- 13,827
- Down under
As a non-American, here is my take on the candidates and who I would like to see as president.
For Bush, the largest problem, is that there has been so much exposure during his term as president that there would appear on the face of it, to be overwhelming evidence of his capacity to apply the figurative sledgehammer to a thumbtack. Under his presidency, the dollar has weakened against all major currencies (and some not so major), the US economy has slowed down compared to under Clinton's administration and the oil price has doubled. Whether these occurances are due to external factors put into play by global economics, or by his influence could be debated. If I remember correctly from university days, a weakened trade deficit and budget deficit (both of which the US is experiencing) will lead to a weakened currency. A weakened currency in a large export nation is undesireable, hence interest rates have increased. This has cooled down economic growth and the stock markets havent experienced their meteoric rise of the previous 6 - 8 years prior to his election.
How does this impact me? The largest factor for me, are the economic implications of the election. Previously my local markets took their lead from the US markets exclusively. In the last 3 years or so, they have moved away from taking the lead from the US and risen on dependancies from local factors, currency related factors and partionally due to the effects of international markets. Thus, should the democrats win, and presumable concentrate more on the economy as per Clinton, the expected rise over the 4 year term, of the markets would positively affect my investments. Alternately, the dollar may regain some of its strength, placing local petrol prices under pressure and thus local inflation. This begs the question, what of the oil price? It is impossible to guess its direction, so assuming an unchanged oil price, a stronger dollar will mean higher petrol prices, and eventually higher inflation.
Thus: Bad. Bush's ill worked economic policies, whether by intent or circumstance, have made my economic life easier via a weaker dollar and less dependency on the Dow Jones etc..
Another question. How has Bush impacted global safety? He has liberated Afganistan and Iraq from brutal regimes. The result? Liberted populations of those countries. And a heightened presence of decentralised terror organisations. Bin Laden and Al-Zaqawi are on the loose, terror organisation are stunting attempts for peace in Iraq, and soldiers and civilians are being killed daily. Bush was keen to invade, but what now? Withdraw, with the invaded country in economic and infrastructural shambles? That wont win many friends among coalition partners who have stuck steadfastly with Bush's plans. In short, a snapshot of Nov 2000 and a snapshot of now reveals the world is less safe. Whether by circumstance or by design is again, up for debate. Kerry wants to withdraw from Iraq. What does that achieve? Pacified fundamentalists and a poverty stricken populas? Not much to gain in that situation either. But one could argue that the suicide bombing will subside, and kidnappings cease.
As for Kerry, not much is know of him, here (at least). Besides a focus on his wife's business breeding line and his service record in the armed forces, he remains a bit anonymous. Blame lies squarely with the media, but that doesnt resolve the problem.
So, on the face of it, I want Bush to win for economic reasons, and Bush to lose on global stability reasons.
For Bush, the largest problem, is that there has been so much exposure during his term as president that there would appear on the face of it, to be overwhelming evidence of his capacity to apply the figurative sledgehammer to a thumbtack. Under his presidency, the dollar has weakened against all major currencies (and some not so major), the US economy has slowed down compared to under Clinton's administration and the oil price has doubled. Whether these occurances are due to external factors put into play by global economics, or by his influence could be debated. If I remember correctly from university days, a weakened trade deficit and budget deficit (both of which the US is experiencing) will lead to a weakened currency. A weakened currency in a large export nation is undesireable, hence interest rates have increased. This has cooled down economic growth and the stock markets havent experienced their meteoric rise of the previous 6 - 8 years prior to his election.
How does this impact me? The largest factor for me, are the economic implications of the election. Previously my local markets took their lead from the US markets exclusively. In the last 3 years or so, they have moved away from taking the lead from the US and risen on dependancies from local factors, currency related factors and partionally due to the effects of international markets. Thus, should the democrats win, and presumable concentrate more on the economy as per Clinton, the expected rise over the 4 year term, of the markets would positively affect my investments. Alternately, the dollar may regain some of its strength, placing local petrol prices under pressure and thus local inflation. This begs the question, what of the oil price? It is impossible to guess its direction, so assuming an unchanged oil price, a stronger dollar will mean higher petrol prices, and eventually higher inflation.
Thus: Bad. Bush's ill worked economic policies, whether by intent or circumstance, have made my economic life easier via a weaker dollar and less dependency on the Dow Jones etc..
Another question. How has Bush impacted global safety? He has liberated Afganistan and Iraq from brutal regimes. The result? Liberted populations of those countries. And a heightened presence of decentralised terror organisations. Bin Laden and Al-Zaqawi are on the loose, terror organisation are stunting attempts for peace in Iraq, and soldiers and civilians are being killed daily. Bush was keen to invade, but what now? Withdraw, with the invaded country in economic and infrastructural shambles? That wont win many friends among coalition partners who have stuck steadfastly with Bush's plans. In short, a snapshot of Nov 2000 and a snapshot of now reveals the world is less safe. Whether by circumstance or by design is again, up for debate. Kerry wants to withdraw from Iraq. What does that achieve? Pacified fundamentalists and a poverty stricken populas? Not much to gain in that situation either. But one could argue that the suicide bombing will subside, and kidnappings cease.
As for Kerry, not much is know of him, here (at least). Besides a focus on his wife's business breeding line and his service record in the armed forces, he remains a bit anonymous. Blame lies squarely with the media, but that doesnt resolve the problem.
So, on the face of it, I want Bush to win for economic reasons, and Bush to lose on global stability reasons.
