CB -
I think it's symptomatic of another issue, one I've raised before numerous times on different threads, but never elicited a response. ...
There. Happy now? -g-
...Other countries do things differently - instead of putting the social burdens on the employer, the government is responsible, e.g., in China and Canada, health care is provided by the government, not the employer. ...
Given the choice, health care should be provided by doctors and nurses. In the US, if the government doesn't provide health care, it certainly controls it.
All of the regulatory schemes you mention provide for a severely hampered market, not a free one, both for the domestic and international markets.
...If the US electorate thinks these laws are good things, what - if anything - do we do about the fact that companies which produce goods in countries that don't have these laws can produce goods cheaper?...
By and large, if what the US electorate does can be called thinking, it is what results from decades of indoctrination by the government schools and the mass media.
In any case, the majority of the benefit of trade goes to the importing nation (for large developed integrated economies, not small undeveloped ones), and import tariffs are self destructive. There is no natural right to export, and a company that decides to become dependent on exports has accepted a political risk.
Regards, Don |
