At 03:52 PM 9/23/2000 -0500, Eva Young wrote:
> I heard on Channel 9 news it was 5000. Gibson was out handing out
> pamphlets there--a smart move on his part.
I was there, it was definitely more than 5000. From the proportion of
filled seats, 11,000 seems a reasonable figure. (There were 14,000 seats.)
Don't know where channel 9 got 5000. I was handing out flyers for my
campaign, as well. (I've personally endorsed Nader.)
>Now the question is, will the Nader voters go for
>Gibson or Dayton? Dayton seems much more akin on economic issues than
>Dayton.
I assume you mean Dayton seems more similar than Gibson?
Right, so it's a question of whether the economic issues or the
"outsider" perspective and freedom from special interests is more
important. Gibson is a bit more of an economic conservative: he
favors free trade and supports partially privatizing social
security. But he's not tied up with the usual Republocrat corporate
interests, and he's willing to try new approaches in areas where
we're "stuck", like drug policy. I think a lot of younger voters
will find both Nader and Gibson appealing for those reasons.
I like his economic policies, even though I'm not usually a
conservative, because he believes that Fed policy can be altered
to produce sustainable real growth in wages. (Right now we've got
a policy that raises interest rates to hold wages down, in the
belief that that's crucial to preventing inflation. But given
the huge productivity gains over the last couple decades, I don't
think that's not necessarily true any more.)
I usually see conservatives as supporting economic policies that tend
to concentrate wealth, and liberals as fighting the symptoms of this
tendency as best they can (progressive taxation, welfare, etc). I'm
excited by the idea that we can responsibly modify the economy so it
naturally reverses the concentration of wealth.
Of course all of this requires paying off the debt as soon as possible,
so that money is available as private capital and interest rates can
go down.
I understand that this higher-wage-growth approach is supported by some
within the federal reserve, though it's clearly not Greenspan's policy.
Won't the US Senate confirm the next fed chairman when Greenspan
retires?
Ah, disclaimer time; I volunteer with the Gibson campaign, and clearly
I'm a big supporter, but the views expressed herein are purely my own,
and should in no way be taken as official statements of the James Gibson
for US Senate campaign. (If you want to find out what Jim has to say,
visit http://www.jim2000.org.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Steven C. Anderson Longfellow area of Minneapolis
Running for Minnesota Senate, District 62: http://www.SteveAnderson.org
