Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Hypothetical Question

Let’s say some country was faced with the choice, hypothetically speaking, of electing as its leader a multi-millionaire businessman warhawk funded primarily by giant government-bailout-backed financial conglomerates that changes positions on issues like he changes clothes, a multimillionaire lawyer responsible for miring the country in more wars than had any other leader in the past century yet had never held a job not funded by taxpayers, or a veteran and formal medical doctor who spent much of his life offering free health care to underprivileged people, had since spent his years standing up to special interests for the good of the people, often against the wishes of his own party, for the cause of peace and liberty on a partial salary, whose record was so impeccably consistent that lobbyists wouldn't even bother visiting his office, who opposed ever tax increase, bailout, and corporate subsidy ever proposed during his tenure, and who refuses to accept a higher salary as leader than that of the average citizen.
Now let’s say that country had been mired in effective recession for the last four years, the foreign debt of its government had surpassed 100% of its annual output in the last year, its central bank had been keeping interest rates at zero for the past four years and promised to continue for the next two—virtually guaranteeing a severe asset market crash in the future, and its legislature had been churning out encyclopedia-sized tomes of oppressive business regulations steadily over the past five years. If this country, teetering on the fence between bankruptcy and hyperinflation. Let’s say this country spent more than the rest of the world combined on military expenses which it directed primarily toward invading unthreatening third-world nations without economic justification or legal due process. If, perhaps, two of this country’s candidates had little to no understanding of even basic economics, and instead trusted the same elitist commentators whose counsel had brought about the current economic state; and one candidate who possessed a thorough understanding of advanced economic concepts, who correctly predicted all of the country’s economic problems years before they occurred, and who had consistently fought against the bad policy that brought them about……

Which do you think they would choose, and which would they label "unelectable"?

Blogging Scholarship
by YourLocalSecurity.com

No comments:

Post a Comment