I’m no economist, although perhaps I should be.

You see, I’m pretty good with numbers. I went through math as fast you could in Austin, Texas, and my college classes were a breeze. However, I didn’t go past the requirements of the core curriculum. I figured that my knack for math and my already high accomplishments put me in a place where I wouldn’t have to take another math class for my interests in life. Plus, I don’t have the patience to look at one more imaginary number or gaze at one more measured theorem.

That said, I would gladly devote the rest of my life to the study of mathematics if just one of the candidates running for President of the United States would look at the economy with a mathematician’s point of view, instead of that of a bunch of political “experts” who got us into this mess in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong, I know very smart “math people” have been put into positions of power in the United States government, but the problem with that is that when you do that, you automatically polarize them. They know who appointed them to their position, and as human nature would have it, they feel a responsibility to act in the interests of those who put them in their position. Not necessarily in everything they do, but always with a mindful observance of their benefactor’s profit.

So I’m not suggesting that Senator Barack Obama or Senator John McCain hire an economist and listen to his or her advice. Instead, I think they should simply follow the observances of this little thing they call the American Economic Association. Not that they should conform to all of the AEA’s generally homogeneous decisions, but at least they should offer explanations as to why they differ from the ideals of economists.

What issues are economists generally in agreement upon? Far more than any Democrat or Republican would let you know when it comes to issues of dealing with the United States economy, and I’ll share those points with you. However, I will say this, economists probably tend to be fairly well-to-do individuals, so I’ll insert my take on their stance. Not to say I have lived in poverty myself, but I’ll try to bring a personal component to the conversation—plus, did I mention I was good at math?

Anyway, here are a few points where economists agree:

Economists would legalize marijuana: More than 75% of economists in a poll said that they would legalize marijuana. For them, it is mainly an issue of coming up with an additional way of raising revenue in the United States. By legalizing marijuana, people could buy it legally, which would mean that more people would buy it, and thus the government could tax it and add that to country’s revenue. With most people agreeing that there are no real health concerns for those who use it properly, who knows, marijuana could be the answer to our social security problems. My Take: There are far greater issues in the United States than people using marijuana, and if we did legalize it, the price of it would go down due to open market competition, and the government could make money off it—especially low-income areas where the use may be more frequent than in other parts of the country. Not to mention, I think the health benefits of marijuana in medical practices are far more beneficial than the 800,000+ people who we put in jail, usually for nothing more than the mere possession of marijuana.

Economists say “No” to a gas tax holiday: To economists, the whole gas tax debate was academic. Mathematically, it made no sense. Gas was over $4.00 a gallon at the time, and Hillary Clinton and John McCain were stumping about how a less than 20-cents per gallon discount was going to give American’s a break? Come on. First, they would have had to put some stipulation in that bill that would make it so that the oil companies couldn’t just leave the prices the same and collect the gas-tax for themselves. But that would have led to a whole other market-regulation issue, which I’ll give you the economist take on in a second. My Take: Look, you had to be a fool to be in favor of this. Anybody with a pen and a pad could have come to the conclusion that eliminating 5% of your current gas costs would not help you out when the price has shot up over 50% in the past year. Let’s be real, people.

Economists would rid of farm subsidies: Economists are not farmers’ best friends, especially when they would rather see billions of dollars in subsidies being given to farmers put back into another part of the economy’s sector. Once again, giving farmers subsidies alters the market, and gives farmers an unfair advantage. If you think the price of oil has been effected by speculation and subsidies, you would really be surprised at what it has done to a few of our favorite veggies. My Take: Barack Obama supports farm subsides. So tell me this, Barack, why can’t farmers live off the law of supply and demand like so many companies? I don’t get a subsidy for my internet site, and the world does need the internet. If farmers get a check, than everybody should get a check. And since everyone can’t get a check, than no one should get a check. Fair enough, Senator?

Economists want more tech-savvy immigrants: You know how we’re losing jobs at record rates this year (more than 500,000 lost jobs through July alone)? Well, most economists would tell you to bring in more workers from foreign countries to run our IT departments, build software, and manage the technical aspects of our lives. Those Visas that tech companies get to replace, or make up for a lack of, American workers with cheaper, and usually more skilled, technology-adapted workers are something that economists would like to see more of. By an economist’s measure, an infusion of tech workers from outside the country would create more skilled jobs, raise the GDP and generate more taxable revenue. My Take: I’m in total opposition with the economists on this one. This is where I think their thick pockets and full bellies may have gotten the best of them. You see, contrary to popular belief, America does have plenty of tech-savvy individuals who are ready to fill these jobs at places like Microsoft and Google, its just that those places don’t want to hire the tech-savvy individuals here in America because they cost more. Sure, they won’t say it’s the reason, because then people won’t buy their products, but believe me…it’s the reason! In fact, in part because of more visas being given to places like Microsoft, there is now a great deal of unemployment among tech-graduates in the United States. From 1985 to 2000, there was an average of 450,000 students per year who graduated with a Bachelor’s, Master’s or Doctorate in Science or Engineering. During that time, only 150,000 jobs a year were produced in those sectors. That’s why you see so many computer programmers working at Macy’s. So there you have it, Mr. Gates, you can go to the mall and find you a programmer. You don’t have to go all the way to India.

Economists love free trade: Of course they love free trade! Those silly Republicans. No, all jokes aside, the economists’ fervor for free trade is well meant. When the markets are free to work by themselves, there is a simple law everyone must follow: supply and demand. Now obviously, they will all tell you that the government needs to step in and regulate the economy, stock market, and monopolies on some occasions, but economists want it to be very limited and only in matters of grave concern. My Take: I’m a big proponent of free trade as well. It’s the best way to do things. I know the little guy gets squeezed out sometimes, and jobs get sent overseas, but you really can’t expect creativity to come from anything other than a free market. For those of you who don’t know it, America is the only country to grow to the heights of the world in less than three centuries. But it’s no coincidence. Our history in free trade made us one of the most creative nations in the world. Our technical developments inspired the industrial revolution and the Internet era. The free trade of slaves probably helped too, but that’s a discussion for another day, or at least my other website.

Economists would not impose a “windfall profits” tax or any kind of extra burden on oil companies: This falls into the free trade argument. Economists don’t think it would be fair to just take money away from the oil companies and not anybody else. Doing that would just inspire the oil companies to work around taxes instead of creating the most profit they can, which in all honesty, is what every business should do. My Take: As long as we don’t let the oil companies get away with toxic spills and pollution, I don’t want to see them any further regulated than another company. I know you all want to go after them, but it’s not like they control the price of oil—for the most part anyway. We can blame oil companies and speculators for our woes all we want, but the truth of the matter is that the world produces 87 million barrels of oil per day, and we consume 85 million per day as well. That is not much of surplus, which is why we are where are. The truth is, we need the oil companies to make more profits, because they know better than anyone that the day will come where oil is not the world’s best option for energy. So you best believe they are preparing for that day, so let them have the money to explore it. Yes, I know, a lot of the money goes to the pockets of executives, but one day they’ll die and we’ll tax the hell out of their estates. It all comes back somehow.

Leave a Reply