I am not trying to insinuate as does the main stream that welfare expenditure accounts for a signifacant portion of our debt or spending. I actually think we should be spending more to help the poor. my problem is with the stagnation and expectations welfare as it now exists creates. Welfare can not and should not be expected to take care of everyone, Those that do need it should get enough to live on which they currently do not and for most the program should be short and focused on getting them off of welfare. Administration costs for current govt programs is obscene and still they cut benefits.. I think were going to need working age people to compete with China and India - we need farmers and Miners.
I see. I misunderstood. You were talking about abortion and welfare from more of a realpolitik point of view. Interesting questions actually.
It could work, but the political climate of the country would need to change dramatically. We'd basically have to collectively change the way we all view politics. We'd have to stop thinking about what's right from a philosophical, moral, constitutional, and ideological point of view and start thinking about what's right from a results based point of view. TBH, I prefer that.
Politically we get way too caught up in process and don't give enough consideration to the results. We think that if we do what's right from our ideological point of views that we will always get the desired result. Well that simply isn't true. If we spent less time thinking about the process and more time thinking about what desired results we want, we'd be better off.
To maintain our success, we have to start being honest about what we want as a country and think about what actions get us there most quickly, with less regard to ideologies and process. That's what you're doing when you look at welfare and abortion from the economic point of view. I like it.
However without that change in mindset what you're talking about wouldn't work. The success of China and India has a lot to do with trade policy, currency manipulations, and low overhead. It's not just about an accessible labor force. If we want to compete with China and India on an industrial level we'd have to abandon the foundations of our political ideals at both ends of the spectrum. We'd have to throw out free trade as a concept all together as well as worker/environmental rights. It would require our economic system to become more totalitarian by nature as well.
Chinese currency manipulations put anything the FED does in America to shame. It's a whole different ballgame. The people in control of the Chinese currency make Alan Greenspan look like Ron Paul. It's quite successful, but requires economic totalitarianism that I don't think anyone in America would accept unless it was being done without their knowledge. However the results of that have been a phenomenal rate of economic growth.
You can't argue against the growth of the Chinese economy, I just doubt anyone here would accept the process that got them there. If we cared less about process and more about results, it's possible. I just don't see that happening.
Along with currency manipulations they impose massive tariffs on foreign goods in areas of the economy they are trying to develop for themselves insuring they have the homegrown industries that are in the best interests of their government. I very much support doing this here. But that kind of thinking would make Ron Paul or even Bill Clinton's head explode. I don't see people accepting chopping off the invisible hand of the free market.
Also, this new expanded labor force would have to be willing to accept less pay, less safe working conditions, no benefits, etc. That wouldn't go over well with a lot of people, myself included.
It's an interesting idea, and we could and should implement some of the things China and India are doing to grow their economies, but unfortunately, we won't because people here care more about the process than the results.
