From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: FAQ: The Record Thing
Summary: free-market fallacy
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:51:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.bush

In article <16856B98B.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
> In article <3T5DqB3w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
> >
> >What Clinton proposes is more dramatic than 1990, since that was a compromise
> >that was hammered out by two diametrically opposed groups.  Clinton's economic
> >plan calls for tax increases to control the deficit and re-direction of
> >spending from areas where it is not necessary (certain defense expenditures,
> >for example) into areas where the government can make a contribution to the
> >overall economy, such as job training, education, etc.
>  
> This is exactly why Clinton is going to drive the economy into the toilet.
>  (stuff deleted)
>  
> But for some unexplicable reason, we have a hard core that rejects a
> rational methodology anchored in the historical record of the last
> hundred years, and instead insists that the only way to economic health
> is through hand waving and the invocation of the magic words "infrastructure"
> and "education".
>  
> Did Holland in the 18th century accumulate the greatest wealth in Europe
> through infrastructure? Was their secret high taxes and education, given that
> the majority of the were functionally illiterate?
>  
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
>  medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
>  mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
>  medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
>  KE8YY


So low taxes, low government spending, and ignorance are the path to wealth?
This sure will be a shock to Germany and Japan, with their >60% top personal
income tax rates, infrastructure spending 2-3X ours and massive social outlays,
including socialized medicine, and best-educated work forces in the world.
I suppose their economic success and rates of growth in GDP are irrelevant here?

Listen up.  Any time you here "Unleash market forces" "Get government out of
business's way" "The virtue of the free market", your BS detector should be on
overload.  NO nation today has a "free market."  NO nation today practices
"free trade."  To appeal to these non-existent practices is futile and
ultimately diversionary from the real problems.  

The world has changed and 18th century economic theories no longer apply.
Today's successful economies employ business-government partnerships for the
economic gain of their people.  All the Asian tigers beat us on GDP growth by
at least 2X in the past 10 years.  All have managed economies that laissez-faire
theorists would predict to be inefficient.  The only other supply-side,
laissez-faire practicioner today is England, and they have one of the few
industrial economies worse off than ours.

Part of the reason is that the advantage in trade for a government-supported
competitor is almost insurmountable.  Trade negotiator Prestowitz writes in the
_Economist_   "If the US persists in laissez-faire policies in the face of a
determined assault by a Japanese "keiretsu", then the eventual dominance of
Japan in that industry is a foregone conclusion."

What Clinton has done is tried to incorporate the best ideas he could find in
other countries' economic thinking.  If we are too stubborn (or blinded by
quasi-religious economic thinking) to learn from the success of others, then we
surely will fail.

steve soar
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:2598 alt.politics.marrou:878 talk.politics.misc:41455 alt.politics.elections:11359