A Critical Look at Politics Influencing the Economy: What We Don’t Know

Follow the money they say, and that’s precisely what big business does with government. Money greases the wheels for policymakers through lobby groups and special interests. But how is money responsible for putting lawmakers in place and keeping them there? Unbeknownst to many, the entrenched economic and political systems – the deep state and the donors are mighty forces.

Their symbiotic relationship has created a political economy to push an agenda for the left or the right. Whether it’s socialism, capitalism, or communism, there’s no denying the existence of a political economy. Let’s take a critical look at this phenomenon.  The economy is a major factor in determining which political party will win any given election. Often, the party that can promise more economic growth and job creation tends to emerge victorious.

A Critical Look at Politics Influencing the Economy What We Don’t Know
A Critical Look at Politics Influencing the Economy What We Don’t Know

Dangling the Carrot for Voters

The ability of the government to provide fiscal stimulus or create incentives for investors also plays an important role in swaying public opinion towards one particular party over another. At the same time, politicians use economic policies to gain votes from different sectors of society. This means that their decisions are often influenced by what they think people want rather than what is most economically sound or beneficial for everyone in the long run. For example, tax cuts may be proposed even though it would lead to increased budget deficits, or subsidies might be given out even when there aren’t enough resources to fund them adequately.

The Major Political Economies

The four main types of political economy are Free Market Capitalism, State Capitalism, Mixed Economy, and Socialism.

  • Free market capitalism is based on the idea that markets should be unregulated and left to their own devices. This system allows individuals to pursue economic opportunities without interference from the government. It also encourages competition between businesses, leading to innovation and efficiency gains in production processes. The downside of this system is that it can create unequal outcomes due to people having different levels of access to resources or capital investment opportunities.
  • State capitalism involves the government taking a more active role in managing the economy by intervening in areas such as taxation, regulation, and public services provision – aiming towards achieving certain social goals (such as reducing poverty). This system has been adopted by countries like China, where it has had some success. Still, criticism remains regarding its ability to provide long-term stability or equitable distribution of wealth among citizens.
  • Mixed economies combine elements from free market capitalism and state capitalism systems, allowing private sector companies to coexist alongside state-owned enterprises while subjecting them to various regulations designed for consumer protection or environmental standards enforcement purposes. This type of system is seen most often in Western Europe, where governments have tried striking a balance between encouraging entrepreneurship while maintaining social safety nets for those unable to work due to illness or other reasons beyond their control.
  • Finally, socialism focuses primarily on equality above all else – meaning that private property owners would be restricted (but allowed) to redistribute wealth among society’s members equally (or according to need). While this approach could potentially reduce inequality significantly over time, critics argue that it would stifle incentives for innovation since there would no longer be any rewards associated with hard work or risk-taking investments made by entrepreneurs trying to start a new business and venture out into uncharted territory economically speaking.

Given the pros and cons associated with each approach described above, it ultimately comes down to personal preference when deciding which one best fits United States’ needs in the future into the future; however, many economists believe mixed economies tend to offer greater stability than others because they allow countries take advantage both public sector intervention as well private sector growth potential simultaneously – thus creating an environment conducive towards sustainable development over long periods time without sacrificing too much liberty along the way either.

The Impact of Politics on Monetary Decision Making

Furthermore, politics has been known to influence monetary policy decisions by central banks and other financial institutions, such as how much interest rates should be set and whether quantitative easing should occur. In some cases, these decisions have led to serious consequences such as massive inflation due to excess money printing and reckless borrowing on behalf of governments trying desperately to stay afloat during difficult economic times.

Politics also affects how businesses operate within certain countries since regulations change frequently depending on who’s in power at any given moment (for instance, regarding labor laws). Consequently, companies must adjust their strategies accordingly if they want to remain competitive while still complying with all legal requirements laid down by government officials – something which could prove costly if not done correctly.

Promises Kept & Promises Broken

When politicians make promises to the electorate ahead of elections, they are often attempting to appeal to certain segments of society in order to gain votes. This can include making pledges on controversial issues such as immigration, health care or taxes which would have a direct impact on the economy. For example, a pledge made by one party might be for lower taxes for businesses which could incentivise them to invest more and create jobs – thus boosting economic growth. Or an opposing party might promise higher taxes for the wealthy which would free up funds and enable public services expansion – also helping spur economic activity.

These conflicting policies can lead to ‘stop-start’ economics where governments change their plans frequently depending on who is in power at any given moment – leading to uncertainty among investors and business owners regarding future prospects. This volatility can cause companies to delay investments until there is more clarity from government officials about what policy changes are likely in the near term, resulting in slower economic growth overall due to reduced investment spending.

How to Make Heads or Tails of Politically-Motivated Policies?

It’s clear then that politics and economics are very closely intertwined; both serve as powerful tools for those willing to manipulate them for personal gain, either through winning elections or gaining subsidies from taxpayers’ money without properly considering the potential costs of actions taken now versus benefits gained later on down the line. Therefore, it is up to us citizens to use our voting rights wisely to ensure our voices are heard when it comes to making important economic decisions that affect us all.

At the same time, some politicians may attempt use short-term electoral gains as justification for risky strategies, others may take a longer view by putting together comprehensive plans designed with sustainable development goals in mind instead. Ultimately, however, power must reside with citizens to decide which path their country should take going forward.

Marie Foster
Marie Foster
Marie Foster is a reporter based in UK. Marie has also worked as a columnist for the various news sites.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here