Letter to the Editor:
The election of November 2012 is fundamentally a referendum on Milton Friedman’s economic theory. The choice is whether our country continues the path of “trickle-down”, “supply-side economics” that Friedman developed. This economic philosophy has been steadily implemented into our economy since the 1980’s.
Friedman’s economic theory suggests that the rules, legislation, and political influence will cede the advantage to the elite, the well connected, the ruling class, the special interests. It is assumed that when the wealthiest among us do well economically, they will in turn spend that wealth or they will re-invest into our economy. And therefore, it will “trickle-down” to the working class in the form of jobs. This theory advantages corporations and wealthy individuals.
In theory, I can accept this idea in a closed economy; however, most investment advisors will direct investors to “emerging” markets to get the best return on their investment, not in the mature economy like the United States.
Therefore the dollars that should be reinvested in the U.S. economy is being invested in some foreign country creating jobs and opportunity to non-U.S. workers. This is the conundrum of the quest for low priced consumer goods in the United States. We want cheap goods, without realizing the effect that it has on wages and jobs in the US economy.
So this election is not about Barack Obama, or Mitt Romney. Romney clearly favors the continuation of Friedman economics. Obama claims to be for the middle class, and therefore, endorses a different economic theory.
The Friedman economic theory is as well rooted in the US economy as Bermuda grass in a flowerbed. Those who benefit from these policies will not easily give up what they have achieved. They will go to whatever means necessary to make sure that the advantages they have gained will not be taken away from them. The average citizen only has one choice.