No. of Recommendations: 10
Voters don't know what the inflation rate was 4 years ago. Answer: it's just about what it is now.-------------------------
Yup. How many Americans kvetch about the price of gas today when they fill up their giant gas guzzling SUV and pay $2.99 in 2024? How many wish they could be magically transported back to the good ol' 1970s when gas was $0.69/gallon?
Here's an interesting exercise in financial literacy. "Use the google" and find the average price of gasoline at a point where you think things were the worst in the 1970s. Say 1978. Answer? $0.69/gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that gasoline that cost you $0.69 in 1978 would now equate to $3.33. Prices obviously vary across the country based on proximity to refineries and state taxes but I just filled up for $2.77. To be fair, the F-150 that cost an average of $4729 in 1978 now should cost $22,795. The fact that typical F-150 prices actually range from $36,00 to $85,000 reflect some other dynamics beyond mere inflation are involved. Some are safety related, some are emmisions related but many could be due to the fact that customers now seem to expect an arena-worthy stereo system, an engine that can tow 11,200 pounds AND accelerate from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds but those distortions are not applicable to perceptions of the larger economy.
Try it yourself here with the cost of your favorite time traveling indicator of now verus the good ol' days:
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-p...The idea that the average undecided voter is some highly discerning, hard-nosed, genius intellect of economics, geopolitics and technology who just doesn't like being pressured in public can be refuted by watching this Lewis Black video from The Daily Show. (NSFW... It's Lewis Black...)
https://youtu.be/kY12SbF3J_4?si=gGMkKWFJq9uMi8IE&t...I've bookmarked the clip to play at the 1:38 point where you can hear from some of these highly discerning geniuses directly with no media filter. They all say the same things:
I need to do more independent research.I have to do my own research.I just have to do more research.Yea the clip is edited to make his point but SERIOUSLY, does one ever hear anything different? Do you think these voters spend a Saturday at the local public library pouring over US News, The Economist, Fortune, WSJ, Barron's and policy papers from the Brookings Institute and the regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents before finally making a decision? How many of these undecideds have even HEARD of those publications or think tanks? Or can describe what the Federal Reserve does?
Let's drill into this a bit more. Let's assume a voter is going to choose their best candidate for President based on REAL MATH rather than internet memes and who they think would be more entertaining to share a beer with.
Let's assume the voter's decision is driven by only four issues. Doesn't matter what they are. Those issues have the following values:
* issuevalue1
* issuevalue2
* issuevalue3
* issuevalue4
Each issue has its own value or weight to the voter as an individual that further affects the value. These should add up to 1.00. We'll label these
* voterweight1
* voterweight2
* voterweight3
* voterweight4
Each candidate has their own preference for each of these issues based on how much THEY support that issue. We'll label these:
* candidateweight1
* candidateweight2
* candidateweight3
* candidateweight4
Now of course, there is some higher factor involved with all four issues that reflects some greater likelihood that any particular issue gets enacted which is a function of ALL of the politicians in the system, certain financial realities and the laws of physics. We'll label these:
* likelihood1
* likelihood2
* likelihood3
* likelihood4
Now, of course, the sophisticated, discerning voter with a background in mathematics and basic economics would immediately recognize that the "expected value" within a given issue from voting for a candidate is simply the product of all of these variables:
Expected Value = issuevalue1 * voterweight1 * candidateweight1 * likelihood1
The total expected value of a vote for that candidate across all the issues that voter cares about is thus:
EV = issuevalue1 * voterweight1 * candidateweight1 * likelihood1
+ issuevalue2 * voterweight2 * candidateweight2 * likelihood2
+ issuevalue3 * voterweight3 * candidateweight3 * likelihood3
+ issuevalue4 * voterweight4 * candidateweight4 * likelihood4
With our theoretical, analytical genius voter, several things are obvious from this mathematical model:
If a likelihood is near zero, a similar high voterweight and candidateweight does little to improve the voter's EV. Ergo, selecting a candidate based on areas of agreement regarding issues going nowhere is not an effective use of the vote.
If a candidateweight is near zero on a high issuevalue, voting for that candidate does little to improve the voter's EV. Ergo, duh... Voting for a candidate who won't push a voter's preferred issues does the voter no good.
But that voter must also perform that calculation with a second set of weights from the second candidate. Then they need to compare the two totals. It may not be immediately apparent and they may not like what their math is telling them each election but it could be the case that given the values, the weights and the larger probabilities of that season, the best candidate may be the "other one." If the voter understands the math and thinks they have good data for the weights and likelihoods, then the MATH will be clear who the best choice is.
This sounds like a high falutin', hoity toity concept in economics and academics but it only involves eighth grade algebra. I can confidently stake that NO individual voter undertakes this level of analysis, even on simple kitchen table economic issues that can be estimated to some degree. (I WOULD state with equal confidence that PACs and big business lobbyist organizations DO perform these calculations when trying to determine whose palms they will grease with campaign contributions and how big those contributions will be.)
Does anyone seriously think this is the level of thought being applied by these undecided voters? Again, we are talking about voters who cannot comprehend exponential math, compounding interest and inflation-adjusted statistics.
If someone wants to argue that these voters ARE performing this type of analysis, only that they are doing so on "values" issues that have no direct bearing on specific legislation, I would agree with that but, at that point, we aren't talking about dry analysis of quantifiable, measurable desires and attainment. We are instead in the realm of feelings and shared hatreds and those cannot be argued rationally.
WTH
