Asking the wrong question can avoid having to deal with difficult answers. Nowhere is this technique more useful than in the world of politics.
A prime example has to do with seeking a solution to the problem of the current economic malaise (Sorry Jimmy). We have an eight year hitch in our economic giddyap and nothing we’ve done, or propose to do, seems destined to get our horse back on track.
The ever recurring wrong question is, what is too big to fail and what to do about it. Of course, we’re talking about banks and their assumed role when our economic giddyap threw a shoe and a lot of folks lost their jobs and homes. This assumes that greedy lenders and stupid buyers were the root cause and we fixed that with Dodd-Frank so that not many people can qualify for home loans.
With the housing market level stuck at pre-millennium levels, the durable goods segment of the consumer economy has no chance of recovery resulting in anemic job prospects for everyone. Obamacare helped alleviate that by making full time employment even more expensive for the people who create jobs resulting in part time work becoming a realistic career choice. It also had the advantage of keeping unemployment stats at mainstream media laudable levels.
Asking the wrong question took the heat off of this administration’s enviro-buddies who have created the biggest swindle in human history – man made climate change resulting in severely limiting development of our own abundant cheap energy resources.
When addressing our economic plunge in 2008, the right question is, what caused it? The graph below makes the answer abundantly clear. Ever increasing crude oil prices, set by the whims of OPEC, resulted in a $642 per month increase in total energy costs for a family of four when comparing the last four years of Bush 43 with the last four years of Clinton.
Source of the data is the U.S. Energy Department and the U.S. Commerce Department.
The graph relates consumer spending to crude oil pricing. It illustrates the dramatic plunge in consumer spending caused by the spike in energy costs quantified by the difference between actual spending and what it would have been projecting the normal increase experienced in prior years.
With fewer goods and services being purchased, fewer people were needed to produce these goods and services. Jobs lost was calculated by multiplying the per capita spending by the U.S. population and dividing by an average annual salary of $40,000 and dividing that figure by two under the assumption that labor is half the cost of production. Since many goods and services are imported, the jobs lost is not restricted to U.S. employment.
Housing was an effect, not a cause.
Purveyors of the climate change stuff refuse to discuss it saying it’s settled science. Anyone who prefers to decide for themselves can “Google” ‘climate change dissent’. At the instance that this was written, it produced 722,000 results.
Asking the wrong question has affected the economic well being of millions and millions of people around the globe.