Yesterday, the New York Times published an article entitled, “In One Corner, a Champion of Government. In the Other, Its Foe.” Essentially, this article seeks to establish what President Obama and Mitt Romney see as an appropriate role for the POTUS. I found one section in particular to be interesting:
Mr. Obama champions government as a linchpin of future economic growth and the average American’s protector from the excesses and failures of the free market.
Mr. Romney condemns government as a menace whose excesses and failures imperil the free market’s ability to enhance individual opportunity and make the nation prosperous.
While I am no economics expert, I did take an international political economy class in my last semester at McGill. By studying the gold standard, its fall, the IMF, and everything since, it became quite apparent to me that letting the free market take its course independently of any government intervention simply does not work. As far as I’ve understood, a government and its state have the greatest potential for prosperity with a certain degree of government intervention in the economic system. Beyond criticising what it deems an ‘excessive’ role of the government throughout Obama’s presidency, Romney’s team has not articulated concretely how less government regulation would allow more jobs to crop up. Until I see a more well-developed ‘business plan’ let’s say, you can be sure my vote will not be changing in the 2012 election. #Obama2012