Conjecture not fact.
Perhaps but pretty solid and for that matter rather uncontroversial conjecture. The assertion that protectionism did create the middle class is conjecture that goes father out on a limb.
Relative to what? To the current energy market?
The 20s where a relatively free market compared to the current US, not just the energy market.
2 - As less people can manufacture more goods through increased productivity the cost in terms of hours worked to buy those goods goes down. The people who no longer are need to produce goods can produce additional services. Production of both will increase faster then population growth.
More Burger Kings?
"Services" does not equal "Burger Kings". It includes food service work but food service is only a small part of the services available in the US.
re: There never has been such a guarantee, even with systems of redistribution but the typical American continues to get wealthier.
NO, THEY DON'T. Certainly not in terms of quality of life.
Yes they do. My generation compared to all the generations that came before it has more living space in their houses or apartments (with smaller households to use up this space), more cars, telephones, computers, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, TV's and alls sorts of other consumer items. The typical quality of these items is higher. My generation has a longer estimated life span, spends more time on leisure activities, travels more, has better water quality, better medical care, lower accident rates, higher real per capita income, and more access to an enormous array of good and services.
There is the downside that we face more government control and regulation then previous generations but I don't think that increase has reached the point where overall I would say our quality of life is worse.
EVERY POLITICAL DECISION CREATES A MONATARY LOSS AND GAIN.
The fact that government intervention in the economy creates losses and gains doesn't mean that we are not still primarily a free market economy, much less that we shouldn't remain primarily a free market economy.
The questions isn't if you believe in economic and social manipulation, or not; it's whose side you are on
The question isn't if you or I believe that there should be any economic and social manipulation. Its how much of it there should be. "What side you are on" is a question for each specific proposed manipulation or intervention, but isn't a very useful question when discussing the overall issue rather then the specific controversies. And even when discussing the specific controversies the answers are not limited to "government should intervene to support this side", or "government should intervene to support that side". They also include "government should not intervene in this situation".
GOVERNMENT'S DEFINITION IS SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ENGINEERING
That is a rather poor definition. I can intervene in the social and economic lives of others that doesn't make me a government. Also government can and does refrain from interfering in some situations that doesn't mean it ceases to be a government. Even a minarchist government would still be a government.
Tim |
