Hillary Clinton’s theme is emerging and it is short and simple.
“The next president should work to grow the economy, increase upward mobility, and decrease inequality.”
Yep, now let’s talk about that. Here is Hillary’s list.
- Grow the economy
- Increase upward mobility
- Decrease inequality
In a sustainable economic paradigm, economic growth may or may not be a prerequisite. Here is the reason why.
The purpose of the President and U.S. government is to optimize return on national resources. If you accept that as being the highest order of national purpose, then that means defining and maintaining an ideal mix of population size and characteristics as a ratio to available resources. That need not always translate into growing the economy. If population size and characteristics is optimal, than growth may not be necessary.
Of course, it may be desirable to sustain population size to a certain limit while concurrently improving the characteristics as defined by skill, knowledge, experience, and proficiency to achieve superior performance in the global economy.
So, the question is, do you truly mean that it is necessary to grow the economy?
- What should be the optimum size of the U.S. population?
- Where do we stand with regard to that limit?
- What should be America’s competitive profile to achieve competitive economic performance superiority?
- Where do we stand?
- What will be effect from making 12 million illegal immigrants legal citizens?
- What resource commitment is required to advance the level of the general population to the required level of characteristics and performance?
As for the second item, upward mobility, leaping to this topic without considering other priority issues would be a misstep. For instance, what is the current rate of upward mobility? Since the private sector is the source for upward mobility in the commercial workforce, what is needed to motivate entrepreneurs to increase the rate of invention, innovation, and new product and new business unit development?
Missing in Hillary’s song is the dark deep note that there is great economic disparity. Wealth is skewed to radical extreme and that has depleted the American Middle Class. That condition has stifled upward mobility. Income disparity results in inequality since income translates to power as established by the U.S. Supreme Court supporting unlimited campaign contributions and equating corporations with people.
So, how will you decrease inequality?
For one thing, would you have the number of members of congress include 1 woman for every man, and would you apply that to court appointments, meaning that for every male appointee their must be a female? You see, gender parity is a simple matter of changing the rules?
Would you require that wealthy persons invest more rigorously in opportunities that create jobs in America?
The lyrics need more work before setting that score to campaign music.