Should the government use public funds to redistribute wealth? Please keep in mind, Obama Care, for example, could be viewed as a wealth redistribution program.
Redistribution of wealth is essential as it was used in ensuring that all Americans get the best from their government. However, Obama care was not very successful in the wealth redistribution as the Americans had earned differently, and also their expenditure styles were totally different. For instance, Obama care was not able to settle on a common amount for insurance premiums to be paid by different Americans. The main issue was that some had preexisting conditions before joining the insurance companies, while others did not have. Others needed high-cost procedures, having paid very minimal premiums as compared to others. Thus, having wealth redistribution is important, but the fact that it will be done using public funds results in inequality. Some people may feel they are overtaxed compared to other citizens.
Should the government enact policies to create demand artificially? In your opinion, why or why not?
Yes
The artificial creation of demand through government policies, in most cases, ensures fairness in the market. It helps ensure that both the supplier and the consumer feel part of the market, and the other party exploits none. Through such policies, the government ensures that the consumers can be in a position to purchase a product even in times of economic hardships. Through demand creation, the policies help in ensuring that shortages do not occur regularly. In case they occur, the prices for the involved products do not shoot abnormally as it is already controlled.
In your opinion, should government bailout corporations?
Yes.
The government should always ensure that the economically stressed companies are bailed out to ensure a stable economy. Some companies are too important to fail, and if they do fail, then it may affect the economy of a nation directly. Many of these corporations are the sources of livelihood for many families, and it would be hard for such families to survive to incase such companies fail. It is also the government’s obligation to ensure they try their best in poverty eradication. The government will thus be required to use their funds to ensure the failing companies are saved and thus avoid any signs of poverty that may be noticed. Other companies the government cannot afford not to bail them out. Some companies are the sole providers of a given product, for instance, water, which many people cannot afford to live without. Such a company must be bailed out to ensure continuity of life. However, the government should do reasonable follow-ups on the corporations being bailed out to ensure no future scenarios will occur.
In your opinion, should the government have and exercise influence over interest rates? Some would argue the market should be allowed to regulate itself and not be influenced or controlled by the government.
Yes.
Leaving a market to adjust the interest rates all by itself without government control may do more harm than good to the market. The borrowers may be exploited by the banks and thus discourage borrowing, which may lead to an economy’s collapsing. Thus, the government’s role is to ensure the interest rates are optimum to favor both the bank and the borrowers. Low-interest rates usually favor the borrowers and thus a faster growth of the economy due to credit’s affordability to many. On the other hand, if the rates are set too low, the banks will opt to stay out as they may not even meet their operations costs.
In your opinion, should government allocate resources to stabilize prices or certain industries, why or why not?
The government should allocate resources to stabilize prices. Allocation of such resources will ensure there is disaster relief, especially during times of pandemics or natural disasters. Such allocations also tend to boost equality in the market as all participants are put in a position to access most of the available opportunities available. The government may also allocate resources in the industry to ensure some companies do not shut down. That would lead to an economic crisis, especially due to the loss of jobs.
In your opinion, who should bare the greatest cost for economic development initiatives at the local level? Why?
The local government should bear the greatest cost for development initiatives. This is because they have access to the required resources. It is also easier to make follow-ups on the expenditure and other managerial activities involved in such development programs. The local government also has access to all data required in the management of such programs.
In your opinion, is it fair that big banks receive the prime lending rate, why or why not?
It is unfair if the big banks are given the prime lending rates. If such big banks are given the prime rates, they will kill all other smaller banks as all borrowers will tend to move to the big banks to access huge amounts of credits. However, on the other hand, if such banks offer credit at such huge rates, they will discourage the borrowers and thus keep them off as they fear the huge interest rates that will be accompanied by the credits borrowed.
In your opinion, should the eminent domain be permitted as part of any economic development initiative?
Eminent domain should not be permitted as part of an economic development initiative. If the eminent domain is adopted, it may limit how far the local government can go in future development. Redevelopment of areas which had been developed before also becomes very difficult.
Should universal or greater access to healthcare be part of an economic development plan?
Yes.
The availability of a good and reliable HealthCare system is essential in the economic development of a nation. Good health will ensure that the workers are available for long working hours and thus increasing their productivity. Also, when a nation has a good healthcare system, the cost of living goes down as the money that could have been used in buying drugs and other medications will be directed to other uses, thus boosting a nation’s economy.
How do subsidies, enacted here in the U.S. Impact the ability of poor and developing nations to compete in the global market place thus having a significant impact on growth, economic development, quality of life, and overall economic health of nations, particularly in poor and developing countries?
The major impact that subsidies have is changing the curve. In most cases, the demand and supply curves are shifted to the right, leading to either decrease in prices or an increase in production. Thus when the subsidies are enacted in the US, they are, in most cases, aimed at ensuring that the poor and developing countries will be impacted positively and thus raising the living standards through increased income.