Elections: The Ultimate Waste
Billions and billions were tossed away to elect our leaders, and hardly anyone is happy about it. While there is indeed much debate surrounding the legitimate existence of government and the functions it is to serve, one undeniable fact of the political process is that there are scores of inescapable costs and expenses that accompany the process, and these, being anti-productive non-market phenomena, are arguably the most burdensome. [Full Article]
Comments (5)
I have had similar thoughts. I would even support following the original intent of the founding dads and have the electorate vote for electors who cannot be bound to commit to particular candidates, possibly even holding such elections before presidential candidates are nominated. (Of course, at this point that requires reversing some constitutional amendments.)
Published: December 20, 2004 11:24 AM
I am tired of using this forum for purposes of Bush-bashing. The contry was asked, it answered with a clear enough voice. If you don't like it just get over it and get better prepared for your next turn.
I strongly believe we would be better off keeping this site away from the dirt of everyday politics by elevating the conversation to the level of principles and keeping an ongoing honest debate on econo-social theories and policies. Anything less than that will just not cut it. We all can get more than enough out of the liberal (NOT libertarian!!!) media, which I am sick of. Let my refuge be safe.
Thanks.
Published: December 21, 2004 11:03 AM
I don't think the theme there was Bush bashing. Indeed, Mattei makes a very important point, and it applies equally to both political parties. When I read it, I thought of all the liberals I know who insist that we absolutely must have government because without it no one would take care of the homeless, the poor, the elderly, the children, the mentally ill, the working poor, the uninsured, etc, etc, etc, because people just won't do that kind of thing when left to their own devices! But just think of how many homeless,poor, elderly, children, mentally ill, working poor, uninsured, or whoever else you think the government needs to take responsibility for, could have been taken care of by the sheer amount of money Democrats poured into trying to get Kerry elected. Instead of using any of that mind-boggling amount of money to do any of the social welfare things they pay lip service to as being so important, they flushed all that money down the great toilet of electoral politics. The Republicans are no better. They claim social needs should be taken care of by private means, but they aren't putting their money where their mouths are either. Regardless of political affiliation, think about what it might be like if more people, when they considered donating to a political campaign, asked themselves, "Can I give my money to someone or some organization that will accomplish what I want the government to do?" If individuals who give to politics because they really think their candidate is going to change the world put their money elsewhere, maybe we would see some real change.
Published: December 21, 2004 11:15 AM
Agreed. I didn't see any Bush bashing in it at all.
Perhaps this article is more of an inkblot test.
I think sometimes Bush lovers are so hypersensitive they see Bush bashing everywhere -- even where their is none.
Tracy
Published: December 22, 2004 2:11 AM
What price must society pay to be informed before an election? If we pay a mere $30 million to be informed on the candidates, their stance on critical issues, and make a more informed decision as a result of this $30 million, I would argue that society as a whole is better off for having spent what, as a percentage of GDP, is a pittance.
Also, to cite this as 1 day out of a year overlooks the obvious facts: that $30 million is not spent every year, but every *four* years. It amounts to 2 hours of productive labor by the nation per year. Surely we can find more critical waste in much more massive quantities than this!
As for the other $655 million spent on this election, all I can say is that economists do poorly when they try to decide how others should spend their money. To call any expenditure "non-productive" ignores the basic fact of a market economy: no one exchanges a good of value for one of lesser value. An exchange only takes place when both sides believe they get more out of the exchange than inaction. Lobbying may be an evil, and campaigning may seem wasteful, yet those with the funds obviously do not believe so.
Published: December 22, 2004 1:30 PM