I am not convinced that a free market and hands off government are the best engine of economic growth--particularly widespread economic growth that serves the majority of the population.
First off there has never really been a free market.
Second of all, I am not sure economic growth is the right metric... especially when the benefits that…
I am not convinced that a free market and hands off government are the best engine of economic growth--particularly widespread economic growth that serves the majority of the population.
First off there has never really been a free market.
Second of all, I am not sure economic growth is the right metric... especially when the benefits that economic growth isn't shared well with the population.
Third, there are actual national/merchantilistic considerations (like having certain capabilities in-country and things like not depending upon strategic enemies for your energy supply, those kinds of things).
I believe that regulated markets are good... if the regulation is sound and not corrupt.
Okay, per your last point, here's a question I have trouble answering:
Right now a company in Taiwan produces almost the entire global supply of computer chips. (If only it were merely potato chips.) Taiwan is, of course, threatened by China, which would love to get its hands on those chips (and I bet it couldn't eat just one).
Should the US gov't (a) call China's bluff on Taiwan even if it risks war, (b) subsidize a US chip mfr even if it means spending loads more money and/or burdening Americans with higher prices on electronics while shutting Taiwan out, (c) scour the global landscape for chip start ups and pursue trade deals with the respective host countries, (d) all of the above, (e) none of the above, or (f) ?????
A combination of these things (so D). In the real world you are not limited to doing one thing.
It is important to support Taiwan, for a number of reasons--not just chips;
It might be a REALLY good idea to have some chip manufacturing capability in-house and a government subsidy would be useful--the US could actually just build the factory, itself, and lease it to a manufacturer;
Work with or even create start ups in various locales to create more capacity in a variety of locations, again an overall good.
I agree that pure laissez-faire is an abstraction; worse, in practice, it would probably resemble something out of of Thomas Hobbes.
Nonetheless, the answer to inequality caused by (relatively) free markets is a degree of redistribution, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Right now, borrowing stands in for taxation, but the US will have to face that choice eventually.
The problem with "buy American" or like-minded industrial policies is that (a) the principle is susceptible to politically motivated abuse, and (b) favoring your favorite industries entails tariffs and artificial pricing which exclude beneficial imports and hurt both consumers and most producers without guaranteeing adequate supplies of the favored product. The better answer to that is to build alliances with like minded countries as sources of necessary imports.
Who is killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I haven't been seeing that happen.
There is always politically motivated abuse. If we didn't do things for fear of politically motivated abuse, we would do nothing. Most of current tax and industrial policy is a result of various corrupt practices (even if legal, they are still corrupt).
You can do a mixture of things to meet your desired goals--provided your desired goals are more than making money as quickly and in as large a quantity as possible.
Agree. It is the combination of good government and regulated and competitive market that produces the most good for the most people. Industrial policy works.
I am not convinced that a free market and hands off government are the best engine of economic growth--particularly widespread economic growth that serves the majority of the population.
First off there has never really been a free market.
Second of all, I am not sure economic growth is the right metric... especially when the benefits that economic growth isn't shared well with the population.
Third, there are actual national/merchantilistic considerations (like having certain capabilities in-country and things like not depending upon strategic enemies for your energy supply, those kinds of things).
I believe that regulated markets are good... if the regulation is sound and not corrupt.
Okay, per your last point, here's a question I have trouble answering:
Right now a company in Taiwan produces almost the entire global supply of computer chips. (If only it were merely potato chips.) Taiwan is, of course, threatened by China, which would love to get its hands on those chips (and I bet it couldn't eat just one).
Should the US gov't (a) call China's bluff on Taiwan even if it risks war, (b) subsidize a US chip mfr even if it means spending loads more money and/or burdening Americans with higher prices on electronics while shutting Taiwan out, (c) scour the global landscape for chip start ups and pursue trade deals with the respective host countries, (d) all of the above, (e) none of the above, or (f) ?????
A combination of these things (so D). In the real world you are not limited to doing one thing.
It is important to support Taiwan, for a number of reasons--not just chips;
It might be a REALLY good idea to have some chip manufacturing capability in-house and a government subsidy would be useful--the US could actually just build the factory, itself, and lease it to a manufacturer;
Work with or even create start ups in various locales to create more capacity in a variety of locations, again an overall good.
I agree that pure laissez-faire is an abstraction; worse, in practice, it would probably resemble something out of of Thomas Hobbes.
Nonetheless, the answer to inequality caused by (relatively) free markets is a degree of redistribution, not killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Right now, borrowing stands in for taxation, but the US will have to face that choice eventually.
The problem with "buy American" or like-minded industrial policies is that (a) the principle is susceptible to politically motivated abuse, and (b) favoring your favorite industries entails tariffs and artificial pricing which exclude beneficial imports and hurt both consumers and most producers without guaranteeing adequate supplies of the favored product. The better answer to that is to build alliances with like minded countries as sources of necessary imports.
Who is killing the goose that laid the golden egg? I haven't been seeing that happen.
There is always politically motivated abuse. If we didn't do things for fear of politically motivated abuse, we would do nothing. Most of current tax and industrial policy is a result of various corrupt practices (even if legal, they are still corrupt).
You can do a mixture of things to meet your desired goals--provided your desired goals are more than making money as quickly and in as large a quantity as possible.
Agree. It is the combination of good government and regulated and competitive market that produces the most good for the most people. Industrial policy works.