Quote:
Originally Posted by straitstimesjd1004
The result has showed the weakness of US election systems , too depend on the volatility of voters.
Long term economic planning is nearly impossible.
|
Volatility of voters is a common phenomena in election systems of many first world countries, but it is not necessarily a weakness.
Because their economies are already developed, it is not feasible to have the kind of long term economic planning that is helpful and only possible in developing nations.
Developing nations' long term economic planning is only possible in the first place because these countries could conceive and set targets based on the economy of developed nations as a goal.
Developed nations do not have role models to aspire to, and their economy, regardless of whether they have left wing, right wing or centrist parties in power, are primarily led by the private sector, not the public sector.
The last time Western European economies actually benefited from long term economic planning was the reconstruction after WW2, assisted by the Marshall Plan.
Furthermore, most of the actual economic planning in developed countries are not done by elected politicians but by the civil servants behind the scenes who retained their positions regardless of outcomes of general elections.
A few decades ago, Bretton Woods and Bilderberg Group were the closest these countries have to long term economic planning, but their focus was not on national level but on international levels, and their participants came from mix of private and public sectors.
Today, the state of the world's economy has evolved beyond the control of any such group.
Sure, failures of Lehman brothers etc., did trigger a domino effect to Europe and to countries like Singapore, but countries like China and India remained largely unaffected, acting as counterweights to Europe and America.