Verily on Economics (WARNING: Long)

[Verily]

As stated in the title, this a long post. I apologize. However, I felt it was necessary to fully articulate my own economic views, and I would like to see and hear how many people agree with the fundamentals of my positions and their justifications, which tend to veer wildly around the political spectrum yet form a coherent ideology all told. I have left off certain arguably economic topics such as environmentalism because I don't feel that they depend much on the rest of the economic plan.

Please comment/critique as you will.

----

Social and economic policy in the United States should be geared toward creating and maintaining a strong economy, of which a key necessity is a democratic and egalitarian society.

The United States’ key advantage over economic rivals such as China and India is an educated and healthy workforce that is accustomed to and familiar with cutting-edge technology. Therefore, the American economy should focus its economic efforts on technological development and high-tech industries. This includes abandoning low-tech manufacturing industries in which the United States cannot compete because production costs are so drastically lower in undeveloped and developing countries. To the end of encouraging high-tech development, the keys to a strong American economy are education and health care.

Education in the Unites States suffers under the weight of the property tax. Property tax funding of school systems unfairly weights education toward wealthy communities that pay more in property taxes. Children have no ability to change their economic standing and should not be punished for their parents’ poverty. School vouchers have been proposed as a way to alleviate this problem, but they are expensive for the federal government, and the problem can be solved without introducing another government program.

The property tax should be abolished and replaced with an increase in state-level income taxes that will be bound to school funding. These funds will be distributed by population to school districts in each state, thus providing equal funding per student in each state. This will help to eliminate a root cause of poverty, poorly funded education, as well as provide all students with the opportunity to enter high-tech levels of the economy. This is economically beneficial because previously only students living in reasonably wealthy areas could even consider a future in high-tech industries; once this change is implemented, high-tech industries will be able to pull workers from all areas of the financial spectrum.

The other key to a strong economy is a healthy workforce. Workers who are ill cannot perform their jobs, thus dragging down economic viability. Furthermore, our current health care system demands that companies shoulder the financial burden of their employees’ health. This both discourages companies from hiring the best workers simply due to illness and also eats into economic productivity by funneling money away from companies with sick workers. Finally, the insurance system is inefficient because both doctors and the companies that offer insurance try to make a profit: they charge more than necessary for health services, usually far more than necessary.

The solution to this problem is universal health care, dare I say it, socialized health care. With insurance companies and private doctors relegated to luxury status, (though still legal) their drag on both individual wages and corporate profit is eliminated. Also, programs such as Medicare and Medicaid that would be rendered obsolete by universal health care already cost the bulk of what universal health care would cost, at least partially because their costs are raised by insurance and private doctor profit margins. Universal health care is an effective solution and hardly so expensive as claimed.

With the institution of universal health care, the majority of the costs incurred after retirement are already covered by the government. This means that our current social security program no longer need exist. Social security, as currently conceived, merely provides for individuals what reasonable savings plans before retirement should be doing. Meanwhile, it compounds the costs with bureaucratic needs and a fund into which Congress routinely dips to provide money for unnecessary pork programs. With health cost needs already covered, Americans should be considered responsible enough to save for the remainder of post-retirement costs. With the abolition of social security also comes the abolition of social security tax, which may be exchanged for a lower-rate income tax designated to supplement health care funding.

With Americans emerging from schooling with across-the-board strong educations and a health care safety net that guarantees that a severe illness will not render them bankrupt, Americans can be considered responsible for their own financial futures. Current economic equalities in health coverage and education can be blamed for many or even most people living off of welfare. However, those who would not make use of a strong education and due to universal health care, cannot be not driven into or kept in poverty by health costs, must be considered in a different light. Welfare should therefore be rolled back considerably, providing smaller payouts and demanding employment or signs of seeking employment. Government should continue to provide assistance in finding local available jobs to the unemployed but should not continue to provide welfare payouts if more than two jobs are turned down. Because of this scaling back of welfare programs, funding for welfare can be cut considerably. This money may either go to income tax cuts or augment funding for education and health care depending on what seems prudent at the time.

As stated previously, the United States cannot hope to compete in low-tech industries with developing nations such as China, India, Indonesia and Bangladesh. These nations have larger uneducated worker pools willing to work for far less money than Americans. They are therefore able to export products of equal or near-equal quality at as little as a tenth of the price of American goods.

While the United States may seek to insulate itself from such imports with high tariff barriers, we cannot realistically provide all, most or even half of our own low-tech industrial product demand domestically, so tariff barriers serve only to greatly raise prices within the United States due to dramatically reduced supply. It is better for the United States economy to allow foreign products in without charging tariffs because it alleviates the need to tie up resources in low-tech production and lowers prices of basic goods. The United States should promote free trade and a globalized economy universally. In order to ensure that high-tech industries are not also grabbed by foreign markets, the United States should offer large corporate tax incentives to high-tech industries rather than imposing tariffs or subsidizing corporations.

Finally, the United States economy is in need of all of its workers and can be most productive when tensions are defused between them. To this end, liberal social policies should be pursued by the government. I will not go into more detail since further debate about the merits of social policies have only a slight bit to do with the economy.

[Verily]

It suffers somewhat from the assumption that government is equipped to be able to pick winners and losers in the economy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that statement. I certainly don't advocate government favoritism of one corporation over another, but I do think it is important to acknowledge that low-tech manufacturing industries were for the days when the US was the cheapest country with any industry at all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point is not to give everyone desk jobs, nor do I believe that better education will make everyone great. However, by improving education in blighted areas, we allow those who are above average in those areas to succeed whereas now only the above average who happen to be children of the wealthy and middle class can succeed. Increasing that pool of successful people also increases our skilled workforce.

Those who are below average won't get desk jobs or work in high-tech industries no matter how much support the government gives them. However, the US will always have low-tech service jobs that cannot be outsourced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is precisely why the United States needs to foster its position as a technological leader as soon as possible so as to secure the lion's share of such industry while other regions still cannot compete in terms of education of the workforce. Any less, and we risk losing that one industrial advantage to Karnataka permanently, and then the US has no real economic legs to stand on save inertia.

[Verily]

Furthermore, our current health care system demands that companies shoulder the financial burden of their employees’ health. This both discourages companies from hiring the best workers simply due to illness and also eats into economic productivity by funneling money away from companies with sick workers. [...] The solution to this problem is universal health care, dare I say it, socialized health care.

Non sequitur. It is true that the current healthcare system essentially compels companies to directly provide for their employees' health insurance. It is also true that such a system is not optimal. However, it is not necessary to introduce so radical an idea as universal healthcare to solve the problem. On the contrary, one can simply amend the tax structure so as to abolish the incentives that employers presently have to pay for their employees' insurance costs.

that doesn;t solve the problem of unhealthy employees, it makes it worse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The idea of charging more than is necessary for a particular service is not unique to the healthcare system. It applies to every other business as well. Yet, one generally thinks of all those businesses as efficient, not inefficient. What sets healthcare apart--why does the profit motive lead to inefficiency in one instance, but not the other?[/quote]

Profit always leads to inefficiency, but inefficiency in health care is something that can be reasonably avoided by government-provided health care while inefficiency in, say, fast food can't be avoided because it would be unreasonable for fast food consumption to be considered both essential for the individual and important to the economy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One is simply replacing one "drag" on individual wages and corporate profit with another--namely, taxation.[/quote]

No, because you're eliminating other inefficient government programs that currently waste money subsidizing insurance and medicines (and paying more than they should be due to profit margins).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I absolutely agree that the "average" citizen needs a safety net that guarantees that a severe illness will not render him bankrupt. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t quite see it that way. Health insurance is no longer something that covers only extreme cases -- emergency operations, for example. Instead, it has become something that one relies upon for prescription drugs (thanks, no doubt, to the manner in which the government has structured income tax credits, deductions, and so forth). Certainly, insurance costs would go down if we were to treat prescription drugs as ordinary monthly expenses rather than as extraordinary costs that must be covered by insurance.[/quote]

And why should we do that? Prescription drugs are clearly essential to individuals health and thus their ability to work and contribute to the economy. Take away fundign for prescription drugs and you have an unhealthy population that is less able to work.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see why we shouldn't be applying utilitarian thought, especially if there's nothing immoral about that utilitarianism. There's nothing "tantamount to theft" about taxation, which is returned to both the individual and the economy. It seems to me that the goal of taxation is to provide solutions to the problems individuals cannot be held responsible for; health issues are one of those, and education is another.

Although really, if you're just an anti-tax crusader, I'm not going to argue with you about it here.

[Verily]

that doesn;t solve the problem of unhealthy employees, it makes it worse.

On the contrary, the employees would simply have to buy their own insurance.

Which, currently, at least half of the population can't afford. Would we really like to have half of our workforce easily disabled by illness?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How exactly do you draw this rather startling conclusion? Unless you are defining "efficiency" in an unconventional manner, your statement would be inaccurate. The profit motive is precisely what produces efficiency (relative to the alternatives, at least).[/quote]

Let's put it this way. If companies strove simply to provide services or goods at as low a price as possible, turning over goods or service at exactly their production cost, society would be optimally efficient. However, this is clearly impossible as companies would have no reason to provide services: profit margins cause "inefficiency". Government does not need to earn profit on what it provides, so it can provide products at a lower, more efficient price.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In order for the government to do anything more efficiently than the free market, the government has more information than the free market--which is quite plainly not the case. [/quote]

I don't see why when the holy free market has failed to cover all of its workers with insurance where the government could.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One can eliminate those programs independently. It is not necessary to establish universal healthcare in order to reduce other forms of spending.[/quote]

It is if you want to maintain a workforce that has any potential to work at all. If you simply destroyed Medicaid, our low-tech service industry workers would be perenially ill and unable to provide health care for themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Food is even more essential to individual health than prescription drugs. Should the government provide free food to everybody? Clearly not: food is regarded as nothing more than a normal expense--a product that individuals must provide for themselves. I propose that prescription drugs be regarded the same way. Insurance is (or at least should be) meant for unforseen catastrophes--house fires, automobile accidents, emergency operations.[/quote]

Food is cheap. Presciption drugs are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is certainly the assumption you have made. But utilitarian analysis disregards entirely the issue of individual rights, which (in my opinion) ought to be paramount in any liberal democracy.[/quote]

And how, exactly, am I violating individual rights? One is still free to but insurance if one wishes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That depends on your point of view. Suppose that a store compelled you to buy a product every day. It is taking away your money, but giving you something in return. Some people might benefit tremendously from the product, but for others, keeping their money might have been preferable. Would you not consider this act theft?[/quote]

You offer a false analogy. First off, health care is essential where a store's product is not. Moreover, your strategy/the current strategy offers health care at high prices that the vast majority cannot afford; it is less free than universal health care because the vast majority are not free to purchase "the product" at all.