Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I wasn't referring to the personal morality of either candidate, though I think there are significant differences. I am referring to the morality of trying to change 'the model' we are using. My biggest problem with Hillary is that I don't think she will even try. She will make cosmetic changes around the margins so she can claim to have made things better, and her supporters will expect that. But I have grave doubts that she will initiate any fundamental change or even work towards laying the groundwork for such change by a future administration.

I agree that it will be difficult for a Sanders administration to make fundamental change, but I have no doubt Sanders will do all he can, and that is all I or anyone can ask. For starters he can actually enforce the law on the financial sector. The last time that was done was during the S & L crisis back in the '80s and early '90s when Bill Black was involved.

The other big issue is changing the commonly accepted understanding of how money and banking works and what are the use of fiscal policy by the government can and should accomplish.  That requires obtaining a Democratic House, which I think is more likely with Sanders than with Hillary, but also increasing the numbers of progressives in the House. There are plenty of common sense arguments that can sway public opinion short of a complete reeducation of the public on matters economic, and this is where I would expect Sanders to start. And, importantly, a Sanders Administration would have numerous MMT proponents in government who could start changing the narrative with every interview they give to the media and every public speech they make. This I also expect not to happen under Hillary.

So, it boils down to this question: Can we afford to continue with the status quo for four, likely eight, more years, or do we need to start on everything that needs doing as fast as we can starting in 2017? I don't know the answer to the first question, but I am pretty sure urgency on both the economy and the environment are clearly in order. 2050 is only 34 years away and things could be really bad by then. But our elites can always blame Satin.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 20th, 2016 at 02:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series