Since the 1800â€™s, the politics have been the same but some voters have remained clueless of what each candidate had been standing up for.
This year, strong politicians such as Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, have been compared to venture capitalists and human capitalists. On one hand, their philosophical views are quite similar to these descriptions but on the other, it remains questionable if itâ€™s relatively right.
So what are the differences between these two?
By definition, a human capitalist is someone who invests more for the improvement of a personâ€™s skills, hence believes that through these improvements, the quality of production of the people will be better. While a venture capitalist is someone who provides capitals for small companies who want to expand or who are just starting up and in return expect higher returns in the businessâ€™ growth.
The programs of the two candidates have exhibited its definition. Romney had stood up as a venture capitalist, coming out as an investor who sought the importance of having more entrepreneurs in the country. While Obama stood out as a human capitalists, who believes in investing in people because of their potential and gave importance to education, health care and infrastructure.
This year has been known to have the highest rate of income tax and Romney could be right that it needs to be lowered, but should be in very careful amounts. In 2001, crisis came to the U.S. even with low tax rates. Manufacturing companies did not invest more, which brought no increase in job opportunities. I guess the republicans became too idealistic, where the leaders have only but hope for the community to self-correct.
Obamaâ€™s answer could have been attractive to this yearâ€™s crisis, as taxes are budgeted to be invested in plant, equipment, research, development and work force training. But after the tax creditâ€™s expiration, no renewal was yet seen.
â€śRepublicans have the view that if you cut taxes and donâ€™t tie it to anything specific, you can still get real domestic development, but the last decade proves otherwise,â€ť said Rob Atkinson, from the nonpartisan Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
Both parties could have been right if it were in the right place. As Atkinson would have advised, it is right to decrease taxes for businesses but a bargain must be implemented where businesses are drawn to invest in more for machines, trainings and R&D.
Both parties definitely has a point but if you were to choose, which one do you think is the right tool?