Next Up from the Left - Price Controls
Well since the dems continue to disregard our economy as a "free market" economy, what part of it will they attempt to tinker with next?
"Price Contols." Even though recent history has proven that they only make things worse, the people, voters on the left, will clammor for Congress to do something about what they percieve as Bush's fault, i.e., China's increase in demand for oil.
So, we will have forgotten about the long gas lines at gas stations and then the stations that had no gas. What good will it do us to have low gas prices if we pull up to the pump and there won't be any? Would you rather pay $2.65 per gallon and be able to get gas, or $2.10 per gallon and not be able to find any?
The left believes their religion, government, can do anything. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Just pass a law....problem fixed!
Here we go again, just watch my prediction, the cries for "Price Controls" are coming!
posted by Free Agency Rules @ 9:50 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Didn't the right put a price control on the value of Unocal stock when they opposed the sale of Unocal shares to the highest bidder?
ii,
Indirectly they did, but it really was about "National Security" because of the buyer being able to use it as a weapon.
FAR.
I don't buy it. No one is going to put a stranglehold on the American economy by buying Unocal. Please - the supplies of oil (Iraq and Saudi Arabia) will be there regardless.
Also, going back to the free market, it was up to the Unocal shareholders to make that decision.
There are a lot of things a buyer can use as a weapon. Steel, pharmaceuticals, food, etc. The slippery slope is that the gov't then restricts who can sell their own private property to others based upon "national security." That's way too much arbitrary power over the market.
Foriegn investment in the U.S. worries me in many cases.
I must admit, I don't like the government stepping in and dictating what can and can not be sold that is truly not a weapon.
But I do think that the Chinese wanted that company for reasons other than economic. It is just a gut feel at the moment, because I haven't crystalized my thoughts on it yet.
Government is "force" and it is dangerous.
FAR.
You are a libertarian! Admit it! :-) Government is "force" and it is dangerous.
China is only doing what other superpowers, including the U.S., do. So, more power to them. The U.S. invests HEAVILY in China, so why shouldn't it be the other way around? Because of the naive belief that US investment is benevolent, but Chinese investment is not? Sorry, that's not capitalism.
The Chinese need to buy assets because they have to do something with all the dollars they have from the obscene trade deficit.
ii,
said "You are a libertarian! Admit it!"
No, I am close, but I am conflicted on several libertarian positions.
One can have libertarian views and still consider himself aligned with the (R)'s because the libertarians refuse to move the Republican base more to the right, which is what I believe needs to happen. You can't change a Party from the outside, you must work from within to make your points and with Love and Understanding help the base see things like Corporate Welfare is just as bad as any other Welfare. I think many Repbulicans see that and many other "iffy" positions.
Since the Dems are more aligned with Socialism and Big Government much more so than the (R)'s then I must be a Republican.
There is really only two choices.
FAR.
You will see my comment on Republican Big Government on the "Robin Williams Peace Plan" post.
ii,
See my latest comment on that same post.
FAR.
Post a Comment
<< Home