It is a debate between those who are hopeful and the hopeless. It is between perspectives, the cliché half-full glass versus the half-empty. If we input the political element deeply embedded within every argument these days, then it is a debate between those committed to recover against those who would catalyze the fall of the administration on the final full fiscal year before campaigning for 2022. For all intents and purposes, this year begins the last critical chance to either continue with a recovery or reinstall the kind of elitism that predicated the need for the leadership we have today.
As we saw in the United States and as we know only too well in our own democracy, a political campaign period can be so vicious, not only against battling protagonists, but more important, against truth. When politicians speak, the sweetest promises and motherhood statements come out of one opening, while behind, like buses at EDSA, when engines are throttled up, they expel gaseous farts.
Since our realities are not only more complex but apparently more mosaic with a crazy-cut collection of swatches of bungled protocols amid productive economic management from people with the right stuff, by focusing on economic issues we are able to reduce a fair amount of iffy uncertainties. At the end of the day, we might determine whether we would be justified in feeling good or, as some want, fall into their pits of destitution as predicates for 2022.
As we finally toss in the last handful of dirt over the coffin of 2020, gradually lowering 2020 six feet into the ground hoping never to have to exhume it, there are two recently polled percentages, measured at different times on totally different subject matters that, perhaps in a strange and revealing way, eloquently explain one another. We must admit, it is a matter of argumentum non sequitur. But, ironically, given a wider landscape, each mutually validates the other and debunks most of what critics insist on capping 2020 with.
The first, taken some weeks prior to the Yuletide season, is the 92 percent approval rating of the President that when margins of error are added result in nearly unanimous support despite the negativity that an elitist few constantly rake in mainstream media.
One example is how, to show the great inequity and disparity between an elitist celebration of Christ’s humble birth in a manger, one septuagenarian anti-administration economist described her typical early morning breakfast coming from a Misa de Gallo as served over Lalique and Waterford china.
From such a preface, she then detailed the economic sufferings of the rest of us — the rest who eat from cardboard tumblers instant noodles forked with disposable utensils and sipped over rigged brims.
Economists have devised a statistic just to measure what she peddles as truth. The misery index is simply the sum of seasonally adjusted unemployment plus inflation. It is a two-addend formula that ignores a legion of complex inputs and yet economists label it a reality index and from it declare misery. Unfortunately for 2020, while unemployment soared, inflation was totally controlled.
Now add the survey results that declare 92 percent are upbeat, hopeful and look forward to 2021. Coincidentally, it is a mirror image of the government’s 92 percent approval rating.
So, where is the misery there? Anti-government economists would do well to check their Lalique and Waterford bone china for serious cracks.