Remember Robin Hood? He was the robber who stole from the rich and gave a "portion" to the poor.. Did you ever hear what the percentage was? I did not think so. It is the same with Clinton. She claim to be stealing for the poor, but it seems that she ends up with a lot more of the money than the poor people who voted for her do. That is the point of this blog.
Years ago, I used to teach Decision Theory at a major university.. When you boil it all down, every decision turns out to be very simple. Most bad decision are not because the best alternative on the list was not chosen, but because the best alternative was not even on the list. Some times it is because the "objective function" was not properly defined. In this election, I think that we are having a serious problem with exactly what is the "objective function". I am going to give you some help on defining the "objective function". Without a clear "Objective function" how can you expect to make a decision that optimizes the "objective function"? Serious problem!!
Rather than continuing to focus of the sex life of the candidates we need to focus on the "objective function". For some reason, I don't think that the sex life of the candidates has anything to do with the "objective function" do you? I am going to repeat my "objective function" here if you have not read it in the past. The objective of our government and thus the President is to, "Keep us all safe and give us all a fair shot at attaining a good quality of life". That is a little longer than in the past, but it is basically the same. Notice the two key words? "Safe" and "Fair"?
Given the above objective function, which of the candidates do you think can get the job done? Who has the best past record in making the right decisions in the past? How many people have died due to bad decision in the past by each candidate? We all know that the future will be different from the past, so I contend that "experience" in a special area may not be the best preparation for the future. That is why I have always favored basic intellect over education and experience. in a close call situation.
I think that we all know that quality of life has almost a one to one relationship with wealth, So if you want a better quality of life, you need income and wealth. If you have read my notes on economics, I feel that there are several simple components, (1) Value added work, (2) Resource exploitation, (3) Governmental efficiency and (4) Social waste. The first two are positive elements and the last two are negative elements. We need to maximize the first two and minimize the last two. That is the job of the President.
Value added work. We have far too many people who are not in the labor force because they are being paid by our government not to work. We need to start to reduce this. Welfare is not a way of life and it should not be competitive with working.
Resource exploitation. You know my position on this one. We have a limited amount of natural resources and need to keep our population in check so as not to dilute it. Massive immigration is going to cancel out one of our biggest economic assets and make us "poorer". You know who to vote for on this one.
Government efficiency. Our government is far too big and is trying to do may things that states or individuals should be doing. My guess is that we could cut the size of our government at all levels by at least 25%. We did more than that on our military under Obama and he wasted the savings on more welfare.
Social waste. This is law and order, completing high school, not getting knocked up out of wedlock and not doing drugs or killing each other. The fact that so many of our citizens are in jail is a good indicator of this basic problem. We are all in this together and we all need to start acting like it. Now, who do you think is the best candidate for "law and order"?
Advice, think about your grand kids before you vote!
Rather than continuing to focus of the sex life of the candidates we need to focus on the "objective function". For some reason, I don't think that the sex life of the candidates has anything to do with the "objective function" do you? I am going to repeat my "objective function" here if you have not read it in the past. The objective of our government and thus the President is to, "Keep us all safe and give us all a fair shot at attaining a good quality of life". That is a little longer than in the past, but it is basically the same. Notice the two key words? "Safe" and "Fair"?
Given the above objective function, which of the candidates do you think can get the job done? Who has the best past record in making the right decisions in the past? How many people have died due to bad decision in the past by each candidate? We all know that the future will be different from the past, so I contend that "experience" in a special area may not be the best preparation for the future. That is why I have always favored basic intellect over education and experience. in a close call situation.
I think that we all know that quality of life has almost a one to one relationship with wealth, So if you want a better quality of life, you need income and wealth. If you have read my notes on economics, I feel that there are several simple components, (1) Value added work, (2) Resource exploitation, (3) Governmental efficiency and (4) Social waste. The first two are positive elements and the last two are negative elements. We need to maximize the first two and minimize the last two. That is the job of the President.
Value added work. We have far too many people who are not in the labor force because they are being paid by our government not to work. We need to start to reduce this. Welfare is not a way of life and it should not be competitive with working.
Resource exploitation. You know my position on this one. We have a limited amount of natural resources and need to keep our population in check so as not to dilute it. Massive immigration is going to cancel out one of our biggest economic assets and make us "poorer". You know who to vote for on this one.
Government efficiency. Our government is far too big and is trying to do may things that states or individuals should be doing. My guess is that we could cut the size of our government at all levels by at least 25%. We did more than that on our military under Obama and he wasted the savings on more welfare.
Social waste. This is law and order, completing high school, not getting knocked up out of wedlock and not doing drugs or killing each other. The fact that so many of our citizens are in jail is a good indicator of this basic problem. We are all in this together and we all need to start acting like it. Now, who do you think is the best candidate for "law and order"?
Advice, think about your grand kids before you vote!
