What's more, there's another way of possibly interpreting the health-care decision, from a macroeconomic perspective, which is that maybe the Supreme Court ruling removes one very large uncertainty from the discussion.
This is one of the biggest, most head-smacking confabulations we come across in society. People on the far right of the political spectrum are all about independent strength, competition, etc. Direct, free-market competition is what drives economies forward, they say. But then they talk about investor confidence and the need for measures of certainty.
Direct competition leads to nothing but uncertainty. It's why campaigns matter. Markets don't like uncertainty, challenges, etc; they want sure thing investments. Safety nets provide stability and stability is what feeds confidence. In fact, the private sector is all about stability; that's why they plan, poll and invest in long-term benefits by doing such things as donating to politicians. They want to know what's around the corner and if they're smart, they try to stack the deck in their favour through outreach initatives that, broken down, look an awful lot like altruism.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dbcb8/dbcb8e7ad0a9086597662235d207221e2d18c0f9" alt=""
There isn't a single example in history of one strong, stagnant, oppressive regime that has lasted forever. It's simply not a possibility. The more any government (of any stripe) tightens its grip, the more control slips through its fingers. Reactive, individual competition is taxing. Proactively, it's strategic collaboration that leads to growth.
If you want to go fast, go alone - but if you want to go far, move
And yes, I did go out of my way to find a picture of Obama with the caduceus. I do love me my metaphors...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dbcb8/dbcb8e7ad0a9086597662235d207221e2d18c0f9" alt=""
No comments:
Post a Comment