It is very interesting when you look at economic theory in times of global chaos. Do you push forward to reduce the budget through austerity, or do you work hard with a pro-growth strategy? This is a big debate in Europe right now, and one that we often have here the United States based on Keynesian economic theory. Might I add, that sometimes some of both makes the most sense. It doesn't make sense for governments to spend money unnecessarily, unwisely, and in an inefficient fashion only to tell the people they need more money, and raise taxes. Raising taxes of course takes money out of people's pockets which they would have spent in a very efficient manner, only buying those things they need, want, or desire.
That is the brilliance of free markets of course, and Milton Friedman surely would agree in his book "Free to Choose" because nothing is more efficient than individual buyers and sellers deciding what's in their own best interest and making a deal amongst themselves. Anytime a government, authority, taxing agency, or anyone else comes along to rearrange the flow of those transactions, all they do is distort them. Now then back to the idea of convex or a pro-growth strategy as opposed to concave or an austerity plan - we should philosophically be asking ourselves; do we vote for contraction and continued economic distortion and distraction or solid growth using free-market fundamentals which created this great nation.
Many people are tax adverse, and they don't want the government taking any more money from them. Still, most Americans believe that they should pay their fair share towards the common good, but they disagree on how the government is spending the money. If the government only spent exactly what it needed to provide the services that we desire and want we'd all be okay with it, there wouldn't be anyone complaining at nearly the level they are today. However the reason we have riots in Europe, and why they could actually end up here in the states is because there are philosophical differences in political opinions on how the money should be spent.
In the first presidential debate in October of 2012 President Obama said that Mitt Romney's economic strategy couldn't work because he couldn't do all he said if he didn't raise taxes. Mitt Romney rightfully responded that he wanted to broaden the base, and therefore there would be more people paying in which would make up the difference. The Obama Campaign supporters immediately called him a liar. That's absolutely ridiculous, because it is exactly what has been done in the past, and about the only thing that works.
If you own a company you surely want to make more sales, but you also need to control your expenses. There is no difference between what Romney is saying about broadening the base than a business going out to get more customers first, while controlling expenses, and allowing everything to grow from there. Please consider all this and think on it, because we've got to get the socialists out of their mental blockade on this very easy basic economic theory which is no longer taught in schools.
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Politcs and Economics. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment