Fewer companies are willing to enter the market because of the SOX requirements that make going public too costly. Plus, the maintenance required to stay public is too expensive for smaller companies, forcing companies to look elsewhere to raise capital. Rising costs persuade large numbers of companies to exit the public markets to sidestep SEC regulation, creates two problems. First, the overall economy could suffer because corporations limit investment projects due to the higher-cost sources of capital to fund potentially new operations. Second, financially stressed companies that go dark are the very companies’ shareholders need to monitor usually and where transparency is most important.
The question we all as taxpayers should be asking is whether or not we will see a good return on our investment. The Democratic proposal is a bit more negotiable since the taxpayers would at least own an equity interest in these companies. However, even that modified plan seems too expensive and way too intrusive. We should consider alternative plans that are not quite as intrusive to market mechanisms such as the Lindt plan. The Paulson plan also seems to signal a dangerous shift away from liberal market mechanisms into an age of neo-mercantilism.
The reason for why governments in developing countries sometimes are unable or unwilling to implement polices that create favorable conditions for economic growth boils down to two main reasons: social issues and political issues. Political issues are just as multifaceted as the social issues. Due to corrupt governments and regimes the lawlessness spreads throughout the developing nation like wildfire. Political issues revolve around the basic needs of a nation such as simple, yet, necessary infrastructure of schools, hospitals, septic tanks, etc. The necessity of public goods is vital for a developing country to survive, maintain, and become what we consider today, a developed country.
In terms of consumerism, the good life is damaging to the environment, places too much emphasis on money, and it dwindles the importance of non-market values. According to Annie Leonard’s “The Story of Stuff”, our current materials economy is a commodity chain in which goods go from extraction, to production, to distribution, to consumption, and finally to disposal. The system sounds stable but it is actually in crisis. Anyone with a simple understanding of mathematics can tell you that you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet in the real world. In order for us, the consumers, to get all of our fancy products and up-to-date technologies, a process that we turn a blind eye to takes place.
Many of these outsourced jobs don't pay decent enough wages to lift workers out of poverty. The U.S. economy has suffered significant job loss, especially among lower-income and middle-income workers. Globalization puts increased pressure on natural resources around the world, and it creates a greater amount of environmental damage. Economic growth has resulted in the depletion of tropical rainforests, ocean fisheries, and mineral and fuel reserves. Globalization has increased the flow of trade and investment to countries that often abuse human rights — places where worker abuse is common and where attempts to speak out
401(K) has become ineffective because of the corruption of big business, the misunderstanding of and as a result a mishandling of the 401(K) accounts, and its correlating dependency on the market’s success. Making profit is important to people. Most of all, improving the bottom line is the primary objective for major companies. “For Robert Shively, learned that his employer, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, or also-known-as Oxy Pete,” wanted to forgo the guaranteed-employer pension plans for the less demanding 401(K) system where it is based on contributions from employee’s pay rather than from the employer’s profit. This forces the employee to save without any effort but, due to this, workers began to neglect the social security and entirely dropped the use of the original pension plan.
This has been used to promote a culture of the regulation that has also proven to be problematic for society. Some examples would be the regulatory overreach with a case involving a California legislators that promoted excessive regulation of the railroad industry, and on the opposite end, deregulation that led to the financial crisis of the past few years. In my opinion part of the issue seems that being in the middle, taking a central position of neither being overly regulatory or laissez-faire will always be less appealing. The position in the middle is seldom a sexy or passionate one. Because of the lack of passion, the middle or center most position will never garner the enthusiasm that fuels the fiery rhetoric and mass protests that the more polar positions wield.
It uses Public money unnecessarily and is unfair to taxpayers. It makes financial reform going forward much more difficult. Protecting the markets for derivative products like CDOs and CDSs allows for a repeat of the risky practices that got us into the current crisis. And finally, by guaranteeing the corporate existence of large banks, we are maintaining their power and priorities and thus are not likely to see gains on predatory lending, foreclosure abuse, and other areas where reform is sorely needed. If we want to help the people who are suffering in this crisis and recession, then we should make financial policies with them directly in mind.
Governments institute monetary policies and other laws to ensure a favorable environment for economic growth. Minimum wage is a common economic practice in many nations and is a price control that sets a floor on employee wages. Companies must abide by minimum wage laws when compensating employees for their services. As with many government policies, minimum wage has several negative economic effects. Minimum wage represents a government involvement in a nation economy, although businesses are often wary about the prospect of the government making major economic decisions.
When the government prevents prices from adjusting naturally to supply and demand, efficiency is improved in the economy. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxviii]. A market economy cannot possibly produce a socially desirable outcome because individuals are motivated by their own selfish interests. ANSWER: F TYPE: T KEY1: D SECTION: 2 OBJECTIVE: 7 RANDOM: Y [cxix]. While the invisible hand cannot guarantee efficiency, it is better at guaranteeing equity.