Good afternoon. It is Saturday, so I let you sleep till afternoon.
This morning, I wrote to a friend and gave my take on US politics.
(by the way, I choose Research & Development over Republican & Democrat)
sync.//
You know I am voting Obama. He is the best option moving forward. All the liberal and conservative "funny" post on social networks and "attack" ads on other media are all partisan fireworks.
In the area of foreign policy, where the president has the most control, Obama has been excellent. I agree almost 100% with his approach. I still have problems with Syria and Guantanamo, but these things I will push again after the election regardless of who is president. Not so much attention has been paid to what he is doing in the Pacific/East/China, where again I think his administration is doing a good job. He and his administration have established policies that will work in the long term.
In the area of economy, the president has only so much control. If you think a president's leadership (8yr max) has a major effect on the economy then you are delusional, and I could then effectively say that President Bush lead us into economic disaster after 8yr of robust economic growth under Clinton. It is a silly argument. However, the leadership does help anchor economy growth expectations, much like Fed Policy helps anchor inflation expectation.
From my meager understanding of economics and the global finance crisis, monetary policy has been correct. Moving forward correct US fiscal policy is needed. That means hard choices. I am more confident in Obama than Romney at making these hard choices. Romney will make good choices too. He can compromise and come up with good plans. I give you as an example the Health Care plan for Massachusetts. I am sure if Romney becomes president, Republican-person will be very angry at some of the eventual policies that will be made. That is just the nature of the beast. (Of course, Republican-person and his brother will blame it on the Democrats, ie me and my uninformed and ignorant, or naive and utopian-delusional sister for "making" Romney compromise)
But I understand where Republican-person is coming from and the tendency to vilify the opponent. This is one way to get outliers (like yourself, loose-Republican) to stick with the group (Republicans). This won't work with me (not outlier, Liberal) or his brother (not outlier, Conservative). However, if we just go in every direction, where every single group goes off in the direction they want to go, then we end up going no where (I keep thinking Israel politics). So we have to play this game, of building consensus into an easy choice: R or D. And we have to do this every few years. And vilifying the opponent unfortunately works in building group cohesion and thus helping, in a way to make the R or D choice.
My fear is that there is no long term direction! (long term meaning 50, 100, 200 years from now) Right now we can't seem to see even 10 yrs down the road. Individuals do, but the group just can't. No one wants to lose their car just so that someone else can get a free ride. This way of thinking is correct and true in some ways. But it is not totally true at the group level and to make policy with this way of thinking is completely wrong. Which groups are getting the free ride? It is too easy then to say... the Jews, the blacks, the gypsies. As individuals we would never think this, but group dynamics work in odd and unique ways.
Group behavior is reflected how many people, in sum do things. They do things that are easier to do. It is too complex to explain the in and outs of Healthcare reform, Marginal Tax rate, Wealth Gaps, the channels (no one really knows) of how Monetary Policy effects the economy.
This vilifying of opponents, this one mechanism to building group consensus is archaic yet effective! However, I think in the long run, it will get us into even more trouble. Can't we build group unity and consensus structured around data and science?! I know that data and science can still be subjected to interpretation and distortion and abuse but at least its not so ugly. At least it offers a more muted, rational, calmer way of decision making. Maybe.
//
This morning, I wrote to a friend and gave my take on US politics.
(by the way, I choose Research & Development over Republican & Democrat)
sync.//
You know I am voting Obama. He is the best option moving forward. All the liberal and conservative "funny" post on social networks and "attack" ads on other media are all partisan fireworks.
In the area of foreign policy, where the president has the most control, Obama has been excellent. I agree almost 100% with his approach. I still have problems with Syria and Guantanamo, but these things I will push again after the election regardless of who is president. Not so much attention has been paid to what he is doing in the Pacific/East/China, where again I think his administration is doing a good job. He and his administration have established policies that will work in the long term.
In the area of economy, the president has only so much control. If you think a president's leadership (8yr max) has a major effect on the economy then you are delusional, and I could then effectively say that President Bush lead us into economic disaster after 8yr of robust economic growth under Clinton. It is a silly argument. However, the leadership does help anchor economy growth expectations, much like Fed Policy helps anchor inflation expectation.
From my meager understanding of economics and the global finance crisis, monetary policy has been correct. Moving forward correct US fiscal policy is needed. That means hard choices. I am more confident in Obama than Romney at making these hard choices. Romney will make good choices too. He can compromise and come up with good plans. I give you as an example the Health Care plan for Massachusetts. I am sure if Romney becomes president, Republican-person will be very angry at some of the eventual policies that will be made. That is just the nature of the beast. (Of course, Republican-person and his brother will blame it on the Democrats, ie me and my uninformed and ignorant, or naive and utopian-delusional sister for "making" Romney compromise)
But I understand where Republican-person is coming from and the tendency to vilify the opponent. This is one way to get outliers (like yourself, loose-Republican) to stick with the group (Republicans). This won't work with me (not outlier, Liberal) or his brother (not outlier, Conservative). However, if we just go in every direction, where every single group goes off in the direction they want to go, then we end up going no where (I keep thinking Israel politics). So we have to play this game, of building consensus into an easy choice: R or D. And we have to do this every few years. And vilifying the opponent unfortunately works in building group cohesion and thus helping, in a way to make the R or D choice.
My fear is that there is no long term direction! (long term meaning 50, 100, 200 years from now) Right now we can't seem to see even 10 yrs down the road. Individuals do, but the group just can't. No one wants to lose their car just so that someone else can get a free ride. This way of thinking is correct and true in some ways. But it is not totally true at the group level and to make policy with this way of thinking is completely wrong. Which groups are getting the free ride? It is too easy then to say... the Jews, the blacks, the gypsies. As individuals we would never think this, but group dynamics work in odd and unique ways.
Group behavior is reflected how many people, in sum do things. They do things that are easier to do. It is too complex to explain the in and outs of Healthcare reform, Marginal Tax rate, Wealth Gaps, the channels (no one really knows) of how Monetary Policy effects the economy.
This vilifying of opponents, this one mechanism to building group consensus is archaic yet effective! However, I think in the long run, it will get us into even more trouble. Can't we build group unity and consensus structured around data and science?! I know that data and science can still be subjected to interpretation and distortion and abuse but at least its not so ugly. At least it offers a more muted, rational, calmer way of decision making. Maybe.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment