Changes

}}

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump faced off on Monday night in the first of the 2016 Presidential Debates. Though the candidates discussed a variety of important topics, the candidates spent more time answering questions about The Economy than any other topic [https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/3G0kRoy9dMV]. Even though the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation have been cited as one of the best sources of hope for revitalizing the economy [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123], virtually no air time was devoted to the candidates' policies on these topics. In fact, of the 28 minutes and 12 seconds spent discussing the U.S. Economy [https://www.graphiq.com/vlp/3G0kRoy9dMV], the candidates almost exclusively focused on trade and manufacturing sectors [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/27/495693013/episode-726-terms-of-the-debate]. Interestingly, only 9% of the labor market is comprised of jobs in manufacturing; most jobs involve a service component of some kind (i.e. healthcare or teaching) [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/27/495693013/episode-726-terms-of-the-debate]. How can we account for the overrepresentation of time devoted to fixing the economy through revitalizing the manufacturing sectors? This division of air time certainly doesn't stem from ignorance of other solutions; Clinton has demonstrated her commitment to entrepreneurship and innovation through her support of various policy proposals [http://mcnair.bakerinstitute.org/blog/clintonkaine-and-entrepreneurship-2/] and Trump's record as businessman [http://mcnair.bakerinstitute.org/blog/trumppence-and-entrepreneurship/] each seem to lend themselves to a more substantive discussion, at a minimum, on their experiences in these fields. Given the profound impact entrepreneurship and innovation will have on the U.S. economy over the next four years, what do the candidates' performances in the debate say about the role of entrepreneurship and innovation in their vision for the United States' economic future?

Though a few shots were fired back and forth throughout the debate, the candidates said very little in the way of substantive economic policy actions they would take in the fields of entrepreneurship and innovation. This is important because there is substantial evidence which has found that investment and development in these fields is key to the country's twenty-first century economic growth. [http://www2.itif.org/2016-clinton-vs-trump.pdf?_ga=1.265865103.1823216071.1474990123] [http://fortune.com/2016/09/25/presidential-debate-clinton-trump/] Media analysts attribute the air time devoted to the manufacturing sector as a nod to the United States's idyllic past, the good old days, if you will. [http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/09/27/495693013/episode-726-terms-of-the-debate] As future debates unfold, hopefully the candidates will devote substantive time to discussing economic policy specific to entrepreneurship and innovation, and move from reminiscing about the past to reinventing our country's economic future.