Will The Economy Improve If Romney Gets Elected?
That's the implied promise from the Romney campaign (and supporters) - or at least the hope - if the Mittster gets elected on November 6. However... hope can be a dangerous thing. Just look back four years, as Obama promised Americans "Hope and Change" if he was elected.
He got the "change" part right - federal debt, deficits and unemployment all changed for the worse. Ditto for individual liberties and freedoms. And there's no doubt that this administration is one of (if not the most) power-hungry and corrupt in American history. However... what is America being offered as the alternative?
A big-government, Rockefeller Republican who seems to be in almost perfect agreement with President Obama on a majority of issues - including the economic ones. He was in favor of TARP, the President's stimulus package... thinks Ben Bernanke is doing a great job as Fed Chairman... and doesn't think we should cut that much in defense or other spending.
If this is the case, then I don't think we have much "hope" of a better economy if Romney is elected. The problem with our economy is too much borrowing, spending and money creation by the Fed. The solution (albeit a painful one) will be to balance the budget as quickly as possible... stop expanding the money supply... and stop creating excess credit.
The 1000-pound elephant in the room that neither party wants to acknowledge is this: We can't continue borrowing and spending in excess like the "good old days" of decades past.
There will be short-term economic pain before we can see honest and sustainable economic growth again. Even if Romney gets elected and stays true (as much as a flip-flopper from Massachsetts can) to his principles of the past, I don't believe a Romney administration will make the tough economic choices - until we hit one or more "crisis walls" in America.
Does a 2nd Obama term concern me? Absolutely. Especially when it comes to individual liberties and freedoms - not to mention the economy. However... I'm not sold that the Republican alternative will be much better.
Watch what Alan Keyes says in just four minutes about Obama and Mitt Romney. He acknowledges the danger of Obama... but also of the possibility of Romney being elected, and implementing the very same policies as Obama - but getting a free pass from conservative Republicans because he's "our guy."
Or read Chuck Baldwin's column on Insanity - lot of good food for thought as well.
And to all the Romney supporters out there: Yes, for the 4,373,672 nd time - I know that Obama is a Socialist/Marxist and his Administration has been a disaster. However, I'm not sold that Mitt Romney is a true "limited-government" alternative. I'm not asking for an ideological purity test or the "perfect" candidate. I realize that in the world of politics, compromises have to be made and you won't get everything you want.
Having said that, the GOP Establishment didn't listen to the limited-government grass roots at all... and instead of a nominee that believes in less government, we got the corporatist, Rockefeller nominee - whether the grass roots liked it or not. It was the same story in 2008 with John McCain, even though the Republican nominee had a snowball's chance in hell of winning right after a real estate and stock market crash.
To answer the question I posed in my title: No, I don't believe the US economy will significantly improve if Romney is elected.
Based upon the massive amount of debt and money supply - and if our leaders do the right thing and balance the federal budget (which is highly unlikely) - it would still be at least several years in a best-case scenario before we would see a healthier economy.
Bureaucrats and politicians have promoted this myth that the Fed and government can "manage" the economy like a mechanic manages a car. Pull this lever... push that button... jigger that switch, and voila! These adjustments will have Ol' Betsy running as good as new. Unfortunately, economies are more like living organisms - not machines.
You can't keep giving them big doses of economic steroids without consequences. It's great in the short-term, but there are major longer-term "side effects." Namely - devaluation of your nation's currency, with a loss of purchasing power and wealth for its citizens. It's impossible to always have economic growth in any country or economy - no matter how "exceptional" it's been sold to be (i.e., America).
The laws of economics and finance still apply to the good ol' US of A. The consequences of decades of bad economic policies are showing up - and will continue to show up - in the economy, regardless of who is elected President on November 6.
He got the "change" part right - federal debt, deficits and unemployment all changed for the worse. Ditto for individual liberties and freedoms. And there's no doubt that this administration is one of (if not the most) power-hungry and corrupt in American history. However... what is America being offered as the alternative?
A big-government, Rockefeller Republican who seems to be in almost perfect agreement with President Obama on a majority of issues - including the economic ones. He was in favor of TARP, the President's stimulus package... thinks Ben Bernanke is doing a great job as Fed Chairman... and doesn't think we should cut that much in defense or other spending.
If this is the case, then I don't think we have much "hope" of a better economy if Romney is elected. The problem with our economy is too much borrowing, spending and money creation by the Fed. The solution (albeit a painful one) will be to balance the budget as quickly as possible... stop expanding the money supply... and stop creating excess credit.
The 1000-pound elephant in the room that neither party wants to acknowledge is this: We can't continue borrowing and spending in excess like the "good old days" of decades past.
There will be short-term economic pain before we can see honest and sustainable economic growth again. Even if Romney gets elected and stays true (as much as a flip-flopper from Massachsetts can) to his principles of the past, I don't believe a Romney administration will make the tough economic choices - until we hit one or more "crisis walls" in America.
Does a 2nd Obama term concern me? Absolutely. Especially when it comes to individual liberties and freedoms - not to mention the economy. However... I'm not sold that the Republican alternative will be much better.
Watch what Alan Keyes says in just four minutes about Obama and Mitt Romney. He acknowledges the danger of Obama... but also of the possibility of Romney being elected, and implementing the very same policies as Obama - but getting a free pass from conservative Republicans because he's "our guy."
Or read Chuck Baldwin's column on Insanity - lot of good food for thought as well.
And to all the Romney supporters out there: Yes, for the 4,373,672 nd time - I know that Obama is a Socialist/Marxist and his Administration has been a disaster. However, I'm not sold that Mitt Romney is a true "limited-government" alternative. I'm not asking for an ideological purity test or the "perfect" candidate. I realize that in the world of politics, compromises have to be made and you won't get everything you want.
Having said that, the GOP Establishment didn't listen to the limited-government grass roots at all... and instead of a nominee that believes in less government, we got the corporatist, Rockefeller nominee - whether the grass roots liked it or not. It was the same story in 2008 with John McCain, even though the Republican nominee had a snowball's chance in hell of winning right after a real estate and stock market crash.
To answer the question I posed in my title: No, I don't believe the US economy will significantly improve if Romney is elected.
Based upon the massive amount of debt and money supply - and if our leaders do the right thing and balance the federal budget (which is highly unlikely) - it would still be at least several years in a best-case scenario before we would see a healthier economy.
Bureaucrats and politicians have promoted this myth that the Fed and government can "manage" the economy like a mechanic manages a car. Pull this lever... push that button... jigger that switch, and voila! These adjustments will have Ol' Betsy running as good as new. Unfortunately, economies are more like living organisms - not machines.
You can't keep giving them big doses of economic steroids without consequences. It's great in the short-term, but there are major longer-term "side effects." Namely - devaluation of your nation's currency, with a loss of purchasing power and wealth for its citizens. It's impossible to always have economic growth in any country or economy - no matter how "exceptional" it's been sold to be (i.e., America).
The laws of economics and finance still apply to the good ol' US of A. The consequences of decades of bad economic policies are showing up - and will continue to show up - in the economy, regardless of who is elected President on November 6.
Labels: 2012 election, Ben Bernanke, democrat, economy, Federal Reserve, mitt romney, Obama, republican
posted by Brian Ochsner | 1:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home