i'm starting to think the u.s. should (temporarily) have a foreign person

[freepcrusher]

come in and rule over our country for a few years. It obviously sounds preposterous, so let me explain. Neither the left or right seems to get things right in the U.S. Its hard for people to assess things because they often have a stake in the system.

So the idea would be to get someone(s)  from another country and have them be the boss for a few years and act as sort of a "jury" on american issues. Most political issues through the American context and through their own lenses and it would almost be an improvement if someone with no allegiances gave some ideas.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Whoever gets elected in the US has to work within the system.  It doesn't work that way at all.

[Joe Republic]

We already have Obama in office.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

come in and rule over our country for a few years. It obviously sounds preposterous, so let me explain. Neither the left or right seems to get things right in the U.S. Its hard for people to assess things because they often have a stake in the system.

So the idea would be to get someone(s)  from another country and have them be the boss for a few years and act as sort of a "jury" on american issues. Most political issues through the American context and through their own lenses and it would almost be an improvement if someone with no allegiances gave some ideas.

The problem is that "someone with no allegiances" really doesn't exist.  Everybody is going to have political allegiances and biases of some kind.  The only difference between bringing a foreigner in is that his allegiances will be international instead of intranational.  Then you have the problem of deciding who would be this "foreign person".  No country is perfect, and politicians of all countries have flaws (it's part of human nature) and many values and positions are subjective.

[Franzl]

Not that I would have a problem with that idea....but it's not exactly a neutral option. It's clear Democrats will be happier with the results than Republicans...

[IceSpear]

Not that I would have a problem with that idea....but it's not exactly a neutral option. It's clear Democrats will be happier with the results than Republicans...

Judging from the comments on most right wing blogs these days, they'd be quite happy with Putin.

[Simfan34]

Up until the late 19th century, this was what was expected of countries.

Obviously the proper solution is to put a person with the right ideas into the supreme executive authority with vastly expanded powers of promulgation and execution than the President has presently. But that won't happen.

[retromike22]

What about a moderate technocrat?

[MaxQue]

What about a moderate technocrat?

Because they are literally Morgan Stanley and IMF pawns?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Up until the late 19th century, this was what was expected of countries.

Obviously the proper solution is to put a person with the right ideas into the supreme executive authority with vastly expanded powers of promulgation and execution than the President has presently. But that won't happen.

I agree, we need Fuher Merkel.

[pbrower2a]

What about a moderate technocrat?

Technocrats get surprisingly-bad results in practice. They are command-and-control types who just can't cope with the realities of democracy. 

[beaver2.0]

No.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is so stupid.

[AggregateDemand]

What incentive do they have to fix the United States? If we're giving them pay incentives, we could do the same thing for US citizens.

None of our politicians have economics degrees or rigorous business training, which should be a minimum prerequisite for anyone who controls $3T in government revenue.

Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush all had economics or MBAs from prestigious institutions. Obama does not.

[Indy Texas]

What incentive do they have to fix the United States? If we're giving them pay incentives, we could do the same thing for US citizens.

None of our politicians have economics degrees or rigorous business training, which should be a minimum prerequisite for anyone who controls $3T in government revenue.

Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, W Bush all had economics or MBAs from prestigious institutions. Obama does not.

Ah, yes, because a degree from that vaunted hive of great minds, Eureka College, trumps Harvard Law School any day of the week.

[MaxQue]

None of our politicians have economics degrees or rigorous business training, which should be a minimum prerequisite for anyone who controls $3T in government revenue.

No, since many universities aren't "teaching" economy anymore, it's just a long propaganda program for the economical school the economy department is liking the most.

[AggregateDemand]

No, since many universities aren't "teaching" economy anymore, it's just a long propaganda program for the economical school the economy department is liking the most.

Have you completed a degree in economics? I have two from different universities, and while I can say they didn't teach heterodoxy as gospel, they certainly didn't shy away from it, either.

Most of the criticism coming from the university scene is from hyper-intelligent kids, who cannot yet comprehend how poorly the electorate selects people to handle money. By assuming competence, they imagine that our problems are caused by inadequate exposure to alternative theory, not inadequate exposure to any theory or empirical discipline.

[MaxQue]

No, since many universities aren't "teaching" economy anymore, it's just a long propaganda program for the economical school the economy department is liking the most.

Have you completed a degree in economics? I have two from different universities, and while I can say they didn't teach heterodoxy as gospel, they certainly didn't shy away from it, either.

I have friends who studied in economy at two universities and they said than it was very different. One was insisting on keynesianism, with some teachers leaning towards marxism, and the other one was much more modered and balanced (with a couple problematic teachers, which were more more doing a sale pitch for neo-liberalism and/or Austria than an economy course). But perhaps the provision is better in your area than mine.

As someone with an hard science background, I have issues with the fact than it's so easy for teachers to veer into ideology.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is so stupid.

[DemPGH]

Well, it would be nice to have people outside U.S. corporate influence have SOME say in our government than the current situation: someone impartial, that's about as far as I'd go.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, it would be nice to have people outside U.S. corporate influence have SOME say in our government than the current situation: someone impartial, that's about as far as I'd go.

Why would a foreigner be free from corporate influence?

[DemPGH]

Well, it would be nice to have people outside U.S. corporate influence have SOME say in our government than the current situation: someone impartial, that's about as far as I'd go.

Why would a foreigner be free from corporate influence?

U.S. corporate influence. Europeans have done better at handling that than we have, and I think if we have a first world ally in whose country we have a military presence, then they should get to vote in our elections. Britain (Air Force, I believe) Italy, Germany, and Australia, specifically.

[AggregateDemand]

I have friends who studied in economy at two universities and they said than it was very different. One was insisting on keynesianism, with some teachers leaning towards marxism, and the other one was much more modered and balanced (with a couple problematic teachers, which were more more doing a sale pitch for neo-liberalism and/or Austria than an economy course). But perhaps the provision is better in your area than mine.

As someone with an hard science background, I have issues with the fact than it's so easy for teachers to veer into ideology.

Not necessarily an inaccurate characterization, but what students should realize by the end of their degree program is that macro planning and economic growth rely upon management of inter-related factors. Demand, supply, monetarism, psychology and expectation, political economy, growth aggregation, etc. These economic components generally have dominant schools of thought. Neo-Keynesian economics is mainly demand-side, for instance. Neoliberalism is generally psychological and expectation based.

Even if a professor constricts students to a single-minded approach, the students can still make some contribution to the system. Serious problems don't really arise until zealotry causes people to deny any shortcoming in their own preferred school or situational analysis.

[Simfan34]

No, since many universities aren't "teaching" economy anymore, it's just a long propaganda program for the economical school the economy department is liking the most.

Have you completed a degree in economics? I have two from different universities, and while I can say they didn't teach heterodoxy as gospel, they certainly didn't shy away from it, either.

This should be easy to remember: heterodoxy=heresy, and Chang should be the first up for the auto-da-fe.

[Deus Naturae]

Well, it would be nice to have people outside U.S. corporate influence have SOME say in our government than the current situation: someone impartial, that's about as far as I'd go.

Why would a foreigner be free from corporate influence?

U.S. corporate influence. Europeans have done better at handling that than we have, and I think if we have a first world ally in whose country we have a military presence, then they should get to vote in our elections. Britain (Air Force, I believe) Italy, Germany, and Australia, specifically.

I still don't get how a foreigner would be free from influence by US corporations. Couldn't most of the corporate lobbying techniques used on American politicians be used just as easily on a foreigner living in America?

As for your idea about giving foreigners votes because we have bases in their countries, I would have to strongly disagree with that. There are so many government policies other than military bases (which aren't likely to change regardless of who wins most elections) that I really don't think its fair to give people votes on that basis. Although, one positive effect of this idea is that it would probably increase political support for getting rid of useless bases first world countries considerably.