Check out this perspective in January 1999 — no mention of price “gouging.”
With all the Wal-Mart bashing going around can you believe that the Washington Post is defending Wal-Mart?
About 8 years ago my daughter was really having difficulty making ends meet. I remember well when she said, “dad, I just don’t know what I would do without the Wal-Mart Supercenter.” Bottom line: Wal-Mart overwhelmingly helps the poor. Read all about it.
Update 11/30/05: Article is in today’s ABQ Journal. Be sure to read it.
Did you see yesterday’s Albuquerque Journal Op-Ed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter entitled “Poverty:
Capitalism’s Powder Keg?” In the Miami Herald it was entitled “Why Socialism is back in vogue in some places.” Excerpt”
Socialism is back in vogue in Latin America. Whatever one thinks about Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez’s outrageous politics, he enjoys support from poor barrios because he has expanded access to educational and social services. Chávez called Mexican President Vincente Fox a ”lapdog” of U.S. imperialism for backing Washington’s trade policies at the summit. Perhaps Chávez’s example reinforced Cuba’s socialist stubbornness, as the government raided farmers’ markets in what Reuters called an “anti-capitalist crackdown.”
Some large companies in the region are rising to the challenge of finding solutions to poverty. ABN AMRO Banco Real in Brazil is offering micro-finance to poor entrepreneurs in urban shanty-towns. Cemex in Mexico created an innovative program to finance housing materials in rural areas, bringing jobs as well as better housing to poor villages.
Believers in a free-market economy (and I’m among them) had better be prepared to do even more to help lift the poor out of misery. Otherwise, markets will not be free enough or our cities safe enough, for any of us.
Capitalists themselves often do not “believe” in the free-market. But one thing is for sure: they have every incentive to help the more poverty stricken nations as long as those nations have reasonable regulatory and tax regimes, they enforce property rights and they enforce the rule of law. Captitalists help by engaging in trade with the people and businesses of those nations. When trade occurs everyone is better off.
Be careful, though, because there is one thing that will not work: foreign aid. New Mexico itself is proof of that. If foreign aid does not work why not encourage dictators to try some economic freedom? That really does work!
Update 11/29/05: MARY ANASTASIA O’GRADY in Friday’s WSJ(subscription):
New Mexico is a poor state. We need “bold” changes to improve education if we are to keep it from getting poorer. How do we implement these bold changes? Throw a lot more money at education is the answer according to the Journal. And money from windfall energy revenue is available for the throwing. That is the essence of yesterday’s editorial (subscription).
This is wishful thinking in the extreme. Education “reforms” have not worked in the past. And they will not work in the future as long as K-12 education is a socialistic, one-size-fits-all, union-run monopoly. Real per capita spending on education has increased well over 20 percent in the past 15 years and what do we have to show for it? Nothing! But if we have more bold reforms and throw more money at it things will get better? Give me a break.
I wonder if anyone at the Journal has ever heard of school choice? Let’s empower parents instead of the union monopoly. Parents can make better decisions for their kids than education bureaucrats in Washington and Santa Fe.
Steve Moore’s article yesterday does a superb job of dissecting John McCain’s economic philosophy from a market liberal perspective.
On limited government he frequently looks quite good:
“Look at my National Taxpayers Union rating. I’m near 100% every year.” (I do. He is.) Then he fumes: “I’m so disgusted with the way my party is wasting money. It’s an embarrassment.”
It is on this issue that Mr. McCain has struck the mother lode. More than any other first-tier GOP candidate in 2008, Mr. McCain has shrewdly tapped into the rage that conservatives are feeling over President Bush’s $800 billion Medicare drug bill (which he voted against), the highway bill with its 6,000 earmarked white-elephant projects (which he also voted against), and the infamous $500 million Alaska Bridge to Nowhere (which he led the crusade to defund). Mr. McCain whips out a spreadsheet detailing the legislation he drafted with Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to cut the budget by $100 billion by canceling the highway pork, delaying the prescription drug bill, establishing a commission to end worthless government programs, and so on. Give the man his due: He has monopolized the anti-big government Reaganite message of late.
In addition he defends free trade, school choice, and a sensible immigration policy that
involves a three-step process: better border enforcement, a guest worker program, and an earned legalization program with a $2,000 fine for those who are here already. Anyone who has heard Mr. McCain on the stump lately knows that this is an issue he feels passionately about. “America must remain a beacon of hope and opportunity. The most wonderful thing about our country is that this is the one place in the world that anyone — through ambition and hard work — can get as far as their ambition will take them,” he says, in optimistic rhetoric that is somewhat reminiscent of Ronald Reagan.
Unfortunately, McCain also displays many nanny statist tendencies that are emphatically not market liberal:
He is against most tax cuts. His campaign finance “reform” demonstrates his unbelievably naive view of political process. He wants us to do something (regulate, regulate, regulate) about global warming. He wants to tax greedy profiteers. He thinks its the state’s job to regulate steroid use in sports.
Maybe, if we can teach him some more economics, we can reduce these statist tendencies and have a fine presidential contender on our hands. But I don’t want to get my hopes up. I wonder how someone who was part of the Keating Five (and seems to recognize his mistake) can have such a naive view of political process.
Update 11/28/05: Jane Galt’s take
It is hard to believe that we have a brand new entitlement mess on our hands. We can’t even fix the Social Security mess we’ve already got. The new mess is the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit entitlement.
In its editorial yesterday the Wall Street Journal correctly points out that the political process is sure to make things even worse:
…the new benefit will be a poor substitute for the drug coverage that some three-quarters of seniors already have, and which it will undoubtedly do much to replace.
In particular, seniors are nonplussed by the “donut hole” they see in the new coverage. The benefit envisaged by our Capitol Hill solons has coverage starting after a $250 deductible and continuing until annual drug expenses reach $2,250, after which it will disappear again until total costs reach $5,100. That means that if you spend $2,000 annually on drugs, Medicare will cover 66%. But if you spend $5,000, Medicare’s share will be only about 30%.
It goes on:
We also can’t forget how damaging the shifting cost estimates for this program have already been to the Administration’s credibility. Everybody knew the original 10-year, $400 billion figure that Congress was shooting for was a polite fiction. But that figure is now more than $700 billion, and both parties did their best to cover that fact up during the debate that led to the benefit’s passing the House by a single vote in 2003.
Do you know how your representative voted? There cannot be any ducking of responsibility on this one, Heather.
Politically, the worst is probably yet to come as private employers start ditching retiree drug coverage and throwing more people into the government system. And as costs for the program inexorably increase, so will the pressure to raise taxes.
And don’t forget about pressure to do something in the form of price controls.
In a few years we will be in for an intergenerational battle royal as old fogies like me seek to tax our working kids to pay for our government goodies.
Absent because of the vision thing. Bush is economically incoherent:
“Bush’s reputation in at least the academic community is about as low as you can imagine,” said William A. Niskanen, who was a member of the council during President Ronald Reagan’s first term and is now chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group. “A lot of people would not be willing to give up a good tenured position for a position in the White House.”