Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[mizdarby]

Looking in from the outside, I view the forthcoming Presidential elections as massively important for the rest of the world. I still believe that the US is the MAJOR industrial powerhouse of the world, the most potent military force in the world, the driving force behind the financial markets of the world, and the man (unless Jill Stein of the Green Party counts) Americans vote into the White House, is still the most important single person in the world. Don't get me wrong I am not sucking up to the US, this may be the last election in the US, where the most powerful man in the world is elected, by the time the next US elections come around in 2016, the premier of China might well be the new most important single person in the world.

I view Obama as a bit of a "dove", was moderately excited when he first got elected, but over the years have increasingly seen him as a bit of a damp squib, lacking insight into the workings of the US economy and more importantly, how to get the US thriving again. But he has done a term now, so has the experience to maybe be more inspired next term, or maybe you think Obama has done a fabulous job already.

Mitt Romney, seems to be more solid in the foreign policy department, and quite likely to be inclined to protectionism when it comes to the US economy, but my personal view is that he's too rigid and not likely to change track when the chips are down. Does Romney have the charisma and drive, to put right an ailing economy, or is he nothing special but at least he isn't Obama.

Third parties do very very badly in Presidential elections, which is a pity, because I quite like the apparent policies of the Libertarian Party, Gary Johnson would get my vote I think, the minimally regulated markets and drugs liberalization ideas, are quite radical but refreshing, and the pulling out of NATO/UN seems exactly what the rather inward looking view of the common American would be at ease with. Of course he can't be President can he, would never be able to break the two party system that the US has had foe decades.

 

I set up a straw poll, which if all goes well, will suggest the way the voting might go, and at very least give non-Americans the chance to "vote" in the 2012 US Elections. Offered party/president duo tags, as many countries vote for parties more than their leaders, although my American friends on facebook (all 200+ of them) generally seem to be more interested in the leader than the party.

 

Please comment on how you would vote for, and reasons why you would vote that way. If you vote for the third party option, say which party you prefer (eg Libertarian, Green, Tea Party etc).

[HeyYou]

Mitt Romney is a one percent-er, he won't be implementing ANY protectionist policies, as they directly go against the people that he ACTUALLY represents. He may talk a good game about 'helping the middle class', or, at least, whats left of it.... but, that is just election year rhetoric, attempting to appeal to the folks least likely to vote for him. Reading the Republican Manifesto, recently released from the RNC, he has all the same old tired policies, that have already been demonstrated to NOT work.... but, he seems to think that 'this time, it will be different'. Yeah, right. So sorry Mitt, but, continuing to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, is the very definition of insanity...... You won't be getting my vote....

 

Obama..... An inexperienced politician, that has ALWAYS worked in the public sector, has always led a life of privilege. He has no more idea what it is like to HAVE to work to make ends meet, (barely) like most of the population does now..... than Romney does. His policies aren't any better than the republicans, and in some cases, are the SAME policies. I originally voted for Obama, as I was expecting him to actually live up to his campaign promises, and not just deliver warmed over continuations of republican economic, and foreign policy. Sure fooled me. Guess I should have known better. I won't be voting for Obama either.

 

Who AM I going to vote for? Not a farking clue at this point. Gary Johnson has a certain amount of appeal, but, he has a couple policies that I vehemently disagree with, so, kinda nixes that option.... Maybe I will just write in Ron Paul, and be done with it....... Not that I agree with all of HIS policies either......

 

I really don't see a bright future for the US, regardless of who gets elected...... I see war with Iran, fuel prices skyrocketing, to the point that they will have a profound negative effect on the economy here, which will make our situation that much worse..... and eventually, probably within ten years, economic collapse, that will make the recession of 2008 look like a picnic in the park. Maybe THEN, americans can get some REAL change in washington, as I expect that is the only way we are going to see it, is at gunpoint.

[mizdarby]

As a non-American, I have little enthusiasm for either Obama or Romney, and many of my American friends seem pretty downbeat about the prospects of the US, regardless of the result. The only person who seems to excite them at all, politically wise is Ron Paul, but my limited understanding of the US electoral system, suggests the Ron Paul may still in the race, but not likely to go for a presidential campaign.

I viewed Mitt Romney as a potential protectionist, due to the fact that if the American economy was ailing enough, protectionist measures would attractive, as a way to preserve the industrial base that drives the American economy. Free trade is all very noble, but it favours nations on the up industrially wise, more than stagnant mature economies.

I would like the US to rebound, and start to re-establish itself as a healthy economy, not only for the sake of it's citizens, but for the sake of the world economy as we know it currently. Europes' financial centres, tend to follow the trends set by the Dow Jones, so a healthy growing Dow Jones means healthy growing European markets. Of course, as the "tiger" economies of east Asia (Particularly China and India) increase in influence, the European markets will increasingly link to the trends of those new powerhouse Nations of the world.

[HeyYou]

As a non-American, I have little enthusiasm for either Obama or Romney, and many of my American friends seem pretty downbeat about the prospects of the US, regardless of the result. The only person who seems to excite them at all, politically wise is Ron Paul, but my limited understanding of the US electoral system, suggests the Ron Paul may still in the race, but not likely to go for a presidential campaign.

I viewed Mitt Romney as a potential protectionist, due to the fact that if the American economy was ailing enough, protectionist measures would attractive, as a way to preserve the industrial base that drives the American economy. Free trade is all very noble, but it favours nations on the up industrially wise, more than stagnant mature economies.

I would like the US to rebound, and start to re-establish itself as a healthy economy, not only for the sake of it's citizens, but for the sake of the world economy as we know it currently. Europes' financial centres, tend to follow the trends set by the Dow Jones, so a healthy growing Dow Jones means healthy growing European markets. Of course, as the "tiger" economies of east Asia (Particularly China and India) increase in influence, the European markets will increasingly link to the trends of those new powerhouse Nations of the world.

 

The rebuplicans are the major drivers behind the 'free trade' agreements.... and Obama has also followed that trend, signing up three new countries during his term in office. Oddly enough, those treaties were signed at night, with zero public fanfare, as Obama KNEW it was NOT in the best interests of our country.

 

Romney, being a republican, filthy rich, and well aware of who donates to his campaign........ will not do anything that might cut into his donors pockets. The industrial might of america has already been exported to places like china, and india.... More american factories have been built there in the last ten years, than right here on american soil. The whole idea behind 'free trade'.... was to open up markets for american business to SELL their products.... It just worked out that it also offered them the opportunity to MOVE production to countries with less stringent environmental, and labor laws. (not to mention... no unions.....) The cost of shipping said products to the US pales in comparison to how much they profit from paying nothing wages, no benefits, and not having to worry about those pesky laws that require them to NOT be a MAJOR contributor to environment damage. The republicans actually put in place tax cuts for "creating jobs in developing nations".... Which translated, quite literally, to "Moving jobs to developing nations." Obama said he was going to get rid of those, but, along come the 'economists', predicting 'doom and gloom' should corporations suddenly finding themselves with most of their production in foreign countries, and now NOT getting to avoid paying millions in taxes on the profits to be had thereby.

 

So, not only do the corporations get major tax relief because of these laws, but, federal tax revenue is dramatically decreased as well.... so, the deficit expands at an even greater rate. Then we have the republicans signing on with Norquist, and the whole "no raising taxes, at ALL", even if that is getting rid of a supposedly temporary 'tax break'..... Gee, and we wonder why we borrow 43 cents of every dollar of our national budget??

 

And Romney wants to EXPAND military spending....... where is he going to get the money for that? Medicare/Medicaid cuts........ I.E. on the backs of our senior citizens....... Nice.

 

No, Romney is NOT going to be good for the average american. But of course, neither will Obama be......

[grannywils]

mizdarby, thank you so much for this thread. I was beginning to wonder where, well nevermind. Just thank you.

 

I will not spend a great deal of time on my response, however. I will vote for Mr. Obama. I cannot possibly vote for Mr. Romney and big corporate America. And Any third party candidate would be a wasted vote in my opinion.

 

I agree with HeyYou and many others who believe that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans seem to have our best interests at heart any longer. However, until we the people can figure out how to encourage viable candidates to run, or can gather enough votes for a realistic third party, I do not believe that I, as a liberal minded person who cares about what happens to the man in the street, have much choice in this upcoming election (other than to keep the Republicans out of the White House).

[csgators]

Neither of the two major candidates with do what they say they will while out campaigning. Not only because they are opportunistic liars but also because reality, political and otherwise will not allow it. Sadly one of them will win this election. Obama has been worse than I thought he would but better than I feared he might be. I thought he might, after a couple of years, grasp reality and move to the center economically like Clinton did. He has not and he will not. He continues to view government spending as the answer and that is just a proven economic fallacy.

 

For an economy to flourish as the US markets have for nearly a century it needs freedom from government taxes and regulations. Every tax and law put in place reduces freedom and opportunity. There are few candidates that understand this fact, at least that are willing to campaign for and follow through with the policies that will unleash the US economy again. I see a lot of complaining about outsourced jobs but what do you expect when we use regulations and minimum wadge to increase the cost of labor in our country while we allow free access to our markets to countries that don't. There are two possible solutions.

 

1) We remove minimum wage laws and reduce regulations to allow American companies to compete.

2) We adopt protectionist policies and only allow 'free' trade with countries with similar labor laws. Others like China we would allow no trade or trade only with high tariffs.

 

I'll take option 1, option 2 ofter leads to very bad results.

 

The above ignores the myriad of other things that need to be done to restore liberty to the US.

[HeyYou]

Neither of the two major candidates with do what they say they will while out campaigning. Not only because they are opportunistic liars but also because reality, political and otherwise will not allow it. Sadly one of them will win this election. Obama has been worse than I thought he would but better than I feared he might be. I thought he might, after a couple of years, grasp reality and move to the center economically like Clinton did. He has not and he will not. He continues to view government spending as the answer and that is just a proven economic fallacy.

 

For an economy to flourish as the US markets have for nearly a century it needs freedom from government taxes and regulations. Every tax and law put in place reduces freedom and opportunity. There are few candidates that understand this fact, at least that are willing to campaign for and follow through with the policies that will unleash the US economy again. I see a lot of complaining about outsourced jobs but what do you expect when we use regulations and minimum wadge to increase the cost of labor in our country while we allow free access to our markets to countries that don't. There are two possible solutions.

 

1) We remove minimum wage laws and reduce regulations to allow American companies to compete.

2) We adopt protectionist policies and only allow 'free' trade with countries with similar labor laws. Others like China we would allow no trade or trade only with high tariffs.

 

I'll take option 1, option 2 ofter leads to very bad results.

 

The above ignores the myriad of other things that need to be done to restore liberty to the US.

 

So you would advocate the the 8 dollar an hour jobs the economy has been coming up with were instead 4 dollar an hour jobs? Or 4 dollars a day? Remove environmental protections so that corporate america can poison our environment? I will grant that some of the laws are over-the-top, but, just eliminating them indiscriminately would pretty much assure a return to the days when breathing in certain cities would be bad for your health.....

 

I would be more inclined to advocate FAIR trade. Imports to this country would be taxed at the exact same rate as similar exports to the country of origin. (where similar products were available for comparison... otherwise... pick something close....)

 

In all reality, american workers CAN'T compete in the global economy...... we got used to a reasonable standard of living, and the folks that sell products here got used to their pricing. Eliminate minimum wage, without also doing something about product pricing, and you will quickly have some serious civil unrest....

[csgators]

Neither of the two major candidates with do what they say they will while out campaigning. Not only because they are opportunistic liars but also because reality, political and otherwise will not allow it. Sadly one of them will win this election. Obama has been worse than I thought he would but better than I feared he might be. I thought he might, after a couple of years, grasp reality and move to the center economically like Clinton did. He has not and he will not. He continues to view government spending as the answer and that is just a proven economic fallacy.

 

For an economy to flourish as the US markets have for nearly a century it needs freedom from government taxes and regulations. Every tax and law put in place reduces freedom and opportunity. There are few candidates that understand this fact, at least that are willing to campaign for and follow through with the policies that will unleash the US economy again. I see a lot of complaining about outsourced jobs but what do you expect when we use regulations and minimum wadge to increase the cost of labor in our country while we allow free access to our markets to countries that don't. There are two possible solutions.

 

1) We remove minimum wage laws and reduce regulations to allow American companies to compete.

2) We adopt protectionist policies and only allow 'free' trade with countries with similar labor laws. Others like China we would allow no trade or trade only with high tariffs.

 

I'll take option 1, option 2 ofter leads to very bad results.

 

The above ignores the myriad of other things that need to be done to restore liberty to the US.

 

So you would advocate the the 8 dollar an hour jobs the economy has been coming up with were instead 4 dollar an hour jobs? Or 4 dollars a day? Remove environmental protections so that corporate america can poison our environment? I will grant that some of the laws are over-the-top, but, just eliminating them indiscriminately would pretty much assure a return to the days when breathing in certain cities would be bad for your health.....

 

I would be more inclined to advocate FAIR trade. Imports to this country would be taxed at the exact same rate as similar exports to the country of origin. (where similar products were available for comparison... otherwise... pick something close....)

 

In all reality, american workers CAN'T compete in the global economy...... we got used to a reasonable standard of living, and the folks that sell products here got used to their pricing. Eliminate minimum wage, without also doing something about product pricing, and you will quickly have some serious civil unrest....

 

Pricing would (in a free market) automatically adjust. The problem with the US is that is very, very far from being a free market. We have interference all over the place. The standard of living is up to the people to earn. In he past, without massive government, the people of the USA have proven to be able to beat anyone in productivity and innovation. As the government noose tightened we have begun to falter. We have propped up our deficiencies with massive borrowing and currency manipulation but those things we can only go so far. The fact that we have stretched them so far only shows how good we once were that we can still profit from the hard work that came before us. Time is up, people are turning away from the dollar and realizing lending us more money is a bad idea, making it harder and harder to use that to maintain our advantage.

[ginnyfizz]

And where would that leave the blatantly protectionist recent court ruling in favour of Apple which is a transparent restraint of free trade and attempt to maintain a monopoly?

Does fair trade in the USA involve free competition from foreign manufacturers, or when visiting the US, am I going to have to purchase a second handset - probably a Nokia Lumia Windows phone as I am damned if I'll buy anything Apple, especially now - so that US immigration doesn't confiscate my Samsung Galaxy SII?

 

That may only be a small example, but the USA is seen by many non US citizens, rightly or wrongly, as regularly using bully boy and strong arm protectionist tactics. And by the way I am NOT one of those European USA-phobes. And I just wonder if in some way if the USA did allow true free trade and up their own game to beat the competition and make their products better quality, more desirable than the competition, it would in the end benefit them and the economy more? It's like the Apple vs Samsung thing - Apple are losing out to Samsung for a reason, the products are more bang for the buck, certainly in Europe Samsung are gaining ground at their expense, but rather than up their game, lower their prices and compete, in the USA, Apple use the law. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actual case, the truth is it is seen as a typical US protectionist act.

[csgators]

And where would that leave the blatantly protectionist recent court ruling in favour of Apple which is a transparent restraint of free trade and attempt to maintain a monopoly?

Does fair trade in the USA involve free competition from foreign manufacturers, or when visiting the US, am I going to have to purchase a second handset - probably a Nokia Lumia Windows phone as I am damned if I'll buy anything Apple, especially now - so that US immigration doesn't confiscate my Samsung Galaxy SII?

 

That may only be a small example, but the USA is seen by many non US citizens, rightly or wrongly, as regularly using bully boy and strong arm protectionist tactics. And by the way I am NOT one of those European USA-phobes. And I just wonder if in some way if the USA did allow true free trade and up their own game to beat the competition and make their products better quality, more desirable than the competition, it would in the end benefit them and the economy more? It's like the Apple vs Samsung thing - Apple are losing out to Samsung for a reason, the products are more bang for the buck, certainly in Europe Samsung are gaining ground at their expense, but rather than up their game, lower their prices and compete, in the USA, Apple use the law. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the actual case, the truth is it is seen as a typical US protectionist act.

 

Totally agree with you. I love my Samsung Galaxy and was able to unlock and use a sim card in another country easily.