interesting-people message

Subject: [IP] more on OECD on employment protective laws

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:31:47 -0400



Begin forwarded message:

From: Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: April 24, 2006 8:10:18 PM EDT

To: dave@farber.net, "'Frode Hegland'" <frode@hegland.com>, BobFrankston <Bob2-19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>

Subject: RE: [IP] more on OECD on employment protective laws

From: Frode Hegland <frode@hegland.com>
Date: April 17, 2006 11:47:03 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] OECD on employment protective laws

Within a capitalistic country regulation is need to keep large
companies from becoming monopolies.


Do we?  Name a few monopolies.  Were they created by the marketplace
or by governments?  Let's play a game.  You name a market monopoly,
and I'll name a government monopoly.  Last person to name a monopoly
wins.  If you get desperate, I'll let you name a duopoly, but you have
to name both companies and you can only count them as one.

I'll go first: Verizon (my local telephone company)

Since you're going to name it sooner or later, I'll give you Microsoft
even though it's sustained by a government monopoly (copyright), and
even though you can walk into any Apple store and come out with a
computer running MacOS, not Windows.

My turn: National Grid (my local electric company)

Your turn?

In fact, the trade imbalance with Africa is so bad that locally grown
produce is more expensive in many places, than US imports due to US
subsidies.


Oh, that's a completely separate problem from monopolies.  The US
taxpayers are giving a gift of produce to these countries.
Unfortunately, comparative advantage is very much in their favor for
producing produce; they aren't as good at other things.  So they have
to do something they're bad at, while we do something we're bad at
(but which is made cheaper by our taxpayers).  The only people this
helps are US farmers -- at least half of whom are already wealthy and
don't need the subsidy.

let's just discuss how to improve the outcome for more people,
instead of simple pro/con arguments. End rant.


End US farm subsidies.  Better for US taxpayers, better for efficient
US export companies (whose share of US dollars held by foreigners is
being sucked away by the less efficient farmers), better for people in
poor agricultural countries.

And then end EU farm subsidies while we're at it.  Same reasoning.

And if we're successful with the two of them, we have a chance at
ending Japanese farm subsidies (and protective legislation).  Same
reasoning.

--



-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/