Sunday, November 04, 2012
Romney for President - Because Its The Economy Stupid
Because of the effects of compound growth, after 8 years of Obama the rest of the world will have grown 60%, the non European bit by 72% & China by 2.14%.
Romney made a remark about that in the final debate and he was completely correct. In the long term the diplomatic or "leadership" power of a nation ultimately depends on its national wealth. Making smart or stupid decisions about relations with Russia, China or our al Quaeda allies in Libya, Syria and elsewhere have short term effects but they are ultimately less important.
Actually if it wasn't for the shale gas breakthrough, which has greatly reduced energy prices in the US, there is no serious question that the US economy would still be in sharp decline and it is undeniable that this revolution has happened against Obama's strenuous efforts. He said that his objective was to reverse the rise in sea levels - though no significant rise had actually been happening and that his policy was that electricity prices would thus "necessarily skyrocket" (as they are doing in Britain). In a second administartion, with no worry about having to be re-elected he would be able to carry out that policy.
On the other hand Romney looks like a President tailor made for the present crisis. America's underlying problem is the massive growth in state parasitism, particularly regulatory parasitism that strangles the economy. Romney's greatest talent, the one that made him rich, is to be able to take a business that us stifled in its own bureaucracy and lack of innovation and remove the parasitic growths strangling it (though I have considerable respect for the fact that he was able to give his home state the best education systenn in the USA - something which, on its own, would justify his election in a normal era). There could hardly be a better fit for the times. Obama had never run anything before the presidency, and has, according to even his supporters, made a disappointing go of it. Romney has massive and successful experience of running many things - from companies to his home state to the Winter Olympics and left them all in a far stronger state that when he arrived.
Personally I can't see that if the USA were not already a deeply failing society, that there could be any comparison between the 2 candidates.
If Obama gets back in I think the only hope for salvaging something will be that those states that want progress and growth quit the Union. History teaches that the most innovative and progressive societies are those where states are smaller than the cultural unit and so creative individuals are free to move and create beyond the reach of authoritarian small regimes.
Ancient Greece, Renaissance Italy and Europe of the ages of empires are examples. One example would be that when Christopher Columbus couldn't get support from the king of Portugal he was free to try the kings of England, France and Spain until he hit - while at much the same time, following the voyages of Cheng Ho, the Chinese emperor could simply order that ocean going travel would stop and it did.
Would SpaceX do better in a free market Florida or Texas than in a United States of America. Almost certainly. Perhaps absolutely certainly if Obama was running the USA. I would not guarantee it would do better in both, but it wouldn't have to. The original Federal US government was an attempt to fuse the individual freedom of small states with the ability to preserve internal peace of an empire. We are about to see if that vision is unsalvagable.