Economist for Kerry

Posted Oct 28, 2004 in Politics.

Somewhat reluctantly, The Economist has endorsed John Kerry. It is more to do with what George W. Bush has done, than what John Kerry might do:

After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America's moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.

On a relatred note, sharp-eyed readers may have noticed that I added a Kerry/Edwards banner to the sidebar of some of my pages. Like The Economist, I endorse Kerry on the basis of him being the lesser of two evils.


  1. Gravatar

    What <i>The Economist</i> fails to talk about is what happens when Kerry raises the minimum wage to $7 all at once. Extremely basic economics would dictate that more people who work in the fast food industry and other minimum wage jobs would actually lose their jobs because of the employer's rising costs.

    To me, that is the only issue at hand. Anyone who has ever sat through economics courses knows that Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board have the power over this country, not the president. The FRB makes the decisions that effect everyday economic changes. I still think that Greenspan is doing a great job of digging us out of some the tax problems that Clinton threw us into.

    Posted by Stephan Segraves on Nov 02, 2004.

  2. Gravatar

    I totally disagree with your fiscal reasoning. First of all, a rise (if it comes) in the minimum wage will not signify a massive loss of jobs. When the minimum wage was applied for the first time in the United Kingdom, the predicted job losses did not happen - and I was one of the people who thought the minimum wage was a stupid idea.

    Secondly, the Federal Reserve Board does not have sweeping economic power. Taxes and spending are not within their remit. Alan Greenspan and Co. can influence the value of the dollar, and therefore the amount that people borrow and save, by regulating certain interest rates. They do this to primarily to control growth and inflation.

    Finally, Bill Clinton's administration was the most fiscally-responsible for DECADES. It produced an enormous budget surplus that could have been used to deal with the growing problem of Baby Boomer retirement. Furthermore, America enjoed unprecedented growth and low interest rates during his presidency.

    George W. Bush has pissed away all the money with a combination of tax cuts (mostly for the wealthy), spending (mostly for Iraq), and paying off his big business backers for getting him in power in the first place. These same businesses are outsourcing much of their production and services to foreign countries, resulting in job losses and a decrease in tax revenue.

    Posted by Simon Jessey on Nov 02, 2004.

  3. Gravatar

    Greenspan has control over almost every interest rate imaginable. I know you are not from the U.S. but they refer to him as 'The Pope' for a reason.

    So tax cuts for the wealthy automatically spells disaster for an economy? No. I do not agree with tax cuts for the wealthy, but even with those tax cuts the wealthy are still paying the majority of taxes in this country. If Clinton's surplus could have been used for retirement why wasn't it by his administration? He left office with a lot of loose ends to clean up. Maybe if Clinton would have taken charge during his administration and looked at the signs he was given (multiple embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole, and the first WTC attack) we would not have been looking at the situation we were when Bush first took office. I know, I know, hindsight is 20/20.

    I've come to realize that outsourcing jobs is a bad and good thing. Do you know how many foreign companies bring their business here? Tons. We may send jobs oversees (which I don't like) but other companies are putting their factories over here and employing Americans (BMW, Toyota, etc.).

    Back to the minimum wage... I have no problem with a minimum wage but I do have a problem with raising it immediately. I feel that it is something that should be done over time, not $2.00 all at once. If Kerry was to say that he was going to do that, then I would support it, but he hasn't made it clear. Go into a McDonald's and ask the owner/manager what would happen if he had to start paying his employees $2.00 more tomorrow. He'd tell you that he'd have to fire people. The minimum wage being raised also gets rid of certain portions of the middle class. It will put people into a different tax bracket, possibly making it harder for them to pay taxes. There are a lot of aspects to me at least that Kerry has skirted around with this whole minimum wage thing and quite frankly, it scares me. A move to Canada might be in order...

    Posted by Stephan Segraves on Nov 02, 2004.