In the market oriented world, trade subsidies are supposed to be an advantageous means to protect a country’s ability to produce a good and have a chance to be marketable on the global market. Thus when one country produces a product at a lower cost and begins exporting it globally, another country has the ability to place an export duty or a trade subsidy on it so that their product meets the price of the same or similar product in that nations market. Thus, if an African country can produce, say wheat, at a lower cost and ship it worldwide, then Europe would subsidize their farmers and pay them the difference in the market value so that the European farmers could sell their wheat at the same price as the African country. Thus, the African country loses the battle because their product is no longer as competitive as it was when it was shipped from their ports. Continue reading
Category Archives: political parties
Looking back over the history of not only the United States, but the history of most of the now modern world, the Great Depression was a defining moment in many people’s lives. This was a time when the world economy came to a grinding halt for some, or slowed down so significantly that the people were desperate for any means possible to get out of their economic depression. The evils of capitalism would not and could not allow for the economies of the world to rebound as fast as the people wanted or needed and thus drastic measures were required. At least that is how the political figures in-charge defined their arguments for such “New Deal” policy and legislation. Continue reading
In a world that is ever changing and in a time where providing for your nation is tantamount to the survival of your people and society, we need to have a better understanding of the governmental regimes that are at play in our world. From dictatorships to monarchies, democracies to socialist regimes, countries around the world are creating a future for themselves in which government has an important role and place in their society. Some societies feel that government should be the “be all and end all” of their world and provide for it, everything they need to live the best life possible. Others believe that the people should decide how they live their lives and that government should be there to provide stabilization and a governing force to protect their basic needs and tenants. Continue reading
In our ever changing world, the idea of policy and politics tends to have a powerful and often times contentious meaning. People see politics as a necessary evil in their day to day lives and for the most part completely forget the policy behind the politics. In some cases, and more than most of us would like to think, we combine the world of politics and policy and blur the lines of what they truly are and represent. Continue reading
Across the pond a minor scandal has been raging in Libertarian circles. Unbeknownst to this writer it appears a certain Ron Paul has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons. This latest besmirching of the Libertarian name only adds to the argument of my post ‘A Definitive Year’ below.
Whilst one is keen to see some traditionally Libertarian ideals emerge as part of a viable political campaign, one has to bear in mind that using politicians as standard bearers has its dark side. Paul did indeed give credibility to some Liberal ideas but has now tarnished that reputation with his mirky newsletters and flaky denials.
Rapid disassociation by the likes of Tom Palmer and CATO should go some way to repairing the damage done yet the only way forward folks seems only too clear; our vehicle is ideas not political parties or politicians.
The New York Times reported in 2005 that there are four major blocs within the American Republican party, they are as follows:
1. the “leave us alone” coalition
2. the cultural coalition
3. the security coalition
4. the old guard coalition
Most people that call themselves “Republican” fall within one of these categories, making it difficult to say exactly what a Republican is and stands for. This multifariousness is evident in the current lead-up to the 2008 Presidential primaries with the three Republican front-runners taking one each of the three caucuses held in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In a New York Times article today, Nagourney writes:
“On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party”.
Those who voted for Huckabee in Iowa belong to the socially conservative wing of the party, advocating for a faith-based leadership. McCain’s voters in New Hampshire were from the independent crowd, who are plentiful in “live free or die” state.
The Times reports the following about Mitt Romney:
“Mr. Romney has made a conscious effort to reassemble the coalition of economic and social conservatives that came together with Ronald Reagan and that President Bush kept remarkably unified in his two campaigns and through much of his White House tenure. Mr. Romney’s uneven performance has highlighted the strains in that coalition, and a central question about his candidacy is whether he will be able to rally its fractured components to his side. It was no coincidence that he invoked Reagan more than once in his victory speech on Tuesday, though it was perhaps equally telling that he also invoked the first President Bush, who like Mr. Romney struggled to convince Republicans that he was Reagan’s rightful heir”.
At present, Huckabee appeals to Republican voters who see their party as a bastion of moral authority, McCain to those who are not fully satisfied with their options but would not vote outside party lines, and Romney, who wants to appeal to those socially conservative (but not too conservative) and economically liberal voters who reminisce over the Reagan era.