Apr 13th 2011, 4:33:06
on #4 I sort of view like the post office vs. Fedex and UPS.
While the post office may not be as efficient as Fedex and UPS it still forces those companies to remain competitive. It also provides for innovation as these companies do what they can to get and keep their share of the market. the gov of course will always be able to provide lower cost, and as it learns from Fedex and UPS can and does become a better service provider.
For #5 I normally shy away from subsidized solutions or penalties being levied for non-conformance to standards we believe should be enacted outside of our own borders. I just can't think of some way to level this playing field against a global economy, where countries allow major environmental damage to occur and/or do not come close to providing a living wage for their workers.
#1 cannot occur without addressing fundamental issues which affect our economy. we either lower our standard of living and shrink the economy or we close down programs which are actually safety nets. An easy solutions could be to lower our own global footprint by shrinking our military involvement globally. This however also means we would need to let go of strategic positions we consider crucial to our national interests. What this actually means is American corporations abroad exploiting resources and labor resources would be left defenseless to face the wrath of some local populations. A huge portion of American involvement abroad is to ensure governments remain friendly to these types of exploitation.
It may sound like the right thing to do especially when considering how our national interests are being represented abroad. however this would translate into much higher prices within the G-8 countries. We also have the SCO currently jostling for global dominance when it comes to trade. So it definitely would not create a vacuum if we were to step aside. It would just give rise to a new power bloc dictating who gets what, and I doubt we would be very high up on this totem pole.
As harsh as it may sound, we may be headed into a repeat of the great depression. Unless we find a way to revitalize our manufacturing sector and this does not necessarily have to be cars or electronics. It can be medicine, green energy, advanced composite materials, whatever it takes as long as it is profitable. Which points to another aspect of the problem wherein vast amounts of R&D expenses paid for by taxes in academia, is not recouped. The R&D results are exported oversees where it is cheaper to commercialize. So in reality other countries are capitalizing on this research at our expense. This has to stop somehow, this R&D is expensive and we are giving away major strategic advantages every-time this research ends up in foreign hands.
While the post office may not be as efficient as Fedex and UPS it still forces those companies to remain competitive. It also provides for innovation as these companies do what they can to get and keep their share of the market. the gov of course will always be able to provide lower cost, and as it learns from Fedex and UPS can and does become a better service provider.
For #5 I normally shy away from subsidized solutions or penalties being levied for non-conformance to standards we believe should be enacted outside of our own borders. I just can't think of some way to level this playing field against a global economy, where countries allow major environmental damage to occur and/or do not come close to providing a living wage for their workers.
#1 cannot occur without addressing fundamental issues which affect our economy. we either lower our standard of living and shrink the economy or we close down programs which are actually safety nets. An easy solutions could be to lower our own global footprint by shrinking our military involvement globally. This however also means we would need to let go of strategic positions we consider crucial to our national interests. What this actually means is American corporations abroad exploiting resources and labor resources would be left defenseless to face the wrath of some local populations. A huge portion of American involvement abroad is to ensure governments remain friendly to these types of exploitation.
It may sound like the right thing to do especially when considering how our national interests are being represented abroad. however this would translate into much higher prices within the G-8 countries. We also have the SCO currently jostling for global dominance when it comes to trade. So it definitely would not create a vacuum if we were to step aside. It would just give rise to a new power bloc dictating who gets what, and I doubt we would be very high up on this totem pole.
As harsh as it may sound, we may be headed into a repeat of the great depression. Unless we find a way to revitalize our manufacturing sector and this does not necessarily have to be cars or electronics. It can be medicine, green energy, advanced composite materials, whatever it takes as long as it is profitable. Which points to another aspect of the problem wherein vast amounts of R&D expenses paid for by taxes in academia, is not recouped. The R&D results are exported oversees where it is cheaper to commercialize. So in reality other countries are capitalizing on this research at our expense. This has to stop somehow, this R&D is expensive and we are giving away major strategic advantages every-time this research ends up in foreign hands.
ZDH: Doesn't the Tigress do all the hunting and killing anyway?
Happy Hunting - Tigress
Happy Hunting - Tigress