China's rising presence as the world's largest economy has many Americans concerned that the United States may soon become second best. The issue is commonly politicized, with many conservatives using the eastern nation's growing might to herd the vote in their direction. The Right argues that the US must curb debilitating regulations if it wishes to restore U.S. manufacturing jobs and compete with China. In addition, conservatives would like to see a reduction in taxes and government spending. But would slashing taxes and the government's budget actually make the U.S. more competitive? Certainly not.
Conservatives have always favored small governments. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: smaller governments operate on smaller budgets. Smaller budgets require less tax money. Fewer taxes provide more consumer income. More consumer income stimulates spending and economic growth.
While this line of thinking seems logical on paper, it hits several stumbling blocks when you consider how small government budgets affect a nation's infrastructure. China's recent economic success is, in part, a direct result of the country's investment in national education. It's not uncommon to see Internet-message boards flooded with posts by conservatives quibbling about China's recent scientific achievements. Yet cutting taxes effectively cuts public school budgets, which in turn leads to poorer education. This begs the question: how does inferior intelligence make Americans more competitive? And when did Conservatives start liking science, anyway? Is this not the same party that promoted Intelligent Design and decried Global Warming?
And speaking of Global Warming, what should we make of Republicans' distaste for alternative energy? Conspiracies of the Republicans' vested interest in oil companies aside, what does the GOP possibly have to gain by denouncing government funded alternative-energy research? It's no secret that oil is a finite natural resource that we will eventually deplete. And although predictions of when that will occur vary according to who you ask, almost everyone agrees that oil-prices will soar in the next decade. Therefore, the only fiscally responsible action to take is to invest in renewable options.
However, Republicans argue that investing in renewable energy is not the government's responsibility. Rather, they contend that "free market" investors will pave the way for renewable energy companies. This would be true if private investors were interested in long term gains, as renewable energy is most certainly the wave of the future. But private investors aren't interested in what's good for the country in the long run. They're interested in what is good for them, now. Republicans are essentially waiting for a private-sector hand-out that will never exist. Meanwhile, the Chinese government is pumping billions into researching and developing competitive solar panels and wind turbines.
Recently, Conservatives have used Solyndra's bankruptcy declaration to validate their standing on federally-funded alternative energy products. But the $500 million financial loss is virtually insignificant when compared to other failed government projects. The "War On Drugs" has long held conservative support, costs the government $40 billion annually, and has not made a single dent in drug use since Nixon started it four decades ago. Additionally, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has an annual budget of $3 billion and a success rate of less than 10%. In DARPA's defense, the agency is responsible for creating the Internet, which pretty much makes it deserving of an unlimited budget, but that's precisely the point: If the government felt DARPA was a waste of resources, the Internet would not exist.
Technology presents a tremendous opportunity to make money, and it takes an intelligent nation to create such technology. If Conservatives truly want America to remain competitive, they need to support tax structures that provide income for educational and technological investments.
Article Source:http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Porter_Irvin
Did you find this article helpful?00
Get Involved0 commentsSuggest a topicArticle ToolsPrint this articleE-mail to a friendEzinePublisherReport this articleCite this articleStay InformedGet notified by email when new articles are added to this category or written by this author.Subscribe to New Article Alerts: News and Society: Economics
Porter Irvin
Economics Article FeedFind More ArticlesSearchSimilar ArticlesIs the Current Financial Crisis a Blessing For the Environment?Recent ArticlesHow To Solve The Homeless SituationProgressivism Isn't Progress, VIIIHow Secure Is Your "Secure" Job?A True Comparison Of Increasing Debt Between Bush And Obama AdministrationsWould Einstein Think Us Insane?What Will Happen If Greece Defaults?A Cluster of (Minor) ErrorsThe US Recovery Is Producing SurprisesA Sigh Of Relief For The Economic Status Of The USHuman Nature, Capitalism, and Greed and Power DiscussedSubmitted On January 19, 2012. Viewed 4 times. Word count: 610.MLA Style Citation:Irvin, Porter".".19 Jan. 2012EzineArticles.com.26 Jan. 2012
Irvin, P. (2012, January 19). . Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Compete-With-China&id=6828817Chicago Style Citation:
Irvin, Porter "." EzineArticles.com. http://ezinearticles.com/?How-To-Compete-With-China&id=6828817
EzineArticles.com© 2012 EzineArticles.comAll Rights Reserved WorldwideAbout UsFAQContact UsMember BenefitsPrivacy PolicyShopSite MapBlogTrainingVideo ArchiveAdvertisingAffiliatesCartoonsAuthorsSubmit ArticlesMembers LoginPremium MembershipExpert AuthorsEndorsementsEditorial GuidelinesTerms of ServicePublishersFollow UsTerms Of ServiceEzines / Email AlertsManage SubscriptionsEzineArticles RSS
View the Original article
No comments:
Post a Comment