Monday, February 19, 2007
Globalization...who benefits?
In short...all nations should benefit from a global economy. Nations, much like people, all have unique attributes or competitive advantages. Some nations have specific natural resources such as oil or iron, while others educate and yet others manufacture things. Where practice fails to mirror theory, is when governments create trade barriers, whether via subsidies or tariffs, that alter the consumer benefits competitive advantages offer.
Case in point: Affordable Japanese housing is less available simply because their government continues to subsidize the growing of rice. The Japanese government has made the decision that domestic rice production takes a front seat to housing. The result here is that an army of small rice growers cultivate land that could be used to increase their housing stock. Rice could alternatively be imported at a price less than what Japanese consumers currently pay simply because other countries have the resources to be more efficient producers of rice.
What rice is to Japan, sugar is to the United States and this is to say that most countries have erected barriers that alter many nations' competitive advantages. While most nations ought to benefit from a global economy, those benefits are significantly diminished by barriers to trade.
In short...all nations should benefit from a global economy. Nations, much like people, all have unique attributes or competitive advantages. Some nations have specific natural resources such as oil or iron, while others educate and yet others manufacture things. Where practice fails to mirror theory, is when governments create trade barriers, whether via subsidies or tariffs, that alter the consumer benefits competitive advantages offer.
Case in point: Affordable Japanese housing is less available simply because their government continues to subsidize the growing of rice. The Japanese government has made the decision that domestic rice production takes a front seat to housing. The result here is that an army of small rice growers cultivate land that could be used to increase their housing stock. Rice could alternatively be imported at a price less than what Japanese consumers currently pay simply because other countries have the resources to be more efficient producers of rice.
What rice is to Japan, sugar is to the United States and this is to say that most countries have erected barriers that alter many nations' competitive advantages. While most nations ought to benefit from a global economy, those benefits are significantly diminished by barriers to trade.
Labels: Economic Globalization
Friday, February 16, 2007
The time is NOW for publicly financed federal elections. How many times must Congress address campaign finance reform? At what point does this issue get old? Any person that uses a statute to justify their behavior is down right guilty by association! Honest people don't have to point to a law to understand the difference between right and wrong, period. People who skirt truth and honesty will try to confuse us using the pretext "gray areas of the law". These gray areas are merely the "rationalizations of the guilty", end of argument. If we cannot elect 537 (including President & VP) trustworthy people to run our federal government, then perhaps it IS time for federal elections to be publicly financed. For those people that cite "freedom of speech" as THE argument opposing publicly financed elections, please read this article again.
Labels: Election Finance
Friday, February 02, 2007
If you are even mildly surprised by recently published intelligence reports of the situation in Iraq, then go back to sleep. Iraq is embroiled in an internal conflict this administration created. It was the opinion of the Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and Clinton administration's that removing Saddam Hussein from power would create a power vacuum resulting in at best domestic instability and at worst regional instability. For this very reason, they wisely refrained from the course of action the current Administration embarked. This Administration has placed military personnel into an internal conflict to which there can be no victory. Exactly who IS the enemy anyway? Get the picture...Iraq was ruled by a thug, because that is exactly what is required to maintain a modest degree of civility in a nation comprised of a volatile mix of militant tribes and religious fanatics. Diplomacy has no chance here, period! Thinking to the contrary is foolhardy. The best solution to the problem was lost when Saddam Hussein was executed. A wise decision would have been to send him back to Iraq, ever so mindful of the consequences of continuing to be a disruptive force in the region. Iraq IS a monumental mess and one that was "Bush-made".
Labels: Iraq
