Economic Understanding should be Acquired Before Exercising Union/Voting Powers

Thanks to Con for his arguments. My opponent has given me many things to think about. Con has misconstrued my arguments. I never argued that economists are better at handling the economy, nor did I argue that economic matters should be put solely in the hands of an “economic elite”. Is a person who passed the literacy test a master of linguistics? What I am asking for is something that can be easily attainable by all citizens. Is the understanding of the difference between debt and deficit so difficult that it is limited to a handful of American people? Of course not. This is something that can and should be attained by all Americans. As most of my opponent’s arguments refutes my “claim” was “economists are better at handling the economy than people without their professional training”, most of his arguments are effectively negated. In response to “It ain't just the economy, stupid” “My opponent's proposal, in short, is contrary to the primary tenet of democracy.” I don’t see how that is so, especially since my proposal can be inclusive to all Americans. Joseph E. Stieglitz, in his book the “The Price of Inequality”, wrote that even the poorest Americans owned television sets. Surely these people have the means to educate themselves on the basis of financial literacy, whether this is done by borrowing a book from the library, buying a book from the local book store, going on free educational websites such as Khan Academy (they have a section dedicated to basic economics). Even if they couldn’t, the government could always incorporate basic financial/economic literacy programs into school curriculum.The Canadian Centre for Financial Literacy has already launched programs promoting financial literacy for low income people. As my opponent wrote: “Any farmer will tell you you can't promise someone five bushels of wheat where you only reap three, and any housewife will tell you a household can't be habitually run by borrowing money”. So Con, by stating that my proposal is more or less “common sense”, also agrees that my proposal is inclusive. And as I pointed out earlier, there are many ways for even the poorest people to become educated to financial literacy. But the fact is, while this “common sense” is easily attainable, many people either lack it or choose to ignore it. The average credit card debt for Americans is $15 480 dollars. It seems that many Americans feel that they can conjure money out of thin air. The average mortgage debt is $156 474 dollars, while the median income is $51 017. By making financial/economic understanding mandatory for all voters/citizens, we could not only allow society to progress better but also help individuals gain a better life by not perpetually being in debt. Thus driving down the inequality that Con mentioned in his argument. “In fact, if we were to take Pro's argument to the extreme, we could say that we ought to do away with popular elections altogether, and have only those people participate who are experts on the range of subjects the political system addresses.” This is an invalid argument. I never argued that only people who are experts participate in voting. I simply argued for people who have a basic proficiency in economics to be able to vote. No one is making claims that Canada will descend into communism simply because it is socialistic country, or that America will one day become a fascist country simply because it is right wing. Similarly, I could take Con’s argument to the extreme and say that we should allow even seven year olds to vote, which would be ridiculous for obvious reasons. Part of the reason we do not allow children to vote because they do not understand even the basics of how the world works. Similarly, should we allow adults who are as ignorant as they were when they were young to vote as well? “Even an economic matter such as the proposed establishment of a fiscal as well as a monetary union in the EU affects the non-economic matter of sovereignty and national pride so deeply that it would be offensive to put it exclusively in the hands of an economic elite.” Again, I never argued that the decision should be put in the hands of an economic elite. I simply argued that everyone should have a basic understanding of financial/economic literacy. In response to “Are Union leaders necessarily foolish?” “Cesar Chávez did not need to know about the macroeconomic implication of migratory fluxes to know that migrant workers were being exploited, and he did a wonderful job defending their interests by founding the United Farm Workers association.” Under my proposition, Cesar Chavez would not have been excluded. The “macroeconomic implication of migratory flux” is obviously not within my definition of economics 101. The problem, as I pointed out in the previous round, isn’t that people don’t understand economic jargon, but that they don’t even know how much they are in debt. Cesar Chavez would have known what debt was, as he was exposed to this in his early life. His father could not pay the interest on the loan of his house and it was sold back to its original owner. “Lech Walesa was not an economist but an electrician, and yet he was more than capable of understanding that the communist regime was harmful to the interests and rights of workers, and organized an effective defence in his union” Thanks to Con for defending my proposition. My opponent has once again proved that you don’t need to be an economist to understand economics 101. If Mr. Walesea was more than capable of understanding that the communist regime was harmful to the interest and rights of workers, I’m sure that he probably had a pretty solid understanding of the workings of economy. Again, I am not arguing that only economists should be able to vote. Con has not been able to prove that under my proposal, “these fine labor leader would have been lost”. In response to “Economists and the deficit” I did not argue that only economists are able to vote. Additionally, while economics is a soft science, the basis of economics are pretty straightforward. For instance, overspending must be financed by borrowing, and this is unsustainable. Lower taxes accompanied by higher government spending will probably mean borrowing. Creditors will not allow people to continue borrowing money indefinitely, eventually they will begin to put restrictions on the debtor (e.g. austerity measures). Thus my opponent comment that my proposal has little predictive value is not correct. “Only that it will be explained in language even more arcane and separate from the general population who will still suffer the consequences.” Is the difference between debt and deficit really that difficult to understand? Once again, In conclusion, making basic economic understanding and financial literacy a prerequisite for voting/exercising union powers can provide several important benefits while keeping the inclusiveness of the current democratic system: The first is that politicians will be less able to make “outrageous” promises, such as lower taxes and better welfare, that would simultaneously damage the prospects of society as well as the welfare of future generations (The most obvious example would be that the people of Generations X and later generations would most likely not get their pensions). The second important benefit is that it can increase the number of people in our country that are financially literate. Families will, in turn, have less debt. A 2008 Harvard/Dartmouth study showed that financial literacy is the first essential step in building wealth. Finally, this will also enable union leaders make rational decisions, and not jeopardize the well-being of the workers in the union. Thanks to my opponent for the debate. http://www.nerdwallet.com... https://www.google.ca... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca... Joseph Stieglitz’s book: The Price of Inequality