In all my posts on economics in here I've advocated allowing markets to settle prices except in those few areas where social good cannot be solved by market actors. What I abhor is interference in active markets by the government for the sake of it. It invariably induces the formation of black markets or moves transactions outside of the legislative area. If anyone thinks that a Tobin tax or 50% Income tax is going to fix anything they should look at the case studies. The politics of spite do not fix anything. I, paradoxically, believe in total taxation levels remaining roughly where they are, not lower, but they should be made much more progressive in nature (I wont go into it here, but you can read it on other posts Ive made).
I am not right wing. I believe in state schools, health care free at the point of delivery for all, nationalised transport infrastructure and unemployment benefit. All because in none of these areas does the market provide effective services to the individual. In these areas, though the market CAN provide cost effective service to the state. Private medical companies competing to sell services to the NHS that the NHS then administers to the user, if done correctly*, should provide the best value for money to the state.
I disklike unions because they distort the market under the cover of protection that they have in law. If that legal protection wasnt there, then the market would sort it out by firing the strikers in the interest of keeping the economic corporate entity alive and efficient even if smaller. Too many times the unions see the scale of employment as a right or due and they strike for it. That kills companies by not allowing them to adapt to market changes.
None of that makes me neither right nor left wing.
* To date it hasnt particularly.
