Objections in Policy
Many arguments and objections come about when discussing the government. Given the nature of my final essay it is sure to raise some counter arguments. First off my argument is that quick changes in policies are overall intended to be good for the country but usually always end up being a hurt for the country. These quick policy changes include but are not limited to things like tariffs and immigration.
One major point that is brought up is immigration. Since as far back as we can remember immigration has been a huge forefront of the American political system. With both parties pretty much divided on that alone. Left leaning individuals believe that immigration restrictions should be lessened for people in need. The same cannot be said for the opposite who favor strict border control and limited immigration.
In some cases rapid immigration policy is needed to help some of the issues of a country. Germany in 2015 was suffering from declining birth rates and their economy was at equilibrium, which is a fancy way of saying that their economy was at a point where it can’t grow any more unless more people came into the country. The only two ways that could be fixed is if more people got pregnant or people entered the country. In the article, “Immigration boosts Germany’s economy,” details that as of 2016 Germany’s revenues were higher than expenditures for the third straight year. A crucial chunk of Germany’s population comes from a migrant background and the number of foreign specialists in Germany’s key industries really add to the point that immigration is benefit for society.
But when we solve one issue like stagnation in the economy we forget about other issues that arise when we bring people into our country. As Jan C. Ting questioned in his article, “Downsides of High Immigration,” “How will we provide good jobs, good educational opportunities, good health care, and good housing for 129 million additional residents given our current track record? How many more vehicles will be added to our highways? How many more millions of barrels of oil will we have to import from the Middle East, or extract from deep-water wells drilled into the ocean floor? How many more millions of tons of coal will have to be burned, or nuclear power plants built, to generate electricity for another 129 million people?” In addition to theses questions there’s countless more what ifs that are brought up once we make the decision to bring people into the country. ”
When bringing immigrants into the country there is an extreme financial cost that is invested in order to help them assimilate into society. Education and proper English as a second language classes are a must when in the work force coming from an immigrant background. New people means more chance for accidents to happen. Sometimes a hospital trip is needed and without the proper health insurance it is almost impossible to receive good health care. A car is a must in most areas in America which leads to an increase in the need for fossil fuels in order to power them. Housing is a must for people entering the country and sometimes they can’t afford a home. The real issue is that although immigration might be beneficial for us, it may not be beneficial for the people who left poverty to get a chance at a new life only to be in poverty again.
Another thing the government can do is implement policy that changes the social behavior of the business environment. The government could potentially impose taxes on businesses that use harmful fossil fuels and other non renewable resources and give tax benefits to businesses who use renewable energy. This is called a market catalyst. It’s intention is to allow tax exemptions in a particular sector for investors to take interest. The major downside that many people overlook is that imposing on a particular sector more taxes or duties than are necessary will make the investors lose interest.
In the article, “The Market Catalyst Nobody Is Talking About,” mentions that starting this past month, the Federal Reserve is scheduled to reduce the holdings on its balance sheet by $50 billion per month. Which is $20 billion more than from April to June of this year. This implies that the Federal Reserve cannot reinvest the principal from its maturing securities. The intention behind this is that the economy is in a pretty good state so the Fed can lay off on some of it’s holdings in order to use that money to invest into the economy. When the Fed’s balance sheet is reduced and at the same time the central bank is raising interest rates adds an unnecessary element of complexity to the monetary tightening process, as stated in the “Business Insider” article, “There’s one big problem with the Fed’s plan to unwind its gigantic balance sheet.” In the article it also mentions that officials themselves acknowledge that they are less sure about the impact of a reduction in asset holdings on financial conditions than they are with the more familiar tool of an interest rate increase.
Governments get money from taxation to spend how it chooses. Government spending is a good thing and is necessary in the U.S. economy. Without it the country couldn’t function. There is no disagreement there. Entrepreneurs take risks in making investments and starting businesses. Any increase in taxes will strongly discourage them from doing so. When the government increases spending it in turn eats at the limited pool of government savings. This leads the government not to have enough money to reinvest to make a good return on their investments. Reduction in private investments shrinks production of goods and services. That, in turn, may lead to the elimination of jobs.
Another argument that is brought up is the issue of minimum wage, permit regulations, and trade regulations. For example, periodic health inspections must be carried out in all restaurants. Businesses might spend a lot of money and time to comply with regulations that ultimately prove to be ineffective and unnecessary. Workers constantly ask for higher wages but ultimately businesses cannot afford to run effectively and give workers a higher wage like 15 an hour and run effectively. Fair and effective regulations, however, promote business growth.
All of the arguments presented are valid points that are brought up constantly in political debates. Some of them depend on a little more optimism rather than pessimism others depend on how fair the government treats the independent business owners and the country’s citizens.
Counterintuitive 