why is privatisation in CEE considered a good policy(benefits and costs)?
355500
Read about it here:\n\nhttp://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(yuedwu45shk5cazpvib0gn55)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,12;journal,7,33;linkingpublicationresults,1:108555,1
80902
There is only ONE (1) goal of any REAL governement and that is PROTECTION. The governement provides several functionalities and most are geared for helping people create wealth. Having people that can afford to take care of themselves alleviates the government from having to care for each and every person.
614455
Federal subsidies to private industry like the oil companies are not only socialist, they come very close to what Mussolini called Fascism. This completely circumvents the idea of risk and supply/demand, and it also degrades the federal government from the position of honest broker over the economy because it is showing favoritism to one competitor over another.
677888
I think it's a great idea.  Private enterprise, cooperating to limit harmful sales to children.  The private sector, under pressure from the vast majority of the public is taking self-regulation without the need for governmental involvement.\n\nHat's off to them !
1066073
As long as they are publically traded - the bottom line is always the bottom line. GHI - in New York is one of the few remaining not for profit insurance folks out there. Deregulation and public status are why insurance costs are sky high, nothing else.
1106972
It is all about costs and effects,   and supply and demand. If there wasnt a high demand for it it wouldnt cost so much.
937951
I'm correcting your grammar: \n\nHello, My name is Sharlyn . Today Im gonna talk ABOUT the Economic aspect of Singapore. First, let me ask:  HAVE any of you been to Singapore or THOUGHT ABOUT doing business there perhaps???\n\nDoing business in Singapore is acutally BENEFICIAL(desirable?) BECAUSE their economy is a highly developed and successful free market economy (meaning only businesses and consumers decide what they will produce and purchase, so basically there is no governmental intervention )
754170
Basicly the reason is that free market mechanism optimize short term profits. Examples abound: \n- why investing in pollution control *now*, although cleaning up in 20 years might cost much more?\n- why investing in fundamental research *now*, although it might give us a killer app in 10 years? \n- why not move our production factories to India and China *now*, although our workless population at home may no longer be able to buy our products in five years?
80752
change is good because otherwise we wouldn't develop, we would be always satisfied with what we already have and change is the key of the progress. some things are worth to be changed, but some major values cannot be changed, or they are changed but during a slow process . change is good because otherwise we will all be the same, have the same cloths, cars, houses....hobbies,,,, as under the communist system....
63939
It actually helps advance the U.S. economy, and helps particular universities as well. U.S. has the best universities in the world in part because it is active in attracting the brightest minds from all over the world. Population of the U.S. is 300m, and the world 6.000m -- choosing from a larger pool has obvious benefits. \n\nAt my grad school (one of the top 5 in the U.S.), close to 50% of the students were foreigners. ALL of them would end up making significant contributions to the U.S. science and economy overall, hundreds of times beyond the total cost of their university scholarships. \n\nIn today's globalized knowledge economy, this is the only way. \n\nCompare the U.S. approach with continental European universities, which are almost free for citizens (and rarely subsidize foreigners) -- they don't come close to having the edge in research.
849063
Health risks are broad and you have to determine the issues for individual country.  Like any other business, you need to learn more about it first handed.  It is attractive as long as there remain a significant price difference between countries in the cost of medical procedures.  This will change although somewhat slowly with the global economy.  In the next 5 to 10 years, business will be good for those who are already in the business.  Who knows what happens in 10 years.
787284
The benefit, as you see, is property ownership rights, apparently.  Singapore is a safe, corruption free country.  You could do worse.
259898
Economic and political integration between the member states of the European Union means that these countries have to take joint decisions on many matters. So they have developed common policies in a very wide range of fields - from agriculture to culture, from consumer affairs to competition, from the environment and energy to transport and trade.It took some time for the Member States to remove all the barriers to trade between them and to turn their 'common market' into a genuine single market in which goods, services, people and capital could move around freely.(europa.eu.int) as u can see with that policy EU maintain the common market and free economy which is the basic source of European economy and havin initial importance. Also they aim to create a collctive movement to ensure the stability(also u can think it as domination) in world politics. and these aims can only be sustainable with bringing new member states...u can directly look at EU documents...
634266
It works fairly well as long as the country has a strong and stable economy and can support the peg with open market operations.  The problem is that countries who have a strong economy are the ones that are least likely to want a peg.  The weak countries want the peg so that the currency doesn't devalue too much, so they pick the peg.  It's really bad when they can't hold it up and they have to devalue as happened in Argentina.
379258
We all get goods and services cheaper if they are produced by the most efficient provider, wherever located.  As a result, we are all driven, economically speaking, to produce what we produce best.  Like, for example, USA now is best at producing movies and jet planes.  Good for Hollywood and Boeing.  Bad for Detroit.  But the car from overseas seems to be more desirable than the car from the US to most US consumers.
388485
There are some benefits.  For example, if you work on an assembly line that makes cars, the marketing department of the car company influences the public to buy the product you produce.  This helps "move product" and pays your wages.  However, the over commercialization and corporate blight of all public spaces has no real advantage to society.
758672
Yes, they are great for the economy. Tax cuts allow money to stay with in the private economy where Tax money is really pulled out of it and tied up in Government controlled ventures. Government controlled ventures have no real influences on the productivity of private industry, which is where money grows. \n\nThe more availability of resources, the more money is spent in areas that money wasn't spent in before, providing greater opportunity and resources for companies to expand and develop, not to mention provide new job opportunities. They don't do that if they aren't pulling in the resources to allow for it to happen. \n\nSo, the long and short of it, it's been proposed and done under Kennedy, Reagan, and now Bush. It's how you can let the people have the resources to do with as they deem necessary. And because the people of the United States are amazing in their ability to grow and expand, it works like a charm every time.