In class, we spent a lot of time discussing economic security, which, I think for many people, is more to the forefront of their attention than national security issues. Not to say which is more important (because I think they deserve relatively similar amounts of attention), but economic security is something that we deal with every day – from big decisions, like paying for college, which can change the financial structure of a family, to just daily budget allowances. I think it something we can all relate to the most because it is what frequently dominates the media (especially where I live, where the economy the sole focus in every political debate and campaign ad) and dinner table conversations.
I guess, personally, my focus politically tends to be on the economy and I found the question of how are we economically secure to be very interesting. Clearly, security really depends on the individual person in all cases, not just how secure you feel, but in real dollars and cents how economically stable your situation is. However, we spent most of the time talking about the government promoting economic security through their employee workforce, for example. Maybe this is the market lover in me, but I thought that skipping over the security in the private sector was sort of an oversight. The question about economic security should reside similarly in economic recovery and job providing companies in the private sector. Maybe the question shouldn’t have been so much debating the effects Christie has had on government work forces, but what the government has done to stimulate the private sector and its effects on economic security for the individuals. Maybe my view on it stems from the fact that both of my parents are employed in the private sector (although my mom does work for Bank of America and is very defensive of the bank paying back their bailout, but that’s beside the point). Do we feel more stable, as a whole, as individuals, etc. as a result of decisions that our state and local governments have made for the private sector? Clearly, much of my approach to the question of economic security stems from my faith in the private sector to boost the economy when given freer reign to make decisions, which naturally makes me more inclined to focus first on the private sector when determining my own, and the country's, economic stability. I guess if I see the private sector is economically on the rise (small business confidence is up, jobs are hiring, consumer spending, etc.), I tend to see my own situation and the situation of others to be more secure.
Additionally, although this is pretty random, it’s impossible to generalize the economic security of the entire country because people have such varied situations, especially in comparison to national security, where, although some people live in more dangerous hot spots for attacks, natural disasters, etc., it is slightly easier to generalize the security.
P.S.
And thanks to Scott, who reminded me about the glory that was November 2, 2010, I had to add something else in...
Especially for Vikings Fan Sam, Row, and Alex.
Obviously symbolic of the Republican bloodbath in the House and domination for the governors' races as well. Except in Maryland, where the red didn't manage to spread.
We'll see what happens in 2012, but I'm enjoying this for now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome good points here. I don't agree with all of them, but they're good points.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that economic security is defined by how well an individual is doing, I think that if we want to move forward toward securing our nation's economic future we need to have a mindset that keeps all citizens in mind.
I reject your notion that the economy is only as good as the private sector is doing. While the private sector is probably the best gauge of economic success or failure, the public sector's well-being cannot be discounted. We have seen that during this economic downturn there have been just as much pressure to cut public sector jobs as private sector jobs. Perhaps the public sector slashing by governors like Christie is a sign that there is no such thing as a guaranteed economic security any longer. Free market economics implies risk, and risk taking is going to mean that there is going to be a chance that your job in the private (and soon to be public) sector is not totally secure, even in seemingly booming economic times.
While you say that the government shouldn't be involved in the job creation process of businesses, isn't it fair to point out that the absence of government essentially caused the economic downturn that we are still facing today? Looking back on the causes of the recession, economists generally agree that the repeal of important financial regulatory statutes like Glass-Steagall were a major contributor in the downfall of the US and global economy.
Also, the fact is that there doesn't need to be a dichotomous gap between the public and private sectors. It can be debated that they're one in the same, especially in these tough economic times. The government, as you've no doubt learned from your favorite homosexual Englishman Keynes, can stimulate private sector employment through public sector means. Government projects, such as infrastructure and transit projects, can help increase private investment. There no longer needs to be a one-sided debate among public and private sector employment: they can work together in partnership together.
Also, enjoy your victory from last week (this is such old news!!!), because The O will be roaring back in 2012. The GOP will be a defunct party by 2020, and you can take that to the bank. (not Bank of America, though, because who knows if you'll ever see that money again!)