With a poverty level about half of ours, inflation that was only 1.5% in 2006 (compared to our 5.6% in 2007), they have a misery index much less than ours, and their budget is much closer to being balanced than ours (our debt grew 5 times what theirs did in 2007). then you have other nations in Europe like Finland and Sweden that are similar (higher unemployment, but lower poverty, lower inflation, lower misery index), and have a balanced budget where they are bringing in 10 to 15 billion a year (which would be about 400 to 550 billion a year for the US with the population difference).

Look at how the Swedish government has turned around the mess that happened to them in the 90's (a lending bubble that burst, sounds familar). The government took control of the situation and in less than 6 years, pulled the nation out of it, so much now that they can begin selling the corporations that they purchased back to the private sector. They've maintained a surplus for 8 of the last 10 years, and will likely remove their entire public debt in just a few years. With no public debt, they will be able to provide the level of social wellfare that they want without having to have high taxes.

Actually, economic health is not something that they look at. But if you think it does, I just have to ask you if you think that the US has a healthy economy right now? Since we are currently #5 on their list. Or to quote McCain, are the fundementals of our economy sound?


But again, let's pull up Finland. They scored 74.8 (16th), with an extremely high score for "freedom from corruption (96, Finland actually ranks number 1 in the world on this)" and extremely low in "government size (29)." And Sweden had similar results (F from C getting a 92 and gov size getting a 4, damn low).

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

If you were a CEO you may think like that.

Plenty of other CEOs wouldn’t give a rats butt. It’s more profitable not to replant. This has happened and is happening around the world. If we got to the last tree standing on the planet, there would be somebody who would chop it down if he/she could make money off it. And somebody would buy it.

I used trees because, it common sense to almost anyone that trees should be infinite. Free markets don’t ensure CEO’s care what happens in the future after they’re gone. A better model, is a mixed economy. A smart, non greedy bastard, lays down a regulation where all CEOs of logging companies replant, so there will be plenty of trees to harvest for all time.

There are always people who put money above everything else, period. That is why pure capitalism could never work.

Consumers / employees have power. But, they don’t have enough power alone in the free market to ensure a balance between the rich and the consumer. We have plenty of CEOs today that fire people for the sole purpose of putting more money in their pockets. A CEO can do too much of this and ruin a company. In a free market ,who cares, another will rise. That is a viable argument. However, if too many CEOs due this all at once, the free market fails. Supply and demand only works if demand exists.

Most people understand that not all rules are bad. Life would go on without any rules. Not life as we know it though. It’s pure fantasy to think we can junk all the rules without much or any effect to our lives.

If you were a CEO you may think like that.

Plenty of other CEOs wouldn’t give a rats butt. It’s more profitable not to replant. This has happened and is happening around the world. If we got to the last tree standing on the planet, there would be somebody who would chop it down if he/she could make money off it. And somebody would buy it.

I used trees because, it common sense to almost anyone that trees should be infinite. Free markets don’t ensure CEO’s care what happens in the future after they’re gone. A better model, is a mixed economy. A smart, non greedy bastard, lays down a regulation where all CEOs of logging companies replant, so there will be plenty of trees to harvest for all time.

There are always people who put money above everything else, period. That is why pure capitalism could never work.

Consumers / employees have power. But, they don’t have enough power alone in the free market to ensure a balance between the rich and the consumer. We have plenty of CEOs today that fire people for the sole purpose of putting more money in their pockets. A CEO can do too much of this and ruin a company. In a free market ,who cares, another will rise. That is a viable argument. However, if too many CEOs due this all at once, the free market fails. Supply and demand only works if demand exists.

Most people understand that not all rules are bad. Life would go on without any rules. Not life as we know it though. It’s pure fantasy to think we can junk all the rules without much or any effect to our lives.

One of the problems with logging is a short-term thinking on behalf of governments as well as businessmen. For example, some loggers are predatory and will take advantage of governments allowing them access to their forests. Given the leases are usually short-term, it destroys any incentive to take care of the land that is being logged. Government corruption and poor regulation then creates deforestation problems.

A potential solution could be long-term leases and extending greater control for land improvement to the businesses or giving them some sort of economic incentive to maintain the land, replant. If not, they are going to swarm over it like Locust and devour everything.

But you really shouldn't be fooled into thinking that if the logging stopped, there would still be a forest, unless you banned all activity there. They would just build something that would destroy the forestland, but not involve planting: like buildings. Responsible forestry contracts aren't necessarily bad, and I have no problem chopping forests if you do it in increments and give time to replant.

This doesn't happen when you have short-term leases or if there aren't severe penalties enforceable. Some companies have shown a pretty good job of ecological care (Chevron-Texaco) at some of their oil facilities.


Edit: another problem evolves when you have non-partitionable (or hard to) resources, such as air and ocean. It leads to a tragedy of the commons where everyone tries to outdo the other and no one takes care of it because no one owns it.

Essentially, current laws make it more profitable for some logging companies (usually international ones) to sweep in, chop down, and leave. If you make it cost MORE to do that, they will stop doing it.

__________________

__________________


Defeating market theocrats since 2001.