...government
never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of
its way.
It’s the meat and potatoes of politics to make sweeping campaign promises
about the economy, when in fact politicians have very little direct control
over it. The economy is basically just people doing things for each other,
generally for money. The process requires a common transportation infrastructure,
a regulatory playing field, and a medium of exchange, and the government helps
the economy in such measure as it effectively and predictably provides these
things. Beyond that, the government is actually a demonstrable drain on the economy. Indeed, do the math. The government's quick universal fix for a sagging economy is a flood of rebate checks, which is financially equivalent to not taking the money in the first place. In general the government needs to keep the roads fixed, keep the playing
field level, keep the currency stable, and keep out of the way.
So how should you vote? As I say on the main page, it still doesn't seem likely but I've made a living
the past two decades investing in just about every industry you can think
of. Bob on the other hand has for years made a living taxing them.
If you're concerned about the economy, and who wouldn't be, who would you
rather have in Washington?
addendum:
"I have been looking at cases of entrepreneurial success around the world for the past year and the conclusion is overwhelming: The best way to fight poverty is to eliminate barriers that currently hold back private enterprise among the poor." -Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Lessons from the Poor
