I have finally found the software problem that has prevented me from posting for over a year. I have a few things bottled up that I have to release to my few followers before the election next week. Many of them are expansions and updates of earlier posts. Here we go.
The economy continues to feature heavily in the media and campaign rhetoric. Large numbers of people continue to believe that the U.S. economy is in terrible condition, that changing the party in control of the White House will alter that situation, and that current perceived problems are the fault of the current administration.
In an earlier post, I presented the argument that the President and the party in control of government have limited ability to influence and no ability to control economic “health” as it is usually measured. In addition, such measures as current inflation rate, employment levels, productivity, and GDP growth show the U.S. far ahead of other industrial nations. Indeed, recent inflation and price increases were never as bad as they were elsewhere.
At heart, the current criticism of economic conditions is focused on the prices of some of the current goods and services in the market. Promises to “fix” the problem must, therefore, aim at reducing or controlling those prices. This has been tried elsewhere under various forms of socialism, and it has failed. Markets have always managed to find a way to frustrate government in the long run. Governments do influence prices, but they cannot successfully maintain control over them.
One candidate for President promises to take action to prevent “price gouging.” This apparently refers to the use of high prices to maintain “unreasonably” high profits. As many have pointed out, control of prices by control of profits has at least a whiff of socialism about it. At the very least, it would be politically difficult to push through Congress and the courts.
The candidate’s other economic proposal to address high prices aims at housing. She suggests government subsidies to encourage development of additional housing at more affordable levels. This has the merits of directing attention at the market in a traditional way. That is to decrease prices by increasing supply relative to demand.
The other major candidate is content to describe the current economy as “terrible” and to agree that high prices are at the heart of the matter. Because he says that this situation was caused by the current administration, he implies that he would “fix” the problem if elected. He doesn’t say how he would do this, but, to me, the scent of socialism is even stronger. In the context of the rest of the campaign rhetoric, the primary focus would be on executive action. I will leave it to the reader to further label this.
Another persistent issue is immigration. We are told by some that the inmates of prisons and asylums are flooding across open borders to kill, loot, and take our jobs. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. All of the immigrant groups who came to this country included some criminals and people with mental health issues. This includes the groups which included the ancestors of current candidates for office.
A recent epsode of “Finding Your Roots” led by Dr. Henry Louis Gates dealt with the genealogy of two Irish/American celebrities. He described for them the political and social movement, the Know Nothing Party, that waged an abusive campaign against Irish immigrants. Nineteenth Century Americans were assured that the Irish were flooding across our open borders to kill, loot, and take our jobs. In fact, they came to avoid starvation in a country in which they could no longer support themselves.
If you are confused by this, take the time to find out who the people at our borders really are. Our government tries hard to screen out those who might fit the political description of them. They could do better with the resources that would have been provided by the bi-partisan legislation that should have been passed this year.
Isn’t it strange that the immigration issue is a world-wide issue? I have yet to see a thoughtful comparison. In England, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Denmark, and Sweden immigration has become a critical political and social issue. Nationalist parties opposed to immigration are growing in strength. Millions of people throughout the world are seeking to cross national boundaries in search of a better life. Shouldn’t prosperous developed nations be concentrating on a way to respond to the problem instead of supporting the growth of nationalist movements?
We all descend from immigrants in this country. Who got here first? I don’t really know, but it was long enough ago that it is probably not worth arguing about. Our ancestors came for a variety of reasons – economic, religious, political- just as those who currently are flocking to borders around the world. They were not, for the most part, morally inferior. They brought with them the skills and traditions that helped to make this country great. Why should keeping more such people out become a major political goal of our election? Is this the year that the Know Nothings finally win?