A Quote by Charlie Sykes

It is harder to explain why free markets create wealth than it is to pander to workers who have been displaced by global competition. — © Charlie Sykes
It is harder to explain why free markets create wealth than it is to pander to workers who have been displaced by global competition.
In the States, I think, the syllogism goes like this: 'free markets solve all problems. Free markets aren't solving global warming, QED global warming is not a problem'. It's not a very good syllogism but it's emotionally comforting if you're in that world.
I am convinced that both markets and free trade are good, but the traditional answer that we give to students to explain why they are good, the one based on perfect competition and Pareto optimality, is becoming untenable. Something much more interesting and more complicated is going on here
Unlike national markets, which tend to be supported by domestic regulatory and political institutions, global markets are only 'weakly embedded'. There is no global lender of last resort, no global safety net, and of course, no global democracy. In other words, global markets suffer from weak governance, and are therefore prone to instability, inefficiency, and weak popular legitimacy.
We will have to stand up for and promote the power and promise of free markets and free peoples, and affirm that American preeminence safeguards rather than impedes global progress.
To open up new markets and create American jobs, we need to make global bilateral free trade agreements a priority as they were under the Clinton administration.
Global companies can raise capital much easier than local Indian companies can because they have access to many more markets than we do, and this ends up distorting competition.
Once again, stock markets have been threatened with extinction for almost 75 years, and I have found that stock markets are harder to kill than roaches.
You can't have a market without government, because governments create the rules of competition and enforce fairness in the markets, and they build the institutions within which competition takes place.
With Anglo-American capitalism increasingly under attack, those who believe in the power of free markets and enterprise to create wealth and social progress must stand up and be counted and champion our way of life.
In Germany, many other countries, college tuition is free. Why isn`t free in America? Why do we have the highest rate of childhood poverty when other countries have rates much lower than we have? Why don`t we have pay equity for women workers? Why aren`t we leading the world in transforming our energy system in terms of climate change? We can do that. Are we dumb? Are we lazy? Not the case.
I have been to China. I noticed that wherever you went, you could ask an ordinary citizen, and he would explain, in detail, about free markets and all the other jargon of liberalisation.
I believe there is no other way to create decent livelihoods for the world's poorest people than to connect them to global markets as producers, and on fair terms.
Competition is overrated. In practice it is quite destructive and should be avoided wherever possible. Much better than fighting for scraps in existing markets is to create and own new ones.
This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many.
Silicon Valley is the engine for wealth creation. They've displaced energy, they've displaced financial services, and if we don't start including a broader array of people in that, the same group of people is going to rise to the top.
Clearly, the Global Economy isn't working for workers in China and Indonesia and Burma any more than it is for workers here in the United States.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!