |> thing to do, and second doesn't open the mind to new ways of doing it.
>|> |> Bush actually was somewhat successful, surprising considering having
>|> |> a rival party in the Congress (George Washington had it right when he 
>|> |> pointed out that Parties are counter productive and stupid).
>|> 
>I don't refute that it is wrong.  I have no experience of working in the American enviroment and I have heard many reports than in much American law is badly constructed and thought out.  Bush's may have been successful considering the deadlock but that, |> again, is an example of a badly formed administrative framework.  Whats the point in a leader if he can't do *ANY* of what he wants?  Too much seperation of powers results leaders unable to implement strong and necessary programs, which the people
>
>
>
> for, but which cross many special interest groups.
>
>As for parties being wrong - In a situation in America each member of the leglislature seems to be able to vote for himself so he is representing himself, not his party.  In Britain voteing in the House of commons is conducted on strict party lines allowi|> ng for a far more concentrated political system.  (which, in all truth, probalbly has more faults than the American system - but different ones)
>
>|> |> 
>|> |> If you wanted to help out further, reduce the Capital Gains tax.  Why
>|> |> disencourage investment?  Drop incentives to borrow... drop mortgage
>|> |> incentives.  The government if anything tries to lead business and 
>|> |> consumers into destroying themselves.
>|> 
>I think much of business & consumers are prefectly capable of destroying themselves without government help.  The S&L fiasco (the _real_ issue (if a little dated) in american fiance)  is a perfect example of government leaving the running of a whole secto|> r of industry to the profit instinct.


>
>|> |> >|>Less government = more freedom and opportunity.
>|> |> >More freedom, true but not neccesarly more prosperity or contentment.
>|> |> 
>|> |> I restate myself and add:
>|> |> 
>|> |> Less government = more freedom, opportunity, prosperity, productivity,
>|> |> precision, and for me contentment.
>|> |> 
>
> freedom to starve, opportunity for fraud, prosperity for the few, productivity
> by using low cost labour, precision without invention and lack of contentment.

Productivity by using low cost labor?  What does that mean?

>|> |> What makes you content I have no idea... but I'd rather be free and 
>|> |> wealthy than poor and repressed.
>
> If America is so happy with it's laissez-faire government why did it vote 
> for change?  What do you say to the majority of the American population who's 
We have not had a laissez-faire government in quite some time---that's
the problem.  Government's role should be limited to improving the
market, not replacing it.

> real incomes FELL in the last ten years.  Are they so content?
>
>And thats not even mentioning the benefits of decent state services.

Services which can be more efficiently provided by the private sector.


Newsgroups: alt.president.clinton