Anthony Wariner

Economics 1010

July 28, 2017

ePortfolio Report

U.S. politics has increasingly become a sludge pool of special interest groups providing their

puppet candidates with deep pockets, to keep the rich, rich and the poor, even poorer. It maybe

that their intents arent exactly as they may appear (depending on your source, and biased opinions

reflect), rather with the intent of keeping the economy afloat with monetary policies that

encourage economic growth, therefore sparking increased benefit for all. Intentions aside, what

may seem to be a grotesque abuse of the free market, corresponding with policy makers intents to

represent their local districts. Sarcasm aside, this election did bring to pass evil on both sides of the

line. I am more conservative-neutral (if this is even politically correct) when it comes to politics,

which inherently allows me to choose wisely instead of blindly following the fold.

Although my political viewpoints dont have any bearing on my observations on this past

elections, I think that all political opinions definitely sway observation, certainly should not

determine the analysis of this paper. Based on my observations, there was a strong opposition from

both the conservative and liberal parties, neither of which truly represent the people as a whole,

but thats a completely different subject. One of the more annoying aspects of my job is the fact

that there are two TVs in the lunch room, on each end of the room. Conveniently, one is

programmed to only display CNN and the other Fox News. Now, this creates an obvious divide in

the room, but most people keep to themselves, of course with the exception of the 2016 pre-

election process.
 What I was able to observe during the elections process, was that most people preferred to

keep to themselves, more than likely given to the fact that it is a work environment, so most people

preferred not to get involved politically. For the few that were more outspoken about the differences, it

was a constant argument about why each candidate (conservative vs. liberal) was the preferred choice.

One of the political arguments was whether or not students should be allowed to have free college.

Now this was an offer from the liberal party, and certainly there were no specifics, simply free. As

amazing as that may sound, after studying economics it is necessary to understand the most basic

principle as there is no such thing as free lunch. In other words, someone has to pay for it somewhere,

the opportunity cost of free tuition, no matter the cost, more than likely this burden would be placed on

the tax payers. Certainly we must consider the economic consequences of this radical policy proposal.

As education and training increase, so will productivity. With a higher trained workforce, and an

increase in technology, our economy is destined to prosper. Giving students free college could be a

heavy burden on the tax payers, but considering the alternative of an unskilled workforce, we could

actually be impeding future benefits. We have to consider the long run economic outcome of a more

skilled workforce versus the cost of providing free college. Certainly there would have to be put into

place certain laws that would allow for this to happen, and they would have to specify how each

individual could take advantage of said policy. I certainly would have taken advantage and finished

school much earlier in life.

This is one example of the many debates that took place during the election process, but what

astonished me the most is the fact that those who were more outspoken on either side, simply

expressed their opinion in place of actually researching unbiased reliable sources that would support

either side of the debates that occurred. This course has helped me to understand the broader

perspective of the debate, because what seems to be the most important conflict is how each president

is going to handle the economy, and improve it. What the news doesnt inform you on, is the key
concepts behind monetary policy, and how the government plays an important role in handling it. I

didnt realize that certain policies are passed with the intent to improve not inhibit economic health. For

example, stimulus and how the government may actually spend more to stimulate economic growth. I

would have thought that this would actually slow economic growth not the opposite.

While the conservative perspective values the laissez faire approach where liberal values prefer

government intervention in most situations. Clinton promised to increase taxes on the rich to provide

for the less fortunate, while Trump promised to reduce taxes and create more jobs, how they intended

to do as such, neither specified. In order for the government to create jobs, they would have to increase

spending, and lower taxes, this is what promotes economic growth in times of extreme economic

depression.

No matter the approach that either party proposes to carry out their objectives, my

observations were that it appeared that this election was ever so conflicting than possibly never before.

It appeared that in order for the candidates to win favor of their so called voter base, it was necessary to

go to a level so low that it seemed more like a name calling convention rather than a debate about what

each candidate truly planned to do to make the necessary changes for improving the economic state, if

they even bothered to discuss this policy. The debates were weak, pre-planned questions and ultimately

wasnt truly worth the effort to observe what either party had to say.

Despite the disturbing electoral system we have in the United States, I dare say it pales in

comparison to the British elections, at least we have a say in what takes place, for the most part, rather

than waiting on a Prime Minister to find it in his heart to commence an election, randomly within the

next five years. It would appear that we have some consistency, and that we can be certain that our

current candidate only has four years rather than a lifetime of mistakes. It would appear though, as

since there isnt as much investment in the American Election process, as there is in the British elections,
Americans still dont participate as much as you would think should. The numbers really arent that

much of a difference, in regards to those that vote, but from a conspiracy theory perspective, maybe it

truly doesnt matter how many people show up to vote? While the elections in America are supposedly

determined by the Electoral College, I would greatly favor this establishment over the British constituent

parties, which Im sure boil down to either a liberal vs conservative agenda.

None the less, what may appear as a circus, is more like a well calculated orchestra of events in

the American electoral process, winning votes by persuasion behind closed doors, certainly in the British

system, its pre-determined and why would one bother to invest any real interest if it definitely wont

change the current economical state? Certainly the American elections appear to be a joke, but I would

say that it is the best system in the world, which isnt saying much at all. Much better than living in a

country ruled by a dictator, where freedoms dont exist whatsoever. But, thats not the point, in

comparison to the British system, Americans certainly dont understand how good they really have it

here, and that is probably why most people dont bother voting in the first place.