Re: More economically efficient US?

From: Dez Akin (dezakin_at_usa.net)
Date: 11/30/04 

Date: 30 Nov 2004 05:00:48 -0800

zerge@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message news:<f0a1621c.0411291236.207c89d1@posting.google.com>...
> dezakin@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:<dd43b4da.0411281704.90e3729@posting.google.com>...
> > Suppose a group of like minded economists with semi-facist leanings
> > managed to completely take over the US government (_not_ the current
> > republicans obviously) who weren't beholden to any special interests
> > or dreams of empire building, spreading democracy, environmental
> > protection (outside of its negative effects on the economy) or
> > anything outside of the interest of maximizing economic growth. Maybe
> > this is isomorphic to the current ruling powers of China today.
> >
> > What policies would be best to pursue?
> >
> > Now, I'll put forward my ideas (I assume will be contested as naive at
> > best, but I am interested in responses) and I'm also interested in
> > other opinions on what the ideal policies for maximizing economic
> > growth in the US.
> >
> > Probably the first thing I would focus on is simplifying the tax code
> > and eliminating most entitlement programs. Social Security almost
> > definately, along with medicare, farm supports, loan guarantees,
> > etcetera. Probably all foreign aid would just get pulled.
>
> Simplifying tax code: good.
>
> Eliminating things like medicare: bad. Unlike most goods and services,
> free markets do NOT efficiently regulate this particular market. You
> need gov intervention. Unless your facist economists don't care if
> people die.

Well, thats the requirement of the thought experiment: economic growth
is the goal more than social justice or ethical consideration. So, for
the purpose of this argument, yes, the hypothetical economists dont
care if people die... specifically they dont care if unproductive
people die.

> Eliminating foreign aid: Unlike what you may believe, this aid is not
> given out by the government out of goodness. Rather, the objective is
> to have leverage over the politics of other countries. "Do what we,
> um, suggest, or no more foreign aid for you". I would like to think
> that your facist economists would have a few foreign policy advisors.

Sure there are cases where it may be valuable, but I would argue that
in most cases it is fairly worthless, and aggrivates many foreign
policy relations by taking 'sides'

> > The tax code would probably be semi-progressive: No one pay taxes on
> > income below 40k per year, and everyone pays 25% above that. No
> > distinction between income and capital gains, dividends, inheritance,
> > its all income.
>
> Then those earning $41K could just give away $1K and save themselves
> $10K in taxes. Pretty huge loophole.

Oh come on, thats not how the tax code works now and thats not what I
was implying. people who make 41k a year that give away 1k save
themselves $250 dollars in taxes, not 10k...

> > Where the state would have a strong role would be education and
> > fertility promotion... pay people to have children as it were, and to
> > educate them until they are old enough to contribute to the economy.
>
> Um, we are talking about the US, not the Netherlands, right? Because
> in the US you don't need to pay people to have kids; they'll do it for
> free. Repeatedly.

Most of US population growth is due to immigration, and still
fertility is falling off. While people will have more children in the
US than in europe or japan, they certainly could have more, and
population growth does contribute to economic growth.

> Education thing: good.
>
> >
> > National defence would probably pull away entirely from the power
> > projection front and to the more cost effective strategic deterrance
> > front. Not great for national prestige, losing aircraft carriers and
> > such, but certainly more affordable than maintaining a large,
> > ungovernable empire.
> >
> > Labor unions would be subject to the same antitrust laws as
> > corporations.
> >
> > IP law would probably be significantly redefined to encourage
> > innovation rather than to do IP landgrabs and patent terrorism.
> > (Copyright and patent lasting flat 10 years each, renewable once);
> > Patent only covers _novel_ unobvious innovations.
> >
> > Nasa would probably be eliminated, along with all of the rather costly
> > nuclear research that has little potential economic gain in the short
> > to mid term.
>
> This goes against your plan to reduce the military and depend on
> nuclear deterrence.
> If do this, soon China will rule the orbit (the ultimate high ground)
> and will be able to bomb your ass from high above.

Ah, NASA is not a military institution and it no longer furthers
military deterance goals. Missile development is pretty mature as is,
and China 'ruling the orbit' doesn't eliminate deterance. You dont
know where all the subs are, you can't knock down ICBM's after the
boost phase, and you can develop strategic deterance on a budget that
no great power can defeat.

> It's not all about pure economics, you know. You need politics too.
> The US does not exist in a vacumm; there are hundreds of other
> countries on the planet, and most don't agree with the American world
> view. If your facist economists don't take this into consideration, it
> doesn't matter how good their economic planning may be, chances are,
> the other countries would be hard at work at their own economic plans,
> which most likely would collide with yours.

I'm suspicous of the necessity to treat everything in a political
light.

Quantcast