Now, it is apparently the season for politicians to address the requirement to produce a viable and sustainable economy that ensures a good life for all citizens. Believe it or not, the idea to ensure a good life for all citizens is contested by some. Wealthy persons and free enterprise advocates prefer that all persons take responsibility for themselves with minimal or no assistance from government. They believe in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalistic economics. (People will do anything to be successful, even if what they do harms other people.)
In a pluralistic democratic republic such as America with its Constitution and all, a sustainable economy is one in which there is balance among three pillars:
- Social responsibility
- Environmental responsibility
- Economic responsibility
The news this weekend was that Hillary Clinton embraces Obama’s economic policies that have turned the corner for American prosperity to something more positive than the last administration. While the economy has gotten better, it is far from being something that we can call sustainable and perpetually viable.
The essential step toward producing a sustainable economy is from adopting a renewable energy strategy. An economy that is dependent upon fossil fuel is not sustainable. Renewable energy sources include the sun, wind, waves, thermal, and nuclear power among others. Principally, solar power must become the core source of energy. Any delay toward that end puts the economy at risk.
Economic security is the primary responsibility of government to ensure through policies that protect the nation and that produce an legislative and regulatory environment that optimizes economic performance and return on national resources.
A principal national resource are American geniuses who hold the greatest potential for inventing solutions to our most challenging problems and needs. The focus in on energy and designing a new paradigm for high quality living that is affordable for all Americans in the absence of poverty. Do you readers agree with that?
Historically, economic salvation comes from bursts of performance that are initiated by geniuses who produce inventions many of which create new businesses and industries from new products and services. Therefore, the national strategy should be to provide maximum incentive for geniuses to address our considerable needs. America needs to adopt and to embrace geniuses with all of the encouragement and support that we can muster.
Arron Chatterjihan’s article titled, “Don’t Look to States for New Ideas” is simply wrongly focused. However, it started this conversation.
“Don’t Look to States for New Ideas
By AARON CHATTERJIJAN. 11, 2015
DURHAM, N.C. — WITH Washington bitterly divided between a Democratic White House and a Republican Congress, it seems unlikely that America will see substantive progress on the grand challenges of the day, ranging from immigration to energy policy and entitlement programs.
At times like these, we have historically looked to our 50 states to be, as Justice Louis D. Brandeis memorably calledthem, laboratories of democracy, testing grounds for innovative policies that can be replicated by other states or translated to the federal level.
Some of the most notable federal policy innovations of the last generation have originated in the states, including school vouchers, energy efficiency standards, welfare reform and the Affordable Care Act. Governors like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush leveraged their state policy successes as springboards to the Oval Office.
The problem is, just when we need their innovative energies, the states are looking less and less likely to be fountainheads of new federal policy over the next generation.
What has changed? First, state politics have become much more partisan. After the 2014 elections, 60 percent of the states are completely controlled by a single party. The power of state policy innovations is that they traditionally had bipartisan fingerprints, allowing an enterprising national politician from either party to lay claim to them. In the new world of single-party states, very little bipartisan legislation will emerge.
We will see no Democrat willing to adopt the radical tax reforms of Gov. Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, and surely no Republican could champion the Safe Act that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, got passed in New York — one of the strictest gun control bills in the nation.
Of course, these ideas may diffuse to other like-minded states. But more likely, these new initiatives will be at one end of the political spectrum or the other, limiting the potential for federal adoption.
Second, it has become clear that “scaling” successful state policies is harder than it appears, because of both political forces and policy realities. Every technocrat in Washington dreams of finding a successful policy at the state level, an early childhood education program in North Carolina or a creative prison reform initiative in Texas, and using it as a model for federal legislation. The logic is that once a state “laboratory” has tested and approved a particular policy innovation, it will have the same “treatment” effect in the other 49 states.”
A good read is a book titled: Grand Pursuit.
“In a sweeping narrative, the author of the megabestseller A Beautiful Mind takes us on a journey through modern history with the men and women who changed the lives of every single person on the planet. It’s the epic story of the making of modern economics, and of how economics rescued mankind from squalor and deprivation by placing its material fate in its own hands rather than in Fate.
Nasar’s account begins with Charles Dickens and Henry Mayhew observing and publishing the condition of the poor majority in mid-nineteenth-century London, the richest and most glittering place in the world. This was a new pursuit. She describes the often heroic efforts of Marx, Engels, Alfred Marshall, Beatrice and Sydney Webb, and the American Irving Fisher to put those insights into action—with revolutionary consequences for the world.”