What if our economy worked like our political system?
Only two major companies would provide any particular product for sale. But don’t worry — we’d still have a solid choice between “This Product Is Obnoxious” and “I Don’t Trust This Product.”
Those two companies would create a non-profit entity — a Commission on Product Debates — empowered to determine the rules under which any upstart company could present its “third-choice” product to consumers.
That Commission would prevent any third-choice product from standing on the marketplace stage where consumers could compare it face-to-face with the two established choices . . . until it captured 15 percent of the market.
Last week, in real life, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that its upcoming September 26th debate would feature only Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Neither Libertarian Gary Johnson, averaging 8.4 percent in the five commission-approved polls, nor Dr. Jill Stein, the Green, at 3.2 percent, met the 15 percent threshold set by the Commission.
Forget that polls also show nearly two-thirds of consumers — er, voters, want Johnson and Stein in the debates. You can’t win ’em all.
Or any at all . . . if you can’t take your product to market. And the presidential debates are an essential space in today’s political marketplace.
No third-party or independent presidential candidate has been allowed on that debate stage since Ross Perot qualified in 1992, at the time polling at 8 percent — below Johnson’s current percentage.
That was before the Commission required a polling threshold. After those debates, one in five Americans voted for Perot on Election Day.
Duopolies do not serve us well. They cannot. That is not even their aim.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
2 replies on “The Two-Product Economic System”
Common nonsense. Paul,you are losing the respect of many followers. You are dying on the cross. Forsake changing the direction of our country, just flush the important mission for the sake of selfish pride. Thought you saw and worked for the bigger picture.
GOODBYE
Jim Hays — It appears we see the big picture differently in this case. The long-term impact of allowing a private organization to limit our choices in this way is ugly.
I suspect we also disagree about the lesser-ness of Mr. Trump as a lesser evil.
And obviously, what respect would I have for myself if I altered my honest view of the situation to curry favor or respect with friends and fellow patriots like youself.
You are of course free to say, “Goodbye.” And I understand. But I think we continue to have much more in common politically than we have disagreement, so I hope you’ll stay and keep giving me what for. And if you must go, I’ll say, “Hope to see you soon.”