---- Original Message -----
From: "Jed Rothwell"
> We could encourage the sidelining of gas guzzlers
> by taxing new large vehicles like SUVs. The old ones will
> wear out in
> time and sideline themselves.
Michael Foster wrote:
Excuse me while I run outside to wave my little worker's hat and
sing
another rousing chorus of the Internationale.
JR:
Oh come now. The government has spent the last 50 years
subsidizing oil production, blocking alternative energy, and
giving huge tax breaks for SUVs. Why is it now suddenly
Socialism to suggest that the government stopped tilting the
playing field in favor of these technologies and perhaps do
something to discourage them instead?
This exchange neatly illustrates one overriding point, and is very
pertinent to the recent "big picture" story of overlapping
social/political control over economics. Which is more efficient -
communism, socialism, or free-enterprise?
In this months Forbes, there is the new survey of World
competitiveness, and once again the contrast in the #1 and #2
rankings is illustrative of the point that I am trying to shoehorn
in here.
Finland (very socialistic) is #1 in overall competitiveness for
the second year running while the USA (somewhat capitalistic) is
#2 once again. Other socialist countries round out the top 10.
Would the USA even be in the top 10 if we were not blessed with
extreme natural resources, timber, minerals, petroleum and good
farm land? Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, have none of these
yet they are doing quite well, thanks to their advanced political
system (for one thing).
BTW going "too far" to the left, as always, is counter-indicated.
Communism is proven to be uncompetitive, over and over, and
whatever else you may say about the great advance of China - this
year they actually FELL in competitiveness - to below India,
believe it or not.
In terms of economic competitiveness, even without the benefit of
natural resources, the message has been clear for years. Socialism
rules.
Jones
- Re: The Grip of Gas Jones Beene
-
