Youth Politics

This is a question I ponder often:

Who knows best what the direction of the country should be, the government or the people?

Let me provide some insight here. If the government knows what’s best, then the people’s say really doesn’t matter because the people are most likely wrong. In that case, the whole concept of “majority rules” is undermined by an elite that thinks it knows better than us, the people.

However, if the people know what is best, then the people should be voting on as many decisions as possible. Sure we elect representatives that are supposed to do just that, but we all know that representatives can’t accurate represent your own personal decision every time. My question is, do the people really know what’s best?

There are idiots out there in the world. That’s a no-brainer. These idiots are regular people and can vote and help to make decisions. The question is, if the majority of the US are idiots, should they be able to dictate America’s every move? I’m not saying this is the case, but suppose that all of a sudden most of the American people became extremely irrational. Would it be wise to have “majority rule”?

Think back to the pre-civil war era. The majority supported slavery, but was this a wise decision? No it was not. It’s a prime example of majority rule gone wrong in my opinion.

We elect officials who typically understand what is going on far better than the average citizen. We try to appoint economists and financiers into financial offices, military personnel into defense positions, and other such experts into their respective offices. Why? Because if the people were to appoint ME into some cabinet position, I would be at the very least useless, and most likely a big hindrance.

So here’s my question: What decisions should the US government make alone, and what decisions should be strictly decided by the people?

I’ve been following several economic blogs for quite some time now, and one that I do check up on regularly is FixThePig. Now, since this is mostly a political blog, I probably don’t touch on many of the economic issues that surface themselves unless they are really making a political impact. I’ve found however that FixThePig really complements this blog well when it comes to economic issues. And, as you all know, the economy and politics is almost always intertwined.

I like the blog. It’s simple, easy to read, and has great information and ideas on current and future economic issues. At times I even use it as a news source, or for a different perspective than mine on the current state of the economy. I always provide my input when I have one to give, even if it may differ from the author’s because of how inviting the blog is to commenting. It’s definitely a plus when it comes to a debatable topic such as economics.

As an avid reader and follower of FixThePig, I noticed a contest that they are currently holding for a chance to win $50 in cold hard cash simply for commenting. How cool is that? All you have to do is leave some good feedback on posts and you’ll maybe make yourself a bit of money! Seems like a good deal to me!

You can also get even more chances to win by writing up a full post on your own blog about the FixThePig contest. Now you’re all probably saying to yourself right now that it’s really the only reason I’m writing this post. I’ll be honest, it’s a very powerful incentive, but I would have eventually given a shout-out to FixThePig anyway, and am considering adding them to my “Awesome Political Blogs” section, which I am of course planning to rename.

If you want in on a potential $50 in your wallet, check out FixThePig’s Contest Page. Just comment or make a blog post about the contest and you’re all set for a chance to win!

There is a fine line that the government has to draw when it comes to the mortgage crisis. But before we even begin to discuss that, we need to determine whether or not this is even the government’s problem.

Here are the sides of the story as I see it. One side says let irresponsible borrowers lose their mortgages and may they have their properties foreclosed because they were not making wise decisions. The other side says that people were misled by companies like Fannie Mae, or that there is too much red tape and other loopholes that prevent people from making correct decisions. Of course, I’ll definitely say that it’s both, and that’s a problem. How can anyone distinguish the responsible, misled borrowers from the irresponsible borrowers?

I’m all for regulating the housing market when it comes to how business is conducted. Persuading home buyers from getting a home using shrewd business tactics that hide the truth about refinancing options etc. should be frowned upon and should be controlled to some degree I think. However, we cannot be bailing out whoever we please. In the end, the responsibility goes to, well, the home buyer. No one should lean on the government for any sort of financial help, as that’s not really its function.

I agree that we are in both a credit and mortgage crisis, however it’s really the American people that got us here if you think about it. That’s not to say that the big credit and mortgage companies aren’t at fault, but in the end the combination of some irresponsibility as well as loose regulation at these big companies has taken a turn for the worst, all at once. I’m glad that at least we’ll see a tightening up of credit as I think people really need to prove that they deserve to have credit.

Of course I’m no expert, but this is how I see things as they are now. Are more innocent people hurt by this than non-innocent? Should the credit and mortgage companies have stricter controls? Was regulation to blame? I’ll definitely look into this of course, but I’d like to know your thoughts as well.

I think Obama using government money to invest in our production facilities is the right call.

Economically, countries decide to allocate a certain percentage of resources towards production, and a certain percentage towards capital investments (stuff that will boost production and bolster faster economic growth). Now that people aren’t spending as much on goods, there’s little use producing goods at the rate that we are. So, why not reallocate into investments?

The government can easily replace jobs by putting misplaced workers into projects that will help boost our economy in the future. The plan seems solid to me from an economic standpoint.

Could such intervention cause the recession to last longer? The trend shows that recessions in the United States are lasting shorter and shorter. On the flip side, this recession has been caused by more than simple market fluctuation. We’re looking at a sharp decline in gas sales as well as a whole industry failing, the auto industry. The auto industry makes up 20% of the nation’s retail sales. That is huge! I do want us to recover as quickly as possible, however I also don’t want people to be stranded and left jobless for the entire period, either. Investing now could put the United States much further ahead in the future.

The biggest problem with all of this investing is the strain on the national debt. It’s huge. It will not be able to sustain itself much longer. But I don’t see any other alternative at this point. We absolutely need to fix the debt, but at the same time we also need to make sure that the collapse of an entire industry doesn’t put hundreds of thousands of people out in the streets, collecting welfare money that the government can’t afford to give out. Well, unless they don’t bail out the big automakers (I don’t think they really should).

What do you think about investing in our production? Sound like a plan or should the government stay out of this completely?

My apologies for not posting anything political. The attack in Mumbai was shameful, and although I feel sorry for the victims of the attack, I don’t have much to add that you couldn’t find at other news sources.

Today I checked the progress of my two investments, Apple and Google.

Now, had I had a lot more money, I could have invested a lot more into both of these companies. But, because I am dirt poor, I have to settle for almost zero stock in both of them.

Here are what I bought my stocks for and how many:

3 Google @ $262.22
2 Apple @ $81.97

Total amount invested then is $950.60.

When I checked today, both my Google and Apple stocks have gone up a moderate amount. Here’s what they look like now.

Google: $283.99
Apple: $94.00

The total amount in my account right now is $1039.97. Which means I have profited 89.37 in two weeks. Not bad considering I came into this with very little money. Percentage-wise I’ve gained 8.6% from what I’ve invested so far. I don’t know if that is any good, but I like how things have been turning out considering the slumping economy and all.

I am going to continue to monitor my progress on a daily basis. That way my graph will look a whole lot better. I’ll be able to see the ups and downs, as well as how I could have done better. I’m also interested in looking at trends between these stocks and how the Dow Jones Industrial Average performs as a whole. So far I’ve noticed that my stocks go up when the Dow Jones closes positively, and my stocks decline a bit when it closes negatively. We’ll see how that continues however.

As it stands right now, I have optimally allocated my money into these companies. Google has gone up more, and since I cannot afford anymore Google stock, then no other configuration of stocks would have given me as much of a profit. Of course, there are probably better investments out there on the market, but I’ve decided to give the tech industry a shot.

I’m also interested in figuring out when I should bail out my money and try other opportunities. I would love to see Google rebound back to 700-800 dollars a share, and I have similar hopes for Apple. But is that realistic? Will they ever bounce that high again? Will Obama’s inauguration boost investor confidence and send my stocks skyrocketing? We’ll see.

If you know of any other companies worth looking into for investment, let me know. I’m quite interested in short-term investments.