Pursuit of Happiness Tuesday, Mar 16 2010 

“Capitalism as a way of thinking is fundamentally individualistic…the individual is the center of capitalist endeavor…that society is composed of individuals who pursue their own interests, that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests (this, in Capitalism, is called ‘economic freedom’” (Hooker).This economic freedom is a large part of Americans’ “unalienable” and constitutionally secured right to pursue happiness (Jefferson). Thucydides the Greek author is quoted; “The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.”America’s founders showed the courage to form a country with individual freedoms greater than those of any country previous; with those freedoms we have the right to pursue our own individual idea of happiness. America was founded on the principal of the sovereign individual,and the philosophy that each man seeking their individual success independently would combine to yield the highest standard of living and the most successful nation.To detach America and Capitalism would be destructive to the American way of life, detrimental to the American standard of living, deliberately unconstitutional and explicitly un-American.

Hooker, Richard. Issue Brief. The European Enlightenment Glossary. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” Continental Congress. Proc. of Continental Congress, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Print.

Advertisements

Public Option Tuesday, Mar 9 2010 

How does a Government run Public Option fit into a free market economy? A public option as defined by wikipedia is, “a Qualified Health Benefit Plan competing with similar private insurance plans… enabling citizens and small businesses to purchase health insurance meeting the minimum federal standard.” Capitalism generally supports competition, however not when the federal or state governments are taking part. Rather, Capitalism supports privatized competition. When the government enters the business arena all loses are footed by tax payers rather than shareholders. Also the Government has an unfair advantage over privatized competitions; the government has the power to make the laws that all competitors must abide by.  In addition the government doesn’t have an incentive motive for running their business efficiently. If a competitor is inefficient with their business they lose profits if the federal government is inefficient they have the ability to raise taxes, the superior funding of the U.S. government allows public health care to lower prices, and ultimately put all competition out of business, leading to a government takeover of what was once one sixth of the private sector. Many in support of a Public Option justify it by citing the constitutional right to care for ones health and arguing the government’s main objective is to, “secure our natural rights.” To this arugement Paul Ryan retorts, “the right to care for one’s health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.”

Said best by Ryan, “Government’s constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets—markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal—and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case—government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.”

Capitalism was to designed to run itself, more or less, if it needs help the government should be there to steer rather than joining the race to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option

Ryan, Paul. Imprimis. Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College, 2010. Print.

Restrictions v. Laissez- faire (America) Tuesday, Feb 23 2010 

America operates and has operated under a modified free-enterprise economy since our country was established. The term “Laissez-faire” comes from the French for  “let it be” or “leave it alone”, in reference to state intervention in industry. The modification of the “free-enterprise”  refers to state issued restrictions on trade, which obviously contradicts the Laissez-faire principals. Recently, with the current economic recession, the amount of freedom alloted to domestic enterprises has been drawn into question. Many Americans believe the lax in banking regulation and irresponsible capitalism were the largest contributors to the current economic crisis. Very few, if any, politicians believe America should practice Laissez-faire capitalism. The single issue that most directly indicates where ones lies on the fiscal spectrum from Republican to Democratic; the amount of state regulation the government should apply to US industry.

Those arguing for less regulation beleive that regualtion “raises the cost of doing business and reduces job growth” and that increasing tariffs, ” A tax imposed on a product when it is imported into a country”, “reduces the variety of consumer goods while limiting the potential markets of exporters.”

While those in favor of increased government regulation of the finical sector argue, “deregulation, specifically of the financial sector, that has brought us to this denouement. Better regulation would have prevented the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse.” They also believe, “Banks would not be sitting on unknown amounts of bad loans had regulators been empowered to control their activities. Unwitting borrowers would not have been enticed to purchase homes beyond their means absent unscrupulous real estate agents and mortgage brokers.”

http://www.investorwords.com/4877/tariff.html

http://economics.about.com/od/beyondeconomics/a/review.htm

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/09/the_choice_capitalism_or_regul.html