2004

[catscradle]

I've signed up to volunteer for Dennis Kucinich for the 2004 election. Over the past 5 months I've been studying this guy and I'm very impressed with him. He's got a long track record for standing up for what he believes in - I'm sold on him as the only viable choice for the democratic party. And when all is said and done, how the hell can he do worse than George II?

I recommend at least looking over his website:

DENNIS KUCINICH: THE PROGRESSIVE CHOICE: http://www.kucinich.net/

As a candidate for President, I offer a different vision for America, one which separates me from the other candidates. I am the only candidate for President who will take this country away from fear and war and tax giveaways, and use America's peace dividend for guaranteed health care for all, ending health care for profit. I am the only candidate who will stop the privatization of social security and bring the retirement age back to 65.

As President, I will cancel NAFTA and the WTO, restore our manufacturing jobs, save our family farms, create full employment programs, create new jobs by rebuilding our cities and schools. As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.

This is a grassroots campaign to take back America. Join me from your cities, your towns, your farms and your campuses. (Presidential Debate, ABC News, 5/3/03) 6/10/2003

Comments

Re: Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

This doesn't work in boosting the economy, simply because he's giving the money to people that are going to save rather than spend. If you give the money to the poor and lower middle class, they're going to spend it - there's little choice, they have to spend. The rich are going to save or invest and that's not going to do *anything* to help the economy.

You know that is the Keynesian argument and I agree with it for the most part. I am sort of a Keynesian myself. Savings are important in the long run, though, while giving the money to those who spend it reactivates the economy. But that is only the trigger that starts it all. Once people start to spend, unless there is more production in a reasonable period, inflation arises. There is a trade of between inflation and unemployment and fine tunning policies were meant to prevent economy from either hight unemployment or high inflation. In economics there is no easy recipe. Any policy has its limits.

I guess privitizing would seem to be benificial if you have a lot of competition - however, the US systems seems to be disregarding their anti-trust laws that are suppose to guard against monopolies.

Privatization can be done in some areas, and it can be good in some cases. Competition is not necessary for it. It's more a problem of efficiency and/or budget.

The media monopoly laws were just relaxed this month. A company may now own up to 40% of the media in any form. It's been dubbed as the media gold rush. Where already they say the media is owned by 5 corporations, in the next few years there will probably be only 3 that control everything.

And why are they relaxing monopoly laws?

I know - and it remains that even if he does fight for and gain all that he claims to stand for, other forces are going to try to show how bad those things are, whether they are or not. The bottom line will always be how much he does in favor of the people, and whether or not they can see what he's doing for them.

It's like walking on a thin thread. Doing things for people it's okay, but it doesn't guarantee things are being done the right way - if there is such a thing. The key is not taking any policy to extremes. Economy at least doesn't work like that.

Re: Curious

[catscradle.livejournal.com]

But that is only the trigger that starts it all.

Very agreed. But our current president thinks it's the only way as this is the second tax refund he's given in three years. My point was that if he was going to do it at all, he had to give to the right population - not the population that was going to sack it away in investment and savings. I don't think he should have done it either time. He's not looking to any other economic solution to this resession.

Privatization can be done in some areas, and it can be good in some cases. Competition is not necessary for it. It's more a problem of efficiency and/or budget.

I don't agree with this in the US - at least not under a conservative influence were everything becomes deregulated. Our companies tend to screw the consumer over for profit if they can get away with it. Long term investment doesn't seem to be the goal in our system any longer - it's all take the money and run NOW. =/

And why are they relaxing monopoly laws?

It's always been a conservative agenda in this country. Michael Powell, son of Secretary of State Collin Powell, is the head of the FCC and decided to relax the % of what a single corporation could gobble up in terms of the media - why? Probably because the big corporations are where the political parties get all their main contributions from. Politicians are own by them. Plus, you control the media and you control public opinion.

In terms of other monopolies - republicans have long believed that the government should stay out of the market completely and let corps do as they please - that means deregulation.

It's like walking on a thin thread. Doing things for people it's okay, but it doesn't guarantee things are being done the right way - if there is such a thing.

No, but it's all the people are going to look at in the short term.

Re: Curious

[zafiro-v.livejournal.com]

I don't think he should have done it either time. He's not looking to any other economic solution to this resession.

I don't think your president is being Keynesian at all. Keynesian would be to give it to those you call the right people.

Long term investment doesn't seem to be the goal in our system any longer - it's all take the money and run NOW. =/


That is too bad...

In terms of other monopolies - republicans have long believed that the government should stay out of the market completely and let corps do as they please - that means deregulation.

Yeah. From what I know of republicans they don't seem to be the smartest people when it comes to economics.

No, but it's all the people are going to look at in the short term.

(nod) That is also bad. I am not a Friedman fan, but I agree with him that there is no thing like a free lunch. Everything we get has to be paid for in the end.