Not really. I voted for Ron Paul in my primaries so everyone else is fairly similar IMO, with just those few key distinctions to me. There's caring who it is and dealing with the reality of what is left.
Before posting a long winded bit of something I would like to say: eddie_dane : You seem to err on the side of 'classical' supply-side economics to the detriment of Keynesian economics. Is it not the case that a balanced measure of both in economic management has been the primary reason for the affluence and growth* of The United States and The United Kingdom between the years of 1992 and 2007? *The financial crisis being a seperate topic, itself not convincingly advancing the cause of either economic theory over the other. A general point on topic : As an outside observer, placing blame on the current president for the slow pace of economic recovery is short-sighted at best. There are 2 hard facts that Americans cannot ignore. They are elephants in the room and take actual percenyage points off of economic growth: 1) America was at the epicentre of a devastating financial collapse. The affects of this are still at work (America's growth potential has been temporarily reduced). There were precious few 'sane' courses of action to recitfy this any sooner. 2) The second largest economic bloc (the eurozone) is underperforming. This has real consequences for American GDP growth (especially given reduced growth potential in the American economy in the medium term). The sovereign debt crisis continues to exert a negative pull on the American economy. Interbank lending both nationally and internationally is reduced, squeezing the availability of credit both for consumers and businesses. Stock market performance is signifigantly hindered. Business and consumer confidence (particularly the former) is constantly under real pressure until at some point the crisis is declared 'over'. Really, that the bottom fell out of the American economy in 2008 seems absolutely lost on large swathes of the American public. The stimulus packages, quantative easing, near zero interest rates, these were put in place to help fill the gaping, cavernous, staggering blackhole that had opened up in private consumption. Without portals to other dimensions, we cannot see what would have happened had these measures not been taken. It is highly doubtful it would be pretty. A final nugget to chew on: if all the extra government spending, the enormous stimulus packages and the free money of quantative easing didn't cause rampant inflation in the U.S. (the current inflation rate is perfectly tolerable) then where does that leave classical economic theory? Up poo creek without a paddle. That's where.
I'm for Obama in the election for a variety of reasons. First, I tend toward the Democratic Party's take on social issues. I'd tend toward Libertarian except for the total lack of compassion and over-emphasis on States' rights. While I respect Dr. Paul and many of his ideas, he would repeal the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act (among other things) and leave it to the states to enact if they so choose. I think we have an idea where some of this might end up. What I do like in Dr. Paul's stance is the non-interference. We've invaded far too many countries for too many dubious excuses and it is time to stop. The US can no longer afford the loss of life (our service men and women and citizens of the invaded countries), nor can we afford the massive spending in the defense department. Romney avoided the draft on several deferments including his time as a "missionary" in France. The LDS Church had what was likely an unconstitutional arrangement with the Selective Service which allowed their young men to avoid being drafted. The Mormons were the only religion with such an exemption; all others had to be permanent priests or missionaries, not just for two years. And yet we see Romney sabre-rattling for Iran and decrying the US pull-out from Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama's words and actions are much more supportive of womens' rights as they relate to equal pay for equal work, changes in the Affordable Care Act that disadvantaged women, birth control, choice and other matters. The Republican's massive bills looking to restrict all manner of womens' healthcare are abhorrent. When President Obama has misspoken or erred in fact, he usually admits and corrects (whether through staff or himself.) Mr. Romney continually distorts and downright lies, even when confronted with the facts. I can give you several examples if anyone would care for them. I find this a failure of character that the man has absolutely no shame. Which leads to... Lack of character/spine. I understand a candidate panders to certain groups in order to gain support and get elected. However, Mr. Romney's inability to stand up to fringe elements of the Republican party brings into question whether he could resist them once president, much less other heads of state and diplomats. This includes Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a "****," or a right-wing preacher who pressured his campaign to fire a gay spokesperson. Even the preacher said after the fact he would not support Romney in the election as he had no backbone. It is laughable Romney rides a fine line by associating himself with Donald Trump, the birther in chief. John McCain in 2008 at least had the fortitude to correct his supporters who called Obama, muslim, a terrorist, not a citizen and other things. Romney does no such thing and laughs it off. Overall, I don't think Romney is really any more prepared to act as President than Obama was. His business experience in venture capital had a goal of making a profit for investors, very different than a country's economy. I am not at all reassured his policies would be fair to the middle or lower classes. Most of his advisers are former Bush associates with neo-con leanings. Romney has stated he would continue most of the Bush policies that lead to much of the mess we're in now. In addition, he would like to repeal the few bills which passed trying to stave off another financial crisis. Mr. Romney has endorsed the Ryan budget plan which would cut $3.2 billion (forgive if the figure is off) from the social safety net. Not only would he make the Bush tax cuts permanent, but he would cut rates further. The massive deficit will not be closed by increasingly less revenue. Anyway, that's my ramble for the night with a bad cold and not being able to sleep. Feel free to ask or correct if anything is incoherent.
Not to split hairs and start yet another exercise in academic economics but I'm a free market laissez-faire believer. "Supply side" could be considered the modern connotation, and to that degree, I accept the term for discussion sake but it bears worth pointing out. Bottom line, I don't believe in favoring any "side" of the economic ledger. I don't believe the "balanced measure" of keynesian has anything to do with the prosperity of the era you mentioned (why you selected that one, I'm not sure) or any other for that matter. I am convinced that prosperity in any era since the 1930's has happened DESPITE Keynesian interventions. Much like any healthy organism can survive a certain amount of parasites so does a functioning economy. The history of growth, prosperity and employment prior to the Great Depression and endless experimentation on the part of the Fed is a great testimony to this fact. Keynesianism suffers from the same problem Marxist communism is that, after a century, no one has actually done it. Marx never intended his manifesto to spawn countless bloody despotic dictatorships around the globe killing more people than any other ideology in the history of the human race.. Likewise, there's one side of Keynes' theory that politicians love and another critical part that they have simply ignored. I would not consider myself a Keynesian expert. I have not read is work directly but I have read a considerable amount on people claiming to implement his theories. But the main gist is that of the state acting as a balancing wheel, in times of strife, the state pumps currency to compensate for sagging private activity BUT, in good times, the state is supposed to accumulate surpluses. In all of Keynesian history, this part has never happened. Ideally, the flow of cash is supposed to be a net 0 not borrowing everytime stimulus is needed. Just like communism, you can blame that failures on the people in charge of following the theory not being faithful to its directives, but after 100 years, the fact that no one has been able to do it makes the theory, just that, an interesting academic exercise. True Keynesian theory requires something that separates politicians from statesmen (which are increasingly rare these days) which is discipline and long-term thinking. Politicians today and in the past have seen Keynesian theory merely as a justification to do what they really want to do and buy votes with other people's money. By the time the consequences of their actions come home to roost, they have been re-elected. The most dire episode in US history was one presided over by a man who had direct access to Keynes himself, FDR. Never has it been tried at such a large scale for so long and it failed miserably, to the point that Keynes periodically chastised FDR for his actions leading to a personally confession by FDR's Secretary of the Treasury stating: Meanwhile I can cite several episodes where we had monumental crashes where nothing was done and the recovery was merely a blip on the radar screen. Mainly the crashes of '21 and '87. So any argument along the lines of "It woud be a lot worse if x wasn't done" must be quantified to me before I could believe it. Even if I take the argument on Obama's own criteria when justifying stimulus with the ultimatum he made saying that if it was done, unemployment would not rise above 8%. It has been above that for 40 straight months. (FDR presided over 35 straight months of double digit unemployment). I've also made the argument in other discussions that the fact that the recession starting in 2008 (many claim it was even as early as 2007) only helps Obama if you consider the history of recessions usually last around 18 months. Trends have shown that the more the government intervenes in the economy, the longer the recessions last. Independent studies have concluded that the intervention during the 1930's prolonged the depression 7 years longer than it should have. One last thing is that inflation is coming, the signs are already here. The current measure of the CPI does not include fuel and food costs. Take a look at those factors as well as the prices of commodities and it's hard to argue that inflation is not coming if not already here. I don't blame Obama alone for the situation we are in here, that is just irresponsible. But it is the nature of politics that the pres takes the lumps and also the credit. The congress has not passed a budget in the last 3 years, they are just as culpable but that blame game is diluted among the many where the president stands alone. Not fair, I admit, but a reality - which explains why, when you listen to Obama, all this is "Bush's Fault". Same game, different team. You can't realistically expect to spend your entire term in office feeding out that rope that the president is responsible for the mess and not expect to hang yourself on it.
Eddie thanks for the essay, I enjoyed reading it and apologies for the delayed response. I have written one out several times but I went off on rambling tangents so scrapped them for a, hopefully, more direct response. Overall I find very little to disagree with in Ilves assessment of the situation. It is quite clear that the US is now focusing more towards China and the emerging powers/threats of the pacific and South America. That to me looks quite clear cut, the implications for Europe is the more ambiguous part. Although I have a euro-centric view point, it should be noted that it is going to be more of UK-centric view point which will be different to those of continental Europe. The UK has always kept Continental Europe and the EU at arms length and has shared a closer relationship to the US through our shared language and ideals. Therefore although there has been an anti US feeling within the UK (we see it in serious discussion quite frequently) I personally don't think it has been as strong as it is in other parts of the EU. I think it is important to take the long view of the EU and Euro to see why it is in the situation it is. European history has shown that when a country grows to powerful, (normally France or Germany), it tends to be bad news for its neighbors. After the second world war Churchill put forward the vision of a "United States of Europe" as a solution. If the countries of Europe could be combined into one federal entity it would end the cycle of wars and political turmoil which had rocked the first part of the twentieth century. From this idea the EU, and shortly afterwards, the Euro was born. The economists who were asked to work on the Euro project warned that without a federal European state or fiscal union which controlled the spending of all the member states it wouldn't work. The politicians decided it was worth the gamble as a failing Euro would potentially force the forming of a single federal European state. Viewing the Euro as a political project rather than an economic project explains why the creative accountancy and economic practices of countries like Greece where largely overlooked. Something else which I feel has been lost in current Eurozone discussions is that it was in Germany's favor to have weak economies included in the Eurozone to keep the value of the Euro low and German/Eurozone exports affordable. Fast forward to the present day and we are seeing the predictions of a failing Euro coming true. More and more people are now calling for a "United States of Europe" (led by Germany ironically) as a solution to the crisis in the Eurozone and personally I think this is now where we are heading. Ilves quite rightly points out why should his country and other Eurozone members who have made tough reforms to their own economies and followed prudent spending plans pay for those who have not? I agree with him, why should they? In the context of a federal European state it makes sense. Overall if you combine all the member state economies together into one large economy the balance sheet looks a lot better. It also then provides a mandate for the federal government to push through the economic and government reforms needed in countries like Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain. If we are seeing protests and political unrest now, imagine what would happen when an unelected European state overtly takes over the spending of member countries. Once we start looking at the shift in global power the creation of a Federal European super-state has advantages at the strategic level as well. It creates a single large economy more able to compete with the US and emerging powers, a powerful combined military and political entity able to react more quickly to global events. Looking from a solely UK-centric view point the immediate question is what about us? We have always kept the EU at arms length and I suspect the thought of being swallowed up by a European Super State would be political anathema to the majority of the country. One major advantage the UK has is its language. English is already the international language of business, science, technology and increasingly education. Our economies dependence on the financial sector has been lamented by many, myself included, but I do now wonder if being an international centre of finance and commerce may be a key strategic advantage in the future that outweighs the economic risks If this has piqued anyones interest much of my opinions in this post have been partially shaped by the documentary below. Eddie I previously PM’d you the link to this on the BBC iPlayer but it has now appeared on youtube so people outside the UK will now be able to view it. I think you will find it interesting. Also if you scroll down the article linked to below and listen to the 10 minute radio extract it discusses how a United States of Europe would help the current crisis. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18391824
Thanks for the reply, it's very telling to hear an "ousider-insider" opinion. I find it insightful your observation of a central authority taking over as I've been reading more and more about the animosity for Germany in Greece that is growing for basically, making them pay back what they owe. Germany seems to be suffering from basically doing the right thing all these years. This is a tough relationship to negotiate given the history of the last century as you said. Thanks for the link. I tried the BBC link and it didn't work. I've received the book on Scotland that you recommended but haven't started it yet, I have a few other books to get through. I may reserve it for my vacation coming up.
I'm no expert on Greece's situation but my father emigrated there once he retired so I do have some first and second hand experiences of life in Greece and it's a real mess. The tax system is a joke. Tax dodging is a national sport and the Greeks are experts at it. It takes my dad two entire days to pay his taxes where he queues for hours at different departments within the tax building just to get a rubber stamp on a document no one looks at. If he has receipts or documents missing he can buy a forged one at the cafe's beside the tax office. The country works on a cash based economy, trying to pay by card is impossible in all but the large stores and even then you have to produce your passport before they will accept it. I believe most Greeks historically don't trust the banks so they keep a lot of their money at home where it can't be traced. Apparently that made the transition to the Euro rather interesting! From the ground up the country is dogged by corruption and operates as a closed shop at every level. Like Italy local politicians have a lot of power over what happens in their area so political favours are traded for government jobs with excellent benefits which creates an overly large public sector and bureaucracy. New taxi and large good vehicle (trucking) licences have not been issued in decades which makes the licences very valuable. They are either passed down through the family or are sold at retirement age and effectively become the licence holders pension fund. A telling sign is the lack of Chinese or any other ethnic restaurants, normally the business of choice for immigrants. The Greek taverna owners lobby the local politicians, probably with bribes, to not issue them with permits to open restaurants. The more you find out the more WTF?! you are about the whole thing. The Greeks have been lied to by their politicians (Politics also seems to be a family affair and a closed shop) but they are equally to blame for the situation they are in. It must be very hard to see an outside entity (The Germans) tell you how to run your country and who can lead it but if the democracy of the country can't survive making the necessary changes there are not many alternatives. I did also chuckle to myself that Goldman Sachs seem to be implicit in Greece's cooking the books. When ever there is a financial scandal or impropriety they never seem to be far away.
I laughed when I first read this survey but I think it may reinforce much of what you describe. source
Thanks again for the link, it was a long but interesting read. I feel it reflects the lack of understanding most of us have about the crisis and how it is portrayed in the media. If we look at the results for Britain we blame the banks but I seriously doubt the majority of the population could tell you why they feel that way. Blaming the EU or "Europe" will also be the easy excuse for any politician questioned about the economy too. The lack of faith the in the free market is also a symptom of blaming the banks but we know that in a proper free market they would have failed and the market self corrected. It is especially ironic that the Greeks are most critical of a free market when nearly everything they do obstructs it's operation but then there will be a lot of pain from those who benefit from closed shop practices while the transition takes place. The UK's office of national statistics published data which shows that the Greeks work the longest hours in Europe which contradicts the stereotype we have of them. It is unfortunate that the inefficiencies and corruption in their government mean the hard work doesn't equal high productivity. The (relatively) short term pain of wide scale reforms in competitive practices and more importantly tax collection would probably make them all better off. For example as tax avoidance is so rife, taxes on essential products such as food and fuel have risen very sharply while my dad has been in Greece to the point where food is more expensive than the UK. The stand out piece for me though was the following. I lol'd.
think romney is going to have one heck of a time beating moneypants here.. obama is already spending his cash cow on ads
Just think by the end of the campaign what you could've bought for the combined total of money spent by both camps.
no kidding.. the thing too is your allowed to run ads on tv if your not directly affiliated with either campaign.. the ads can be as crazy as they want to be.. doesn't even have to have to be true certain groups are registering and busing homeless people in to vote too http://word-from-the-street.com/2011/01/19/homeless-paid-to-vote/ like they keep up with politics- were so screwed.. if a monkey ran I'd vote for him right now
Of course if you posted that about the current president you'd have to ban yourself but you cvan say what you like about W, I guess.
No, I can call Obama a monkey if I want because I'm coloured myself. It's just like Black people calling each other ***** 'n stuff. It's ironic. But let's face it... Just sayin'.
With the state of poltiics we have two very middle of the road dudes. Nothing more nothing less really. Either way the direction won't be any different.
