With all the talk by politicians about their economic policies, it is very difficult for the average voter to make any sense of what is best for them and the country. This blog will try to shed some new light on the subject
First off, no single policy will ever be best for everyone. Think about it. We have over 325 million people in the USA and no two are exactly the same. What I propose is that that we divide the USA into three groups and then test the political policies against these three groups. My groups are by family income and are the top, middle and bottom. Easy, right?
I think that both of our political parties want close to the same thing, but neither can ever attain their objective because it is an "impossible" goal. They both want all three groups to have a higher family income. They would also want the top,middle third to have more too. Since this is "not" possible, both parties can expect something less. That less is what I will try to explain
Like any system, we have to start from where we are now! We can't start with a sheet of plain white paper. Currently the median family income is about $60,000 while there is a wide spread between the top third and the bottom third. The problem is that these three groups are not independent. Action on on group affects the others and we have to realize that when we propose a new policy.
I think that it might be possible to raise the lower third while lowering the top third, but in the process I think it would lower the middle third too. I think this would be the affect of the Democratic economic policies and I feel it would be "bad". It is a case of the "medicine being worse than the disease". The Republican economic policy is not perfect either. I think that it would raise the middle third and the top third, but have only minor impact on the bottom third.
Now we are left with which policy is "best"? I think that any policy by the Democratic party that raises the family income of the lower third is at the expense of lowering the median family income of both the middle and upper third. The Republican policy will raise the middle family income and the upper family income while only having a modest positive impact on the the lower third family income. On this basis, I think that it is clear that the Republican economic policy is the best one between two that are not perfect. Only a fool would hold out for an impossible perfect policy!
A final point about my three groups. Isn't it the "people" in the groups that we should be thinking about? Realize that the "people" in these groups are not static. People are moving up and down in the groups all the time. Isn't it a lot more significant how individual people moving within the groups? Why don't we have a good statistic of the "movement"? If you are in the lower group and are "not" moving, I don't think you would be happy, but if you were moving up, you would be happy. When the average pay for a "group" is going up by 3%, the average individual in that group is actually going up at more than 3%. Isn't that what we should be looking at?
First off, no single policy will ever be best for everyone. Think about it. We have over 325 million people in the USA and no two are exactly the same. What I propose is that that we divide the USA into three groups and then test the political policies against these three groups. My groups are by family income and are the top, middle and bottom. Easy, right?
I think that both of our political parties want close to the same thing, but neither can ever attain their objective because it is an "impossible" goal. They both want all three groups to have a higher family income. They would also want the top,middle third to have more too. Since this is "not" possible, both parties can expect something less. That less is what I will try to explain
Like any system, we have to start from where we are now! We can't start with a sheet of plain white paper. Currently the median family income is about $60,000 while there is a wide spread between the top third and the bottom third. The problem is that these three groups are not independent. Action on on group affects the others and we have to realize that when we propose a new policy.
I think that it might be possible to raise the lower third while lowering the top third, but in the process I think it would lower the middle third too. I think this would be the affect of the Democratic economic policies and I feel it would be "bad". It is a case of the "medicine being worse than the disease". The Republican economic policy is not perfect either. I think that it would raise the middle third and the top third, but have only minor impact on the bottom third.
Now we are left with which policy is "best"? I think that any policy by the Democratic party that raises the family income of the lower third is at the expense of lowering the median family income of both the middle and upper third. The Republican policy will raise the middle family income and the upper family income while only having a modest positive impact on the the lower third family income. On this basis, I think that it is clear that the Republican economic policy is the best one between two that are not perfect. Only a fool would hold out for an impossible perfect policy!
A final point about my three groups. Isn't it the "people" in the groups that we should be thinking about? Realize that the "people" in these groups are not static. People are moving up and down in the groups all the time. Isn't it a lot more significant how individual people moving within the groups? Why don't we have a good statistic of the "movement"? If you are in the lower group and are "not" moving, I don't think you would be happy, but if you were moving up, you would be happy. When the average pay for a "group" is going up by 3%, the average individual in that group is actually going up at more than 3%. Isn't that what we should be looking at?
