09-30-2008, 05:41 PM
|
 |
Left-libertarian
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Userid: 334
Posts: 796
Rep Power: 1
|
|
Markets try to treat all commodities as the same, and fail.
Overbearing regulation is a problem, but so are ideologies which try to stress "free markets" under all conditions. Labor and land commodities do not operate around markets, and as a consequence these two need to be addressed for real freedom to take place, not just theoretics.
For example, we can take different issues and reach some pretty fair conclusions:
- Europe has laws that influence the markets into pretty decent (comparatively) working hours. South Korea's labor laws place 49 hours a week as a maximum; the consequences are that Koreans will often work from 9-7.
- Hong Kong doesn't utilize "land ownership," but rather a Georgist "land value tax" system which practically forces land speculators to either gave up sitting on wealth and develop the land or sell it.
- A study done by the University of Massachusetts showed that New England states have better working conditions, based on different factors including poverty, health benefits, and gender equality. Again labor markets act differently than actual commodities because of the restriction - while land ownership is a monopoly, labor is confined to strict oligopolies. Unemployment is convenient for business owners and inconvenient for all laborers.
- Poverty rates are lower in New England and Eastern states.
- Unemployment is mixed, with most New England states in the middle and states like Alaska and Mississippi coming up last.
You can argue about externalities (the CATO Institute doesn't), but you would think smaller populations should help states - North and South Dakota, for example, have populations only six figures long. Mostly due to a larger presence of farming. 
__________________
Defeating market theocrats since 2001. 
|
Linear Mode
