Comments on James Leibold "China tightens its security screws", 26/12/2015
It is uncertain whether the tightening of security in China is a short term or temporary measure or a long term trend, because ironically it is possible to tighten security before serious social and political reforms so to create a better environment for reform. I hope my conjecture is right.
Should the tightening be designed as a long term measure, then there will be significant and serious long term implications.
While in short term the effect may not be clearly evident, the restriction on people’s freedom can have accumulative and long term detrimental effect, including both lower people's utility (satisfaction and happiness) and lower economic productivity.
Nations compete on productivity, creativity and enterprising. If the people of a nation do not have adequate freedom, they will lose out in those crucial and essential areas, resulting in unnecessary disadvantages in international competition. As a result, that nation will sooner or later find out that detrimental consequence and will take measures to correct unnecessary restrictions, that is, to provide freedoms to its people.
While it is a challenge for China now to avoid the so called middle income trap, the longer term challenge will be even greater if and when its people will work in a much more restricted and limited domain than other nations (consider which gives better result: restricted optimisation versus unrestricted optimisation). The lower bound of high income is only a fraction of those of the high income countries at the world income frontier such as the US - the road to catch up will be long and hard.
Showing posts with label freedom of choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of choice. Show all posts
2009-09-10
Democracy and freedom?
The following report should be an interesting reminder of that even democracy does not neceassrily mean much to personal freedom and equality between persons.
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
I heard in the past that there were different classes of people in India, but have thought those were probably past. But some things in India still appear odd.
Are they part of the human rights that many western politicians talk about?
ABS report: "Indian farmers sell wives to pay debts", 10/09/2009, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/10/2681503.htm?section=justin
2009-07-22
Enjoy freedom and don't ask for too much government intervention please
Comments on IAN KIERNAN “Move on bottled water inspires”, 22/07/2009, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/move-on-bottled-water-inspires/1574349.aspx
While government may have a role to play in the issue, it is not clear what the government should or should not do just responding to the single issue bottled water alone.
Ultimately it is each person's responsibility for their own finance. It is generally better for government to interfere with everyone's own life as little as possible. We don’t want the government to become the police looking over our shoulders all the time, do we?
There might be a market failure or externality in the issue of bottled water that may justify for a government intervention. But government may have more important and far-reaching jobs to do than looking at minor individual or specific issues.
We should not think to ask government to intervene in this or that so freely. We should respect ourselves and others to make our own decisions for our own sake.
While government may have a role to play in the issue, it is not clear what the government should or should not do just responding to the single issue bottled water alone.
Ultimately it is each person's responsibility for their own finance. It is generally better for government to interfere with everyone's own life as little as possible. We don’t want the government to become the police looking over our shoulders all the time, do we?
There might be a market failure or externality in the issue of bottled water that may justify for a government intervention. But government may have more important and far-reaching jobs to do than looking at minor individual or specific issues.
We should not think to ask government to intervene in this or that so freely. We should respect ourselves and others to make our own decisions for our own sake.
2009-05-19
Choices are better than forces: a comment on budget changes to the age of aged pensions
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “A new age for old age”, 19/05/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Waiting-for-a-new-age-pd20090519-S6TY5?OpenDocument&src=sph.
Both the government and the Treasury officials have adopted authoritarian approach to public policies, because they saw no accountability for whatever they could do. So they, at a flip of a hand or a pen (or a stupid though, one might say), they dictated people to have to work two years longer for them to be able to receive aged pension. What a bunch of powerful people they are!
Clearly, this, as so many things in the budget, appears to have been made on the run. They are the dark-room products of an inexperienced government and incompetent officials. They should congratulate themselves for what is a difficult job that they are still employed at the time of a great recession!
What a remarkable achievement! Congratulations, your majesty – the government politicians and Treasury officials!
Why don’t they provide choices that people of old age can work if they so choose and can retire if that is what they choose to do? By working, one can have more revenue and a better living standard. By retiring they will be satisfied with their income levels and enjoy being free from working. That is a choice of life style that everyone can make for themselves, why must the government and the Treasury officials force people to have to follow their policy mistakes and myopic view of the world?
Don't you see the costs associated with your mistaken "regulations"?
Both the government and the Treasury officials have adopted authoritarian approach to public policies, because they saw no accountability for whatever they could do. So they, at a flip of a hand or a pen (or a stupid though, one might say), they dictated people to have to work two years longer for them to be able to receive aged pension. What a bunch of powerful people they are!
Clearly, this, as so many things in the budget, appears to have been made on the run. They are the dark-room products of an inexperienced government and incompetent officials. They should congratulate themselves for what is a difficult job that they are still employed at the time of a great recession!
What a remarkable achievement! Congratulations, your majesty – the government politicians and Treasury officials!
Why don’t they provide choices that people of old age can work if they so choose and can retire if that is what they choose to do? By working, one can have more revenue and a better living standard. By retiring they will be satisfied with their income levels and enjoy being free from working. That is a choice of life style that everyone can make for themselves, why must the government and the Treasury officials force people to have to follow their policy mistakes and myopic view of the world?
Don't you see the costs associated with your mistaken "regulations"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
