The 2012 US Presidential Elections

[sten_super]

People in this country recieve wellfare because they cant look after themselves. The idea is to protect them from poverty, but it doesnt, it locks them into poverty. Its just government issued poverty so for some reason it seems more compassionate. In truth the compassionate thing to do would be to really help people get out of the system. I definately think we shouldnt just leave the vulnerable in the lurch, but we have a generation that has learned to be dependant. I think the role of government in our lives should be minimal, government should be incidental, we should almost forget that its there. What we have today is so far removed from that. We should heavily restrain government involvement in our lives because even its most noble intentions cause more harm than good.

As for income distribution, looking at the US over the past few decades they have plenty of wellfare programs. And the level of discrepancy between the top 2% and the bottom 95% is greater than it has ever been and is growing. So wellfare has not helped solve this. And all the while the free market gets blamed, when the US does not have, and has not had, a free market. It has a managed economy, what you could call Croney capitalism, or even corporatism. A system of special interests and lobbyists which tragically has tarnished free market ideas which essentially are just about economic liberty. I believe that productivity and prosperity come from liberty. And Liberty is one package, economic liberty and personal liberty are inseperable.

Without meaning to be patronising, I think there are a few sweeping generalisations here, and that was the point that I was trying to make in my first post. I don't believe in big government, but I do believe that there is a role for government in the redistribution of income. As we've seen recently with the financial crisis, truly unfettered capitalism encourages extreme risk taking. I'm generally pro free-market, but not to exclusion of all else and I certainly don't believe that all markets 'clear' by definition; in this context by that I mean that freeing up market forces won't give you full employment, and if you don't have full employment, and no social security, what happens to the people that are unemployed?

I think it's misguided to say that government intervention promotes inequality (which seems to be what you suggest in your second paragraph). Government intervention may not do a great job of reigning in inequality, but that inequality is due to the difference in people's earnings; under an extreme left wing system (such as communism; without wanting to get into the communism/fascism debate!) you don't have earnings, but all goods are allocated according to need, theoretically reducing inequality. Inequality is fundamentally a result of the operation of markets, and government's primary role (in my view) should be to intervene in those markets to put an artificial 'bottom' into them when required.

But where did u get the money that you gave them in the first place. This is why inflation was talked about, because when u add money to the money supply, without increasing the level of goods or services (real wealth/value) then all that happens is that you dilute the money supply and the value of the money goes down.

Imagine this micro economy. If bob and frank have £10 each and a glass of lemonade costs £5, they can each afford 2 glasses of lemonade. The price of the lemonade is based on the demand from bob and frank and the amount of lemonade available. If I give each of them another £10, in theory they can each have double the amount of lemonade. Unfortunately, while I have increased the amount of money in the economy, I have not increased the amount of lemonade. So they dont get any more lemonade than before. The price of lemonade just goes up to £10.

Trying to defy economic law is like trying to defy the laws of physics. Hey, listen, I want the dudes digging and filling the hole to have what they need, but to achieve that we have to start by not messing with the economy in this way. It might have a limited short term affect to just pump in money, but the long term is inflation, meaning that poorer people will pay higher prices. And there is a profound moral question here. As Ron Paul once said (I believe in 1988) "is it any more moral to dilute the value of the purchasing power of the money you hold in your wallet, than it is for the farmer to dilute the milk supply with water?"

This confuses the role of government and the role of the central bank; going back to my (spurious) example, I'd take money from a high earner (not mentioned) to give to the two men digging/filling the hole; I'd be redistributing this money away from the rich and to the poor. I'm much more sceptical about the role of money supply in fostering economic growth (without going off at too much of a tangent my fundamental belief is that, for pretty much the reasons you state, it can have provide a short term impact but in the long term simply leads to inflation which causes problems).

 

[thejackal]

It’s a pity Mike Bloomberg decided not to stand as an Independent. He’s done an OK job as Mayor of New York and he has the money to fund a campaign.

And therein lies one of the most fundamental flaws in the US political system.

If you need a ton of cash to mount any serious attempt at office then clearly something's very wrong, imo.

Not only that, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of there ever being an Independent President - the system's not designed to deliver one.

In 1992 Ross Perot got the highest 3rd party vote since Roosevelt in 1912, taking 18.9% of the popular vote and coming second in 2 states.

And this earned him: not a single electoral college vote.

As George Carlin said, "[the US] was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago, and the shit they shuffle around every four years ... doesn’t mean a fuckin' thing."

 

[beorhthelm]

If you need a ton of cash to mount any serious attempt at office then clearly something's very wrong, imo.

this is apparently a partial falicy, based the old misunderstanding of cause and correllation.

 

[thejackal]

this is apparently a partial falicy, based the old misunderstanding of cause and correllation.

What kind of fallacy?

Are you suggesting that a multi-millionaire is more suited to being President because he or she has proven their ability to govern by accumulating vast amounts of wealth?

Most ultra-successful US entrepreneurs are experts in greed and exploitation, part of a super-privileged class that are completely disconnected from reality as we know it, offshoring jobs etc., all in the name of perpetual profit growth.

I fail to see how one of them would necessarily make a good choice for President.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

And therein lies one of the most fundamental flaws in the US political system.

Yep it is flawed but one thing they did get right is limiting any President to two consecutive terms. Pity they don’t have that in the UK as it would have curbed the excesses of both Thatcher and Blair in their third term of office.

 

[thejackal]

Yep it is flawed but one thing they did get right is limiting any President to two consecutive terms. Pity they don’t have that in the UK as it would have curbed the excesses of both Thatcher and Blair in their third term of office.

Definitely agree with that.