That's all very interesting and very confusing:
1) I don't recall saying there should be no EPA. There should. It has a role. You seem to be setting up a strawman. I'm saying politically motivated 'one size fits all' solutions are, generally, poor solutions and, often, lead to a kind of tyranny resulting in worsening rather than improving conditions for the average citizen. That which can be done at a lower level of government should be done there and not elevated to a higher level (further from the influence and voices of the people directly affected). A uniquely American precept going all the way back to Montesquieu.
2) "A standard of living that's been going down ever since Reagan took over?"
If you mean, ever since Reagan left office, in a manner of speaking -- yes. And, I would agree "those in the rust belt" would most certainly "agree with that" (unemployment now vs. then).
3) "And there is no way besides a top-down centrally planned economy and a wide open laissez-faire economy." I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
4) "Northern and Western Europe as just hell holes compared to the U.S." You have a flair for hyperbole and exaggeration. . . But, yup, we're better off here (or, "were" shall we say).
5) There are no true capitalists in China -- because there is no freedom. See Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. There are, and have often been in the past, activities permitted by communist governments to take temporary advantage of the natural benefits of supply and demand (Eg., the Soviet's five-year plans). A parallel exists today in the U.S. -- Obama's plan to grant select exemptions to Obamacare to friends and supporters, contrary to the rule of law, equal protection, and the Constitution's explicit injunctions -- for political convenience. In short, conveniences needed in any centrally planned, government-run economy to keep it from imploding. Remember, when freedom can be granted or denied by a government (and not seen as an "inalienable right") there is no freedom. A slave master can, at times, be generous with his slave . . . when it suits him.
6) If the interests of the business community are "all powerful", why isn't Romney in the White House? LOL.
7) Why should American business intersts not have influence in Asian, or any other, trade talks? And, immigration policy is ultimately decided by the political class you seem to be so fond of, which is why we have droves of unskilled labor pouring in from the south in lieu of skilled labor pouring in from the east. Aren't those politicians the ones being influenced by those corrupt ol' capitalists you abhore? What happened to "just say no"? Answer -- it can be found nowhere in that mecca of central planning you prefer.
8) And who's to decide what are and are not "the true and full costs of their..." (the Kentucky coal mine operators) "... operations" -- incorruptable Massachusettes Congressmen, Hillary Clinton's fund-raisers, or you?
Best
reply
share