Presidential elections have everything to do with economics. Besides the obvious things like the massive amount of money each participant spends, and the hundreds of campaign staffers that are out of work at the end; every president-hopeful carries within some plan or idea of how our economy should be run. Thus, when people elect a certain individual they are basically voicing their economic opinion.
It seems after this past election that the majority of voting individuals within our fine country favor a Keynesian model for the economy. Whether or not they fully realize it, doesn’t matter, it is what they voted for. For the next four years, our country is going to be run by one of the staunchest supporters of the Keynesian theory. Although I’ve never actually hear president Obama mention Keynes’ name, I don’t think anybody would disagree that Obama favors a Keynesian style for economy. In essences, Keynes believed in trickle-down economics, the idea that government spending leads to increased consumer spending, ultimately boosting GDP.
I don’t agree with this economic theory at all, I’d much rather implement a system of bottom-up economics. This style of economics aims to put more cash in the consumer’s hands by cutting taxes and government spending. This mode of thinking was defeated in the past election. It is obvious that many millions of people enjoy the various social welfare programs our government provides, and as such will almost always vote for the candidate who promises not to cut funding to said programs.
Trickle-down economics is immensely popular in our society. I fear that as long as millions of Americans accept governmental handouts and vote in favor of them, Keynesian theories will always prevail at the polling stations. On a lighter note, I'm fairly confident that everyone voted for Obama because he gave America the "Obamaphone" (reference the YouTube video).