Would you vote for a Candidate that campaigned on a platform that ultimately served to limit personal wealth? A candidate that promised to do things like limit the percentage of crops sold to biofuel, or do away with futures trading on commodities essential to todays economy such as gold or crude oil? I've made the poll public, feel free to debate your choice, and argue for or against it, or explain why you're undecided, if you are inclined that way.
Thats a very limited question. I usually vote based on three facts: 1. The party represents all citizens rather than some regional or religious or <insert narrow agenda> group 2. The individual promotes grass roots development and invests in social programs that improve overall education and welfare 3. The individual supports progress through technological advancement or redevelopment programs. Limiting personal wealth is not really predictable unless there is direct taxation - for example, if the percentage of crops sold to biofuel were restricted, this would only matter if there were not at the same time, advancements and investments in other forms of alternate energy or if private transportation was used more than public or if you lived in a country where consumer staples were transported over long distances. For me, since I walk or take the bus everywhere, purchase food from local farmers and invest in local industry rather than commodities, it would not be relevant. I will have to think about that some.
Ultimately the agenda is one of socioeconomic and environmental sustainability. There would ultimately be an overall drive into research on alternative and sustainable power generation technologies that are compatable with other forms of land use. The same percieved pressures that the candidate is attempting to address would probably also neccessitate making free education and free healthcare more widely available. To some extent, I think this has been addressed above - or at least outlined. Wheat (for example) and other food crops that are used for biofuel are not available for consumption as foodstuffs - which is part of the planning involved in the initial proposition - essentially one attempt at future proofing against a perceived socioeconomic crunch, of sorts. Some might call it an attempt at initiating a paradigm shift perceived as neccessary at a time when it can still be doubt with by making small investments in the long term, rather than massive investments in the short term. The same candidate would probably also be offering incentives to companies to encourage them to invest money and (renewable) technology into (for example) Africa, or South East Asia, to help enable them to achieve economically and environmentally sustainable growth.
Then I would need more information than what you have provided. That sounds good. I assume that since the land is finite, when wheat is grown for fuel it will supplant wheat that is grown for food. One of the problems we face in India - for which we are forced to outsource our agriculture - is the loss of foodstuffs in spoilage through poor storage and transport facilities. One-third of India's food reserves left to rot So for us, any innovations which utilise the food stuffs rather than lose them would be a positive outcome. You mean like outsourcing agriculture? Thats also a good idea. Could you tell me a little more on gold and crude oil futures and their impact on the economy especially personal wealth?
Gold is not essential. Futures trading is very beneficial, if regulated carefully - it provides liquidity, and stabilizes prices. But all essential commodities trading, and especially futures trading in essentials, must be rigorously regulated to avoid bubbles and other market pathologies. The reason is that bubbles do great harm - far more than the benefit of the trade itself - if allowed. For many years - from the New Deal until 2000, in the US - futures trading in essentials was firmly curbed, and not permitted to be more than a small percentage of any given market. That worked. I would support a candidate who advocated a return to that working system. The question really should whether anyone would support a candidate who refused to regulate commodities markets in essentials. It's a no-brainer, with recent disasters to prove it.
Hell no. that's silly. Just stop subsidizing it and end the tariff on imported ethanol. Corn ethanol as a fuel makes no economic sense in the US and it's use would greatly decrease if not for government programs favoring and even mandating it. No. I agree with Ice. Futures trading is useful.
Browns Bear Bottom suggests this assertion may be in error, although I can understand it from the perspective that most industrialized nations have moved away from anchoring their currencies with gold. I agree in general with your sentiment - in the context of a regulated market, sure. Although, I find it interesting to note that the deregulation of futures trading in 2000 coincides with the beginnings of the current oil price bubble. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I have seen it suggested, several times, that there may be a (partial) causal relationship here - the price keeps going it up because speculators drive it up. Agreed, I think, for the most part.
Which may have to wait for the time being. Yus. I wonder about innovations such as passively cooled food storage... Well, one of the impacts is that rising fuel costs drive up inflation, and drive up the costs of basics such as wheat or corn, because the manufacturers, and distributors are recovering their increased costs (the delivery trucks and harvesters, for example, still suck down the same amount of diesel). That's about as coherent as I can manage at the moment Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So in short, would you vote for an openly marxist candidate? I think we know the answer since many voted for a closet marxist last time. We shall see how many return that vote in '12? Please spare us all of the usual bs that comes with making such a claim, the only people who don't see the marxist in the current potus are those that are ever more radically left than him.
LOL, mr. galt seeing Marxists under every rock again I see. I suggest you look up the definition of Marxism. And then please show how this POTUS is any more Marxist than any other president in recent history.
Wait, are you addressing personal wealth, or wealth inequality here? And why specifically "personal" wealth - is corporate or other forms of wealth supposed to grow under these policies? I'm unsure what you're suggesting here.
The answer depends on the justification for such action and the kinds of limitation. Your question is to simple and not real world. This kind of question is really useless other than to instill fear. No one is making such proposals. So why ask the question? Biofuels are a waste of time and money. Additionally commodities futures trading is not essential. But again, no one is proposing doing away with commodity futures trading. What is being discussed is increasing the insanely low equity requirements for commodities futures traders. And that is not a bad idea. But I would not support banning commodities futures trading, it has a place in our economy. Overall, these questions just too simple to be of any value. I would vote for the candidate with the best solutions for the problems at hand rather than using the cookie cutter approach to voting.
