No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
I appreciate your intention of defending free markets, but you're not. You're not thinking your argument through to its logical conclusion.
You are advocating that one nation's government ought to intervene to prevent a foreign company (if subsidized by a foreign government) from selling in our market. First, you must acknowledge that you are still advocating for government intervention to prevent government intervention; do you see the problem? Government intervention is harmful because it breeds corruption; in other words: who will regulate the regulators? Its an infinite regress of regulators, ultimately incentivizing corruption wherever you decide to stop the regress at. The only unbiased regulator is the MARKET. So you will never win the argument that you ought to increase government intervention in order to prevent a different form of government intervention.
Further, you ignore the long term. Government subsidized markets always fall to free markets because of the inherent efficiency of free markets. So IF a government subsidized company can temporarily manufacture a product better than a domestic company--assuming no legitimate domestic property rights are infringed--then we ought to embrace it for as long as we can! As detailed above, this only frees up the marginal savings to go to other products (or to save), which is a double benefit to consumers as well as our economy. It is unfortunate that a foreign gov't-subsidized company exists, but we have no basis on which to dictate to other countries to what extent they can centrally plan their economies; we can only set the example. It seems that you aren't aware of just how much foreign nations intervene in the major industries of the world already; consider the oil industry as a prime example.
Who says that the government subsidized product is better than the domestic one?
You are looking at this through the angle of consumerism. You are saying "it doesn't matter how it happens, as long as I get the product at a lower price, I am fine with it." But what you fail to address is the hypocrisy of your ideology. Judging by your words and language with regards to this situation, you are probably against sanctions on another country because of the reasons you've listed for this situation. Well, by a subsidized company dumping its product into our markets at such a low price (remember, subsidized), it is unfairly distorting the market the same way sanctions would, because both are promoted and supported by government.
When a foreign company can undercut an American one, albeit indirectly through the help of their government, it infringes upon the value proposition and competitive advantage of an American firm, who by no fault of their own, was materially affected
Lets enact this argument into the Iranian situation. Our sanctions could force the Iranian government to react to our government interference into their market. You defend their possible defensive action of closing the Strait or wanting to have a nuke to counterbalance our government's actions. How is this any different?
Last edited: