There are several debates in which the two presidential aspirants have been questioned on how they would address economic matters, which are depressing the nation. A raging political battle between Governor Romney and president Barrack has led to interviews which are geared towards generating answers to solve the current economic crisis in the world. According to Aikens’ article, the economic crisis can be solved through government intervention and control of the market to ensure that there is stability in a nation which is capitalistic (Aikins, 2009). This paper explores the response of the two presidential aspirants on issues related to Aikens’ article and how similar they are.
President Barrack suggests that the country can increase its stability through controlling the country’s energy. “ We've got to control our own energy, you know, not only oil and natural gas, which we've been investing in, but also we've got to make sure we're building the energy sources of the future, not just thinking about next year, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now”. This statement shows how Obama perceives government intervention. He also suggests that the country needs to invest in solar and wind efficient cars to help in energy conservation. He emphasizes on the need of creating an elaborate education system in which everyone is entitled to the best education and is able to access the student’s loan. These efforts are centered to the government and thus it plays its role of intervention.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Governor Romney is not impressed by president Barrack’s stewardship. He argues that Obama’s approach to leadership is not the best way to solve the economic crisis which the country is facing. He says that government intervention has not done anything to boost the level of employment. He says it was 7.8% and it is still the same. “Well, what you're seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job, and a lot of them” in this statement Romney suggests that government intervention has not helped the country in the last four years.
According to Aikens’ article, a free market economy offers more benefits as opposed to one which is controlled. In a market where there is free flow of goods and services, there is competition and the consumer has information to select the best products. The government has to play a role in ensuring there is a free market, thus contributing to equal wealth distribution in the country (Aikins, 2009). Obama argues that he tried to create such a market so that the country could spring back to its initial position.
President Barrack points out the effort the government put in to increase oil production, coal production and also increase in coal employment. He has increased use of modern methods of fuel conservation to by overseeing the production of fuel efficient cars which consume less fuel. This effort has tremendously decreased the expenses that were incurred in oil importation. Less oil is imported and thus less revenue is spent on oil. This shows the importance of government intervention to the market (Washingtonpost.com, 2012).
Mitt Romney suggests that the only way to help the country is to cut on government intervention. There is a clear distinction between Obama’s view and that of Romney. They have different views on how to steer the nation towards achieving economic stability. Romney’s approach is socialistic while that of Obama is capitalistic. These views can be related to Aikens’ article.
In conclusion, it is evident that there is a conflict of interest between Obama and Romney. Obama has an idea of a capitalistic government which has a free market and government intervention is upheld. On the other hand, Romney opposes Obama’s view and suggests the opposite. He argues that Obama has not made any significant changes in solving America’s problems. Both their views are elaborated in Aikens which tries to draw the differences in both approaches.