As an economist, let me answer some of your questions. First off, you and I both agree that Michigan is in the dumps economically right? Let me ask you something, who do you think runs Michigan? It isn't republicans. Right, Michigan is a VERY liberal state. Labor unions, right to work state ect. (why do you think that new car manufacturing plants aren't in michigan?) Well, Michigan has extreemly high taxes, high government regulations in industry, and very very high unemployment (it is european numbers) like 9.5%. Almost twice as high as the rest of the USA. And that doesn't touch the social issues like crime, drugs ect. Or we could look at pre-katrina, high poverty rates, high unemployment rates, high crime rates, alot of government corruption and high taxes. These are democrat utopias they get whatever they want passed at the state level, and these plans haven't worked.
Lets think about something else. Here in the gulf there are two major ports. New Orleans and Houston, NEw Orleans is a far better port from a water stand point. But the port of houston is bigger, why? Because of the political environment and taxes. Houston is cheaper to get into and out of. Basically the difference in the political system has allowed for rampant growth in houston vs NO. It is basically an apples to apples comparison.
As for the status quo question, it depends what you are refering to as status quo, if you are talking about the government spending rediculous amounts of money then you are right, that needs to stop, (I don't think either candidate will do this however) But if you are talking the freedman style of economics then yes that needs to remain the same.
Back in the 30's there was this economic called keynes. He was the father of control style economics. And it didn't work. When they were rebuilding Japan and Germany they initially used his premises and had to deal with rampant hyperinflation, interest rates and rediculous unemployment. He called for the nationalization of major industries, and lets to inefficient and expensive industries that were not competitive.
The problem is sustainability, his policies do in the short run grow the economy, but it isn't sustainable (that is why our economy crashed during the carter years) it wasn't unti Reagan and his embrace of Friedman economics (which is a hands off approach) that we experience the extreem growth we had during the reagan bush clinton bush years. The downside is that we are more succeptable to little up and downturns that happen. It has been sooo good that when we only have 1% growth and the low 5.5% unemployment we have people running around with their hands in the air screaming "the sky is falling."
The problem I see now is that we are drifting back (even with this prez) to a more keynesian style of system (the massive bailout). The problem is when we prop up by more controls industries that aren't self-sustaining, the bottom gets farther and farther way and it takes more and more to prop them up, then we have to have a MASSIVE correction, vs letting it slowly waine away. A good example of this was in England with Margaret Thatcher and the coal industry. When they finally decided they can't keep paying for expensive coal from england vs importing way cheaper overseas. They had a massive failure in the industry vs letting stuff die slowly without the massive increase in unemployment, and MASSIVE costs in taxes and higher coal prices that the local population experienced.
So when I see someone advocating this type system it does scare the crap out of me, one because he isn't smart enough to learn from watching someone else touch the burner on the stove and two because it will burn us. Not today maybe not tomorrow, but soon.
