US Politics: Whose economic policies do you support?
Both parties have very different ideas on how to tax, regulate, and manage the US economy. Whose do you agree with more?
Democrats
Side Score: 12
|
 |
Republicans
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
I was going to skip this debate, but Andy insists on being a Republican. The only way to get out of a hole is for somebody to help you, one has to spend money to accomplish this. That call you placed from your cell phone cost money. Assuming this person has to drive to where you are at, this cost money (gas, vehicle wear and tear). That rope he/she purchased to get you out, cost money. The person that helped you out has to drive back home, this cost money. How does not spending money, get you out of the hole? I agree that sometimes the rope may hang you, but what choice is there? Do you really like it down here? Side: Democrats
1
point
1
point
|
I'm generally pretty far left so this posting might seem odd, but give me a moment: Economics can be broadly divided into a spectrum with equity on the left and efficiency on the right. Equity, or fairness, is all about providing for the most while depriving the least amount of people. Efficiency is all about putting the largest amount of money into the economy. Both are admirable and useful, but they are also, almost always, mutually exclusive. This is because maximum efficiency exists without government interference. It is guided by the invisible hand. The thing is, the invisible hand itself is fueled by competition. And competition creates winners and losers. Thus, the polar opposite of optimum equity. The best way to ensure equity is by government intervention. But almost all forms of this (regulation, taxation, fines, protectionism, etc.) create deadweight loss. In any of these scenarios you increase the number of people who are unwilling or unable to pay the price compared to the price set by the invisible hand. Less money goes into the economy, therefore less efficiency. However, this can easily be taken to the extreme. Efficiency invariably leads to a very small number of privileged and lucky individuals controlling the majority of the wealth, while the majority of the population ends up poor. Poverty begets crime and ignorance. Thus the populace as a whole suffers. So to go too far to the right is to increase suffering among the masses. To go too far to the left is to mitigate the overall amount of money flowing. So somewhere in the middle is the best bet. I argue slightly to the right because, to an extent, increased efficiency can benefit equity incidentally by increasing the overall amount of money available. But going too far to the right ensures poverty among the masses, and that is not healthy for the nation as a whole. So, limit taxation and regulation, but allow it in the proper situations. Going extremist like Mr. Paul is sure to damn the majority of this country. Going too far left is sure to limit our potential. Aim slightly right, but with significant reservations, and both equity and efficiency can flourish as best as possible considering how opposing they are. Side: Republicans
1
point
You're assuming that in a pure free market, that corporations would impose upon themselves positive business habits. Considering that they don't do that in the real world, I wouldn't make that assumption. But I agree with most of what you wrote. I'm too in a central position, but I would claim that the US democrats are in themselves central, some say more right than the UK (where I'm from) conservative party. But in general, there are times where each's policies work, that's why most of the world's a mixed right now, all of them are to some extent. Side: Democrats
You're assuming that in a pure free market, that corporations would impose upon themselves positive business habits. Considering that they don't do that in the real world, I wouldn't make that assumption. Ummm...I didn't say that at all. In fact I implied against it repeatedly by criticizing Ron Paul's extremist economic policies and warning about going too far to the right in two or three different sentences. I specifically said aim towards the center, but just a little to the right. "A little to the right" hardly represents a pure free market, and I am DEFINITELY opposed to anarcho-capitalism. By limiting government intervention as much as possible, but still utilizing it when necessary (to protect consumers, workers, the environment), we come as close as we can to maximizing both equity and efficiency. Neither will be as benefited as they would be with more extremist measures, but both can at least be potent enough to spread their perspective benefits to the economy and the nation. Side: Republicans
1
point
To reduce debt, either the US government can increase revenue (taxes), or impose austerity measures/reduce spending. To the best of my knowledge, the Republicans oppose tax increase, and democrats oppose reduction in spending. Neither is more at fault on that basic premise. Side: Democrats
1
point
My political philosophy tends to lean more towards what some republicans spout, but it’s nevertheless my philosophy and I’ve been mistaken for a democrat (I’m actually independent) numerous times for my liberal stance on social issues. As far as economics, I chose the “republican” side because a free market economy is something the constitutionalists promote, who happens to fall under the Republican Party. Given that the world uses a monetary system, a free market economy would be the most moral and efficient type in my opinion. Productivity increases in a market that allows or gives incentive for the population to risk their capital and compete with other businesses. The consumer determines the success of businesses, instead of the government (a business) determining the success of businesses. The control of the market (and the country) ought to be in the hands of the people not the ‘rulers’ or ‘owners’ (government and business). Some people think that government is needed to regulate the market and restrict businesses so that they do not monopolize, but what it does instead is drives corporations to seek cheap labor in the global market which ends up making them even more successful by reducing their expenses and increasing their profit and marketplace. It’s hard to see if a company is growing out of control where they can monopolize the entire market until it’s too late and you have a Wal-Mart every 100 miles. A method I see to counter this (although it sounds ludicrous and unimaginable) would be to eliminate advertizing except for personal reviews. That would mean everything like billboards, magazine ads, commercials, pop-ups, side-bars would be eliminated. The only method of advertizing would be through personal networking between family and friends. If you like a product, you’d tell your friend or neighbor about it. This would limit the stronghold that some corporations hold and enable local economies to flourish. The money the community makes will be spent in the community and benefit the community, not some billion dollar corporation based in who-knows-where. If this were to be implemented, it could hardly be called a “free market.” But given the idea that the monetary system creates greed through the goal being profit which is increased by scarcity, it’s hard to decide on a monetary system that would benefit the whole species without implementing some form of control. And without advertizing a company wouldn’t even get big enough to leave a county, let alone the country. Personally, I don't like the monetary system at all, and if we were to implement some other form of economy, then I would most likely switch my stance drastically. Side: Republicans
1
point
There are numerous examples as to why that is wrong. Neo liberal policy is popular, but has been proven, at least on occasion, not to be right, and so such an absolute is terminally wrong. Free markets are good for developed countries, or companies, as it allows them to undercut developing countries, or companies, as they have all of their capital, and business, already set up and can offer lower prices than those who still need to grow their business. Such an idea hugely favours the rich. For example, look at the development of Korea. In 1950, it had one of the lowest GDP per capita's in the world. It used a strong nationalist economy, and within 40 years, it's one of the most developed. Look at some of the most famous airways companies, Singapore + Qatar airways, or Volkswagen. Their largest shareholders are their own government. Look at the growth of Singapore. Under large government control, they've rapidly developed in as little at 20 years, under a free market that would be impossible. Yes, a free market is a better policy than Communism. But just looking at the 2008 crash, caused by free market deregulation. Please don't use such absolutes. Side: Democrats
Free markets are good for developed countries, or companies, as it allows them to undercut developing countries, or companies, as they have all of their capital, and business, already set up and can offer lower prices than those who still need to grow their business. Such an idea hugely favours the rich. Free markets also allow the consumer to decide how successful businesses, and in turn the market, is as long as they have the choice to decide (no monopolization/ government businesses). The problem I see with any market that is based on the monetary system is that in is inherently due to fail. It’s in the blueprints so-to-speak. The goal of any economy is to distribute resources and increase productivity. The goal is not, sorry to say, to help the poor. Undercutting developing countries is actually the goal. It’s like a game of musical chairs, there are only a certain number of chairs, if you don’t stake your claim, you lose. It’s deplorable and evil, if there is such a thing, but it’s the way it works. The driving force for a monetary system is profit. Profit’s best friend is Scarcity. The fact that money also equals power through the monetary system makes things worse because it just makes those with the most money, get even more. So now those in control (the rich) are threatened by anything that reduces scarcity. What this equates to in the rawest sense is energy, or more specifically, energy that doesn’t cost anything to make. The more energy you have the more resources, the less scarcity, the less profit. Sure everyone would have a happy life and poverty would be a thing of the past, but there are too many people that like the way things are now (guess who they would be) and they actually implement ways to keep energy and resources at the lowest level possible to increase profit, but still allow for the livestock to get fed and entertained (distracted). I don’t know any other way to emphasize this one point: you will not find an economic monetary system, which will benefit the whole species equally. Period. There is only a certain amount of resources, and regardless of the size of the population, the goal of any monetary system is to gain the most resources at your neighbors expense. And it is due to the idea of increasing scarcity to make profit. It’s not about democrat vs republic policies on this issue because both economic policies are ticking bombs. I hate to use this phrase, but it’s really what you have to do in this situation is choose the lesser of the two evils. And in my opinion, that would be a free market. Side: Democrats
|
