3 ms·

I think we need "free trade zones" like they have in some asian countries. If you have a mfg business in the zone, you pay zero or reduced taxes on your produce

I think we need "free trade zones" like they have in some asian countries. If you have a mfg business in the zone, you pay zero or reduced taxes on your produced goods and inventory. Maybe throw in some subsides to help comply with regulations as well. These zones can be spread all throughout the country in economically depressed regions. These programs should be open to all companies, not just the Teslas and tbe Apples of the world. Governors and Presidents should not intervene on behalf of a single company. That isn't capitalism.

dmix 10y ago
I'm more in favor of a federalist approach instead of specialized city states. Basically less federal oversight and more state oversight (besides maybe environmental stuff which crosses state lines, or give money to other states based on your carbon output). That way if you want to live in a euro-style social services high tax area you can move to Washington. Or if you want mixed go to New York. Market oriented people can go to Texas - for example. States can set up voluntary cross border zones so the regulations and taxation is more consistent for industries that are more disparate. Cross state trade wouldn't be regulated and federal law can focused on national security, foreign trade, currency, and tax collection. That way if something does work better (like ending the drug war) in one state, there will be a ton of data to reference and eventually good ideas will be adopted by other states. States like California are big enough to be their own small countries anyway. This was basically the idea when the US was founded but the federal government has only grown and every 4yrs the presidency becomes more important and given responsibility for everything. So no wonder the exec branch is growing in power - the citizens keep expecting them to be responsible for everything. It'd also protect against Donald Trump's from happening, the whims of one man should never be so influential.

dmix 10y ago

I'm more in favor of a federalist approach instead of specialized city states. Basically less federal oversight and more state oversight (besides maybe environmental stuff which crosses state lines, or give money to other states based on your carbon output). That way if you want to live in a euro-style social services high tax area you can move to Washington. Or if you want mixed go to New York. Market oriented people can go to Texas - for example. States can set up voluntary cross border zones so the regulations and taxation is more consistent for industries that are more disparate. Cross state trade wouldn't be regulated and federal law can focused on national security, foreign trade, currency, and tax collection. That way if something does work better (like ending the drug war) in one state, there will be a ton of data to reference and eventually good ideas will be adopted by other states. States like California are big enough to be their own small countries anyway. This was basically the idea when the US was founded but the federal government has only grown and every 4yrs the presidency becomes more important and given responsibility for everything. So no wonder the exec branch is growing in power - the citizens keep expecting them to be responsible for everything. It'd also protect against Donald Trump's from happening, the whims of one man should never be so influential.