I'm afraid to even consider her running.. there's no way she can win. I don't see any democrat that it is above the label of dumbass. That just leaves room for another irresponsible republican to lead. For the corporation by the corporation.
You do make some good points. However, I must disagree with your assessment of Hillary's chances of winning. I'm predicting that Hillary will get the dumbocrat nomination and will be the next President. Remember, this country is wild about ol' Bill.
If Hillary runs..... its game over for the Dems imo the Republican party will put out Condy Rice as their candidate and its a lock$$$ She not only splits the woman vote, she gets the entire black vote and the die-hard republican vote = checkmate
Ya know, as informed on the issues as I try to be, I think that's the one (and only) thing Bush got right. I think she's a balanced and responsible republican, and I'd probably vote for her. But she's young and it'd be better if she waited a round or two.
As far as trickle down economics goes, a trickle is not enough. And now that trickle has become only a drip drop. Many of the economic theories and principles that guide our policies are horribly outdated and increasingly ineffective. Here is just one item out of a bunch: Gross Domestic Product (GDP) A. The GDP meant something when production was directly connected to human labor. In other words, the value of products had a direct connection to the labor that went in to them. But now we rely increasingly on automation and technology, and we are missing that connection. Just to illustrate the point, consider the society of 50 years ago when products were made directly by factory workers. Now consider another 50 years when they will be made almost entirely by automated processes. Are the American people as a whole benefiting from this increase in production? Or are the gains from this production being concentrated among the select few who own and operate this technology? But then how will people afford to buy the products that are being produced by this technology if they do not have jobs? So somewhere along the line there has to be a balancing point. But to just concentrate on the number (GDP) itself is absolutely meaningless. B. Not to mention that corporate profit margins have been decreasing due to global competition. Say a company used to produce $20 million at a profit margin of 10%. So they made $2 million in profit. But now they produce $30 million at a margin of 5% for a profit of $1.5 million. So even though they are producing 50% more, they are actually earning 25% less. The value of production itself is meaningless. We need to concentrate on the profit derived from that production. While it is true that each increase in a production level does encapsulate some form of labor, point A explains why that is diminishing as well.
The owners of the technology are not the only ones to gain. What about the consumers who purchase the products at a lower price? For any company there are many more consumers than employees so by utiltizing technology to lower the cost of the products the business is benefiting the most people.
You say that there are more consumers than employees. That is true if you only look at one company. But what starts to happen when you look at the economy as a whole? In order for one to be a consumer, one needs a source of income. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, that consumer must also be an employee somewhere. For the economy as a whole, you cannot continually eliminate labor through technology. Eventually there has to be a balancing point, because ultimately consumers are employees. That is all I am trying to say. Right now you are seeing a sort of cannibalistic effect in the economy. We are basically eating our seed corn so to speak, helping our present while harming our future. "...Nevertheless, instead of continuing to produce steady profits, corporations will attempt to extract additional profits in the pursuit of greed. This typically involves moving the manufacturing base overseas in order to capitalize on cheap foreign labor. Unfortunately, other corporations are then forced to adopt similar practices in order to remain competitive in the marketplace. Consequently, many American workers lost and will continue to lose good paying jobs, and they will no longer have the purchasing power that they once did. The end result is that these consumers must now be even more price conscious, and this continues to drive down profit margins and force corporations to outsource even more jobs..." http://www.pactamerica.com/pact_introduction.htm
And this is the realistic bottom line of all the current econonmic policies, IMO. It's a joke that republicans refer to themselves "fiscally responsible conservatives".
If technology replaces human labor, that means the human labor was mindless anyway, as that would be the only way a machine could do the job. I see the point you are trying to make and it is pertinent to a single country. But borders are fictious lines drawn in the sand by politicians. The current globalization of the world will bring everyone onto a more even playing field. This is the free market at work as the world embraces capitalism. In the past, the US was the most free economy in the world and the worlds entrepreneurs flocked here. As other countries embrace capitalism this flow will slow and maybe eventually stop. A disproportionate amount of wealth has been concentrated in the US in the last 100 years and now that it is being created elsewhere it seems as though the US is suffering (which it may be) but in the process the globe is prospering. If it hasn't already started, politicians will one day have to compete for both labor and capital with other countries. And the countries who embrace free market principles are going to win over countries that go the protectionist route. The viewpoint you are using to defend your points is protectionist
Unfortunately, most people only see two options (the extreme points): heavily regulated protectionism or uninhibited free trade I am saying that both courses of action are wrong and are sure routes to failure. We need BALANCE.