"“No one knows how to get a return on capital better than I do. I’m great at it. Look at my history. With the government’s ability to borrow at an effective tax rate of less than zero, I promise you as president that I will know better than anyone how to get a return on investment for the American people. In this time when we need to grow the economy and create jobs, we need to cut ineffective and inefficient government spending in bureaucracy and administrative and increase investment where we can get the greatest return for the American people. And you know what makes my approach all the sweeter? We are borrowing money from China DIRT CHEAP and I will invest that to create American jobs!”
With the deficit and debt so high, it’s been taboo to talk about borrowing money. But the fact remains that borrowing at less than 3% over 30 years is a steal.
Yes, it would be great if the US borrowed unlimited money at 2% at used the money to grow the economy. However, the problem is not the borrowing rate… it’s the second part: what they will use the money for. If the US government was given a green light to borrow unlimited money, politicians will spend it on pet products to buy votes. We will end up with 1000 bridges to nowhere. Marginal growth will not offset borrowing costs, and we will just have even more debt to pay back in the future.
Maybe the US should issue 80-year bonds and spend the money on booze and cigars. In 80 years, 99% of today’s people will be gone. So this might actually be rational, depending on your world view…
The fact that they can print money at will and all debt is denominated in USD, all other things considered, makes it effectively impossible for them to go bankrupt. No company can fire up a printing press at will to pay their creditors.
p.s. ohai don’t forget herion and crack, they’re pretty good at killing poeple off too.
If you were a hiring manager with Obamas Cv and Romneys cv you’d take Romney every single time. Obamas only advantage is the fact that he had the job already for four years.
Only PE and running a country are 2 completely different things. PE is much simpler, make more with less, running a country means putting people back to work, returning to a blanced budget, geopilitical affairs, dealing with a congress in grilock, etc.
Not saying PE/investing is easier it’s just so much different and requires totally different qualities than that of running a country. On that basis I don’t know you can say that Romney has the better CV.
They were both involved in politics prior to running for prez. Romney at the state level for 4 yrs and Obama at the state level for a few yrs and they at the federal level as senator for 4 yrs. The difference is that Romney was at the head of his state but I believe one can argue that Obama’s more diverse experience can compensate. Wouldn’t you agree?
don’t forget the fact that the government forces its citizens to accept USD for payment (legal tender laws). if this wasn’t the case, individuals would be able to use competing currencies and the USD would eventually go to zero.
I think a lot of policies make sense from a high level perspective. However, once you are familiar with the details of US politics, you realize that such policies are actually unrealistic or unlikely to be implemented correctly. So, US people are jaded and unenthusiastic compared to non-US people.
One of the biggest differences between running a PE firm and running a country is that you can get rid of lazy, unqualified, incompetent people at a PE firm.
Also, you could argue that you *don’t* want someone who runs things like a politician: pandering to special interests, following popular policies that clearly don’t make sense, valuing ideology over objectivity, cronyism, surrounding yourself with other career politicians, distorting public messages, economically inefficient administration, etc. Many of these things are necessary to advance your career in politics. But once you get used to doing things a certain way, you keep doing it that way…
I think that another reason people outside the US appear more opinionated is that they separate the candidate from the party.
To what extent are we electing a president and to what extent are we electing a political party? Because, like the title of this thread says, I would vote for Romney if the Republican party wasn’t so jacked up right now. Fact is, I don’t trust them not to declare holy war on Iran.