David Boaz and Bernie Sanders are very different in terms of their political views. Boaz has libertarian outlook and argues that government should not hamper the work of the free marketas a self-organizing entity, whereas Sanders is a democratic socialist who believes that government should help the country level out inequality. However, they both agree that when the federal government applies its power to bailing out corporations and national banks, it does a disservice to society. Although Boaz and Sanders are both unanimous that the Fed’s bailout of failing corporations robs common people of the money that could have been used to benefit society, they disagree on the issues of unemployment and taxation, and Boaz’s critiques looks more convincing because he grounds it on well-presented explanations and examples.
Boaz argues that the intrusion of government should be minimal and that the market is able to self-regulate primarily because it is too complex to be governed (Boaz 219). Not everything that happens on the market does requires the government’s assistance. A rise in unemployment signals that unemployed people should find other jobs, adjust to the demands of the market, and regard the unemployment as an opportunity for changes. Boaz’s main idea is that it is “backward” to believe that an economy has to create jobs whereas, in fact, the point is to “produce things that people want” (Boaz 214). Furthermore, Boaz regards taxation as a “discourage” both for employees and investors saying that taxation generally “inhibits the vital function of entrepreneurship” (Boaz 220). He argues that “taxes always have different effects on different economic actors”; when important players are taxed, it frightens off investors (Boaz 220). As a result, taxes can contribute to unemployment.
In contrast, Sanders is appalled to see the levels of unemployment in the country. Since many jobs are given to outsourcing to low-wage countries, it is clear that American employees are not competitive against them. Citing an example with
However, both Sanders and Boaz agree that the federal government bailout of large corporations has negative repercussions for the country. Sanders is indignant to see huge business accepting obviously unnecessary help from the government whereas common Americans lose their jobs and houses being not able to pay off their loans. Similarly, Boaz calls it a fallacy when people argue that some negative events, such as recession, are able to create new jobs and opportunities. He says that while mass media may rejoice at some companies “staying in business”, they forget that there are unseen “homes that weren’t built, the businesses that weren’t expanded, with the money that other people couldn’t borrow because the government directed scarce savings to an unsuccessful corporation” (Boaz 235).
Get Extended Revision
Get Order Proofread by Editor
Get SMS Notifications
PDF Plagiarism Report
Get Order Prepared by Top 10 Writers
Get VIP Support
VIP Services package 20% OFF
Comparing the two critiques, Boaz’s one looks more convincing because his reasons are well-argued, he relies on facts and offers solutions. Sanders’ speech sounds emotional and agitated. His choice of examples and explanations verges on hysterical, whereas Boaz’s arguments are consistent and well-established. Sanders recounts the current problems of
In conclusion, Boaz and Sanders presented their critiques of the American economy with each noticing negative occurrences there. Boaz’s critique is more complex and all-encompassing. He offers solutions and explains causes. Meanwhile, Sanders’ critique sounds too emotional and lacks well-grounded solutions. Sanders is influenced by socialistic ideas of financial equality and expects the government to help in it. Boaz’s viewpoint is more realistic and reflects his libertarian stance on things.