There seems to be some misconceptions about the
differing economic policies of democrats and republicans and what they tend to
bring about. Both have their positives and their negatives, but the distinction
between them is very significant.
The
Democrat Way:
As we’ve seen for a while now, this is the way of
democratic economics:
-Less focus on “cutting breaks” for powerful, big
corporations. More incentives for new business ventures. Focus on urban setting
jobs –like technology and energy.
-You end up with less competition among major
corporations and more accountability with big companies having to compete with
small ones.
-The downside is that as soon as a city starts to
flourish with business it at some point reaches its peak, the businesses reach
overload, and jobs become scarce there because everything is saturated.
-People then either remain in the city and try to
create a business of their own, or they leave to a newer, rising city, like
Denver, CO.
In general, this approach does lead to economic
improvement. When more people have more money to spend they do so freely; and
people sell and get bought from and things circulate well.
The
Republican Way:
-Most republicans like the notion of working in a
major corporation. They see it as stability where new businesses can rise or
fall.
-This leads to benefits and “breaks being cut” for
big businesses and companies.
-There is then more competition among big
conglomerates, mass hiring and firing, and less room for smaller businesses and
entrepreneurship.
-This ultimately leads to less circulation -with
most people being in the lower-paying jobs and less people “rising through the
ranks” to the higher paying positions. There is also a lot of nepotism that
kicks into companies as the people put in charge are often “friends” of those
in power rather than qualified for the position.
This leads to few, wealthy people at the top and
many people in thankless positions towards the middle and bottom. It’s “stable”
but it’s also stagnant.
Trump’s
Economic Policy:
Trump favors the republican way, but there’s an
issue. His “base” mostly consists of white blue collar Americans from country/rural regions. Democrats tend to focus on making jobs happen in cities and rural
setting residence are often left with little work available outside of mom and pop shops.
Trump promised to aid the people of the rural settings by
bringing back old industries they work in –like companies that have factories,
agriculture, and mineral deposits.
Unfortunately, Trump is also obligated to fulfill
stock holders’ demands. As a “business man” his experience has been with
wealthier, city-oriented companies.
So the question becomes, who will Trump side with?
Siding with the rich is written in stone. He will ensure their prosperity and
tax breaks. He could care less for people in poverty in general. He is
oblivious to companies that are gaining great speed and influence like
technology and energy. He doesn’t understand rural jobs and why those
particular industries are being run out of business (*Hint, they moved to
Mexico so they can pay their workers less and make more money for themselves).
So what you have is a mess.
No one will be happy.
Rural people will get screwed over and reap no benefits.
The cities will likely
go back to the Bush days of very few businesses in general and only big corporations competing with the other few big corporations
with mass lay-offs ensuing.
Entrepreneurship and ingenuity itself will run dry.
And the rich will get richer as the poor get poorer.
Everyone loses.
Except Trump and the wealthy elite.
No comments:
Post a Comment