Liberals vs Conservatives

One thing that is becoming more and more apparent is that it is far easier to stir up "conservatives" than it is "liberals".  I put those terms in quotes because the people I'm talking about while assuming those labels are sort of a new breed from the traditional groups.

At one time conservatives were know for people like William Buckley who brought an educated argument to the issues.  Whether you agreed with him or not, it was something that could be argued and discussed in a civilized fashion.  Similarly, liberals had their own champions who also argued based on facts and logic.

We have now entered an age where facts and logic have become irrelevant.  Now you see the most blatant lies spread by "news" sources without any consequences.  The lie are believed and spread and dominate our social media.

Even worse we have a president-elect who buys into these sources without question.

Now while both sides have their sites, the "conservative" or alt-right have tapped into an audience that is much more receptive to the lies being spread.  Most likely its because they are angrier about what they perceive to be the erosion of values and economic opportunity while the far left is home to less angry people.

It seems that in general the things that drive the alt-right stir stronger emotions and perhaps some of the advances made by the left have made them more complacent.

The fact that voting rights are being denied to many minority communities via restrictions similar to Jim Crow or that gerrymandering in the States have led to a republican majority in the House is just not as upsetting as the abortion or gun control issues.

The process is such that we have fact checkers who challenge these inaccuracies but the people I'm talking about aren't reading liberal crap.  The only news you can trust is from the very sources that spread these lies.

Liberals or progressives did show some passion during the Sanders campaign, but anger at the banks and the student debt weren't sufficient and didn't carry over to the general campaign.

I don't really know if there is a solution to this problem, it is likely to just get worse since it seems to be working.

Its scary when you see how these very things have cost other nations their freedoms.

Freedom of Speech

One of the things that Americans cherish is freedom of speech.  Now when I say we cherish it, we cherish the right to use it, but some of us don't like others to use it.

In a tweet, our minority president-elect noted that flag burning should be a crime and maybe should include loss of citizenship.

This is going to cheer on by many of his supporters who believe the flag is more important than civil liberties.

Now I am a firm believer that the flag should be treated with respect, but I also realize that it is a piece of cloth or an image widely used in non-patriotic ways, such as to sell products or as an article of clothing.

Now maybe these displays are acceptable, maybe not.  I've seen young ladies in flag bikinis which didn't offend me.  However, I doubt very much they observe flag etiquette when used that way.

Now if someone is protesting an American policy or behavior, burning the flag is a demonstration of that protest and has been determined to be part of free speech.  Whether you like it or not its covered by the constitution.

Now, if we decide to limit free speech that we don't like, the question becomes, do we have fee speech?

We have some restrictions right now on it, such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but to decide that a symbolic protest gesture should be criminalized and further should result in the loss of citizenship is abhorrent.

It doesn't matter if you like what someone is saying, they generally have the right to say it.  The recent election demonstrated that telling lies and spreading false stories can be an effective political tool and as much as I would like to see that curtailed, the only American solution is to try to educate the public to see what is and isn't true.

If we start rounding up people we don't agree with, we have become un-American.

Everything is Rigged

My actual experience with how things are rigged in New York Construction and public works bidding is admittedly a bit out of date, but I believe that it is likely fairly unchanged.

Now on the surface it may look like a competitive process but the real process is generally very different.  First, there is the process concerning who gets to bid.  Frequently to get a chance to bid you have to meet certain arcane requirements which are well known to insiders but not easily fathomed by new entrants unless you "hire" the right consultants.

Second, there is a certain amount of collusion that goes on between these same insiders who determine how much each should bid so that they all get a chance to earn on some basis.  Throw in the need to accommodate certain special interest groups the bids are totally rigged.

Finally, even if it is your turn, you have to demonstrate that you have the "right" people appeased which includes the unions, the minorities, the environmentalists and others.

Now the result of this is a system that is too cumbersome, too expensive, and too corrupt, but which employs thousands and satisfies a lot of constituents who vote or influence voting.

Now attempts to reform this have been undertaken many times and maybe its different today than it was, I tend to doubt that but its possible.  I'm also pretty sure that its not very different in most other major cities, they all have special interests that need to be satisfied.

The point of all this is that of course coming out of that system you know everything is rigged.  You were one of the riggers.  Further, once you jumped through all the hoops and got the contract, anyone challenging it was a serious threat that needed to be fought.

So when we see the president elect losing it over a recount that is very unlikely to accomplish much, its understandable.  He sees it as someone trying to steal his contract.  Now of course the other possibility is that he knows something was done that might be uncovered, and I certainly think he would be capable of that, maybe he had people counterbalancing the "phony votes" in the big cities he talks about, but I think that is an unlikely scenario.

However, instead of just ignoring this side show, like he should have, he effectively loses it, makes unfounded accusations, and seems to be fuming.

Hope the world is ready for a rocky ride.

Sunday Meandering

I'm always amazed at how many people who call themselves Christians ignore the admonition to "love thy neighbor as you love yourself", unless of course they are all self-haters.

The number of angry people in this country always amazes me but those same people talk about this being the greatest country on earth.  So why are they so angry?

I see stories where one idiotic person does something stupid, like insult a police officer and thousands of angry people talk about how all those (pick a nationality or faction) should be locked up or expelled.  However someone goes into a peaceful place and shoots lots of innocent people and the same people say you can't blame all gun owners for the actions of a few.  Well, can you spell hypocrite?

So is the country going down the tubes or is it the greatest country on earth?

For all those who think they couldn't say Merry Christmas anymore, feel free, say I gave you permission.

We would all be a lot better if people would take a few seconds to think about what they are saying.

Gun owners are so nervous that someone is out to take their guns. Not aware that anyone has ever actually proposed this.  Guess they had to replace the bogeyman with someone.

Some people are so convinced that there are people behind the scenes controlling everything.  Even worse, they seem to be out to get us!

Everyone who supports things like pipelines wants them built on someone else's property.

There really is no good defense for the electoral college.  It was designed to rig elections but the founders didn't set it up correctly.  They actually wanted to avoid what happened in this election and make sure the electors (the respected elders of their community) picked the most qualified person.

Of course the odds of it being changed is slim.

Probably the saddest thing about the election was how the lies about Hillary were more persuasive than the true things about Trump.  Sad comment on American education.

Fidel is dead

I'm old enough to remember when Fidel was viewed as a democratic rebel fighting against a corrupt dictatorship.  Of course there is a story there about how he became a communist and I don't know enough about it to tell it here.

I should point out that America was no angel at that time in the way we dealt with our Latin neighbors, in some ways treating them as our protectorates and interfering in their Governments.

Many Cubans, upper to middle class fled Cuba as their assets were seized and in some cases they feared for their lives.  Our attempts to dislodge him failed and the conflict almost led to WW3 over the missile crisis.

I think Cuba highlights the greatest problem of our time in some ways.  It was a country where a relatively small number of people did very well, but most of the population lived in poverty.  This is not an unusual state in the world we live in.  Now the people in poverty can aspire to be one of the fortunate ones in that type of society and for simplicities sake let me call that the Republican model.

Certain people succeed very well and those people create economic opportunities and jobs.  Those opportunities and jobs allow others to climb the ladder of success and become one of the fortunate people.  If you don't grasp the opportunities and succeed, it is your own fault and the fortunate people are not responsible.  If it is truly something beyond your control, they may help you some, but if you are just too lazy to work or gain skills you remain poor as an incentive.

Now this model has some appeal in that it allows those who are doing well to ease their conscience and the mass of poor people don't hate them, they only envy them, and hope to become them.  Of course there are no pure meritocracies and many of the successful people got a tremendous head start being the children of successful people.  The success of this type of system would have to be measured by how upwardly mobile the population is and how new wealth is distributed.  The result of free markets normally leads to wealthy people becoming even more wealthy and while there is some trickle down it doesn't reduce the gaps between rich and poor,

Now this was a simplistic explanation and there are other variations but fundamentally this is pretty much along the lines of wealthy people deserve to be wealthy because they earned it.

The other end of that spectrum is effectively communism where the group shares in the benefits each according to their abilities and needs.  The net result of this in a country such as Cuba is that equalizing the wealth means no one lives all that well, but in some ways since everyone is in the same boat there is a sense of camaraderie and togetherness.  During the great depression in this country, by many accounts there was a greater sense of community and willingness to help each other because of how much everyone was facing the same problems.

I'm not maintaining that Cuba is by any means a great example, I really don't know enough.  I do know that in general certain things are guaranteed to all, like health care and basic sustenance.  However, it is still effectively a third world country and when the overall level of wealth is not very high spreading it around is not the greatest lifestyle.

But individualism versus group is the bottom line and in this country we generally go with individualism.

Turkey Trot

I see articles talking about what hasn't changed since the election, should point out we don't change Presidents until January 20.

We could debate how fascist America is, but even having to debate that is pretty sad.

The children and grandchildren of the greatest generation forgot what we paid to defeat fascism.

If half the people who agree with you are fascists, but you say you aren't, maybe your judgment is questionable.

If all the jobs moved to Mexico, why are they still coming here?

I see people talking about how they and there wives have to work multiple jobs to pay for the giant SUV they drive.

Of course having no skills isn't the reason.

If you spent your high school years being a bully and playing sports or chasing the opposite sex, this is how that turns out.

You know during the depression FDR created a public works department to give people jobs and the Republicans hated it, but now they seem to have promised that in this election.

A lot of great things were built then, so I think infrastructure is well worth it, but isn't it a form of socialism?

In all honesty, I grew up in the same city around the same time as the new president and I think I know where he is coming from, but his supporters are in for a surprise.

Need to keep Trump voters away from three card monte dealers.

Thinking that sending business e-mails to appropriate people even if some unintentionally contained snippets of low level classified information is a crime is really hard to fathom.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The vast majority of Americans will spend the day giving Thanks and eating too much, followed by Football, shopping or naps.

I hope everyone has things to be thankful for and a chance to be safe and warm.
Below are the things I thought we should be thankful for in 2009 as Obama started to turn the financial crisis around.

I'm concerned that we have gone backwards on some of them, hopefully not.


First, despite the current hostile activities, in most ways the Nation's defense has never been more secure. Yes, there is the threat of terrorism and we need to remain vigilant, but there is no real military threat to the country as a whole.

Second, most Americans still have a higher standard of living than almost all of the world's inhabitants. The issues we face will be challenging but we should never forget the great wealth and potential of this nation. We have the capability to solve our problems, we merely need to develop the resolve. We always have in the past and I believe we will again.

Third, we are on the verge of providing health care to all Americans. We need to be smart about it but I can't imagine anyone who thinks we shouldn't do it. Without addressing the issues on the implementation of this, we will find a way to pay for it and we will join the rest of the developed world in improving health care access.

Fourth, most (not all) of the racially divisive issues of the country's history are behind us. Yes, there are still pockets of segregation and it will never go away completely, but society as a whole treats all our citizens equally. We have also made great strides in gender equality. 

Fifth, we seem to have grasped the need to protect the climate and improve the environment. There is a long way to go, but I believe the tide has turned and more and more we will see improvements in how we treat the world we live in.

Finally, we still enjoy the benefits of freedom that our country was founded upon. There are some who think our freedom's are being threatened and we need those people to keep the system honest. There is a constant challenge related to freedom which is best expressed by the old adage that states, your freedom to swing your fist stops where my nose begins. We can have freedom and individuality while respecting the rights of others.

I believe all Americans should keep some of these things in mind this Thanksgiving and enjoy this very American holiday.

Hacking the Election?

There is some evidence, not at all conclusive yet, that some hacking might have influenced the election results.  It is something that should be looked into, even if it isn't used to challenge the current results.

As I understand it, analysis shows that where electronic voting machines were used in some critical states, the number of votes were 7% less than expected by statistics.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?ocid=iSEM_G_Homepage

It s very hard to cast fraudulent ballots despite all the hoopla about it, but it would be a fairly easy hack to just have the machine under count.  It wouldn't even have to do it based on who was voted for if the districts involved were heavily in favor of one of the candidates.

So if a district is expected t favor one candidate by say a 7 to 3 margin, every 10 votes suppressed favors the candidate with the 3 votes since losing 3 votes is bad but losing 7 votes is worse.

Suppose 100,000 votes were suppressed in a place like Philadelphia where the voters were going 85% for Hillary.  She would lose 85,000 votes and Trump would lose 15,000 or a 70,000 vote swing in his favor.  Since Pennsylvania was decided by less than 70,000 votes you can see how this would be significant.

Now the evidence as I understand it is statistical in nature and while statistics can highlight areas of concern, they are never in and of themselves conclusive.  I don't know what would need to be done to determine if the potential hack is real, and it would obviously be a very disruptive event.  I would think that at the very least we need to know if it happened to prevent it from happening in the future.

Now my information on this is admittedly very limited.  I also don't think that at this stage the results will be challenged since I think it is unlikely to change the results and would be painful and disruptive.

I think what is important is that any such potential hack be prevented from future elections.

Would wonder if it also could have impacted Senate races.

More Randomness

It would be nice to address the issues of the electoral college and gerrymandering to make America more democratic but the party that benefits from both isn't interested.

Interesting article on CNBC today talking about the past and future impact of robotics on jobs.  They are making them disappear and its accelerating.

Its very hard not to see a repeat of what led to the last financial crisis in the cards.  If you add in some trade wars it could be a lot worse.

Our only real hope for the planet is if we have a lot of really stupid scientists who are completely wrong about climate change.

With the glut we already have, prices will stay low and earth friendly alternatives will be non competitive.  So the oil industry will suffer from low prices, we won't develop jobs in the new renewable energy industry, and we'll keep polluting with giant cars as we drive ourselves into recession.

Seeing the hidden racists come out is pretty revealing.

There are the blatant racists and then all those people who are only a little racist but try to deny it.

Racism is a lot like being pregnant, you are or you aren't.

Some people think we moved too fast for much of America in promoting equality and tolerance for all.  You can't move too fast on that, we shouldn't have to be moving at all.

Saw a panel discussing how some alt-right groups don't consider Jews to be people.  Really!

What is maybe the saddest thing is that a lot of people who voted for Trump actually believe he will create good paying jobs.  He will reduce taxes on the rich, create trade wars and harass immigrants and other undesirables.  You will still have to work in a low paying job if you can find one at all since the robots are here to stay.

With the deficits the tax cuts will create he will have to trim your social security and medicare also.

He will let competition drive down the cost of medical insurance because that has worked so well in the past.

The data is pretty conclusive and also pretty scary.  Oddly the people who didn't vote for him will probably do the best.

Random Stuff

Someone says you scare them and you demand an apology?

Wealthy will get wealthier and workers will become poorer, Wealthy people need more servants.

Paying no taxes if you are wealthy enough is a very simple tax plan.

We think that America is safe from a dictatorship, but why would that be?

The working class is upset because they didn't recover from the bad things that happened to them under Bush during the Obama years.  Now things can get a lot worse.

Letting wealthy people have more money is good for suppliers of luxury goods who generally don't live in the rust belt.

Real estate prices on the coasts will do well.

All republican have a moral obligation to make a democrat use their Hamilton tickets as a protest.

We have all these white people talking about how they have one or more black friends so they aren't racist.  Seems like I've heard that one before.

If you are rich and famous and also black, you should be OK.

When you realize how much racism and hate still exists in this country, its hard to get over.

Some racists don't think they are, except they get a little thrill when a racist event happens.

Police Officers deserve the exact same respect as every citizen of this country should get.  Lets not pretend they are all saints, I've known way too many of them for that.

Protest existed in the colonies and sort of led to this country existing.  Its in our blood.

If you don't respect other people what respect do you deserve?

Nationalism and Loyalty 3

One of the main cornerstones of nationalism is convincing your citizens that they are better off in your nation than in others.  Now we live in a world where there are quite disparate standards of living so its fairly easy for the rich nations to point out how people from poorer nations want to come and take your jobs and money.  It has also been fairly easy over the years to talk about how in other nations they don't have the same values as we do here.

Whether these arguments have any validity varies widely but they have been effective.  People want to feel they belong and the great appeal of nationalism is exactly that.  This is who I am and who I want to be.  The fact that for most of us is a matter of pure chance doesn't enter into the equation.

We all share the same human experience but as evidence in the many wars that have been fought is is fairly easy to decide that your national identity is more important than your humanity.  It is even easier to stir up hatred for complete strangers because they "want to destroy" your way of life.

After the horrors of the two World Wars there was some moves to globalization with the founding of the United Nations.  That organization continues but the degree to which it has succeeded is a matter of debate since nations remain fully sovereign.

We are actually seeing a rise in nationalism in many countries as a reaction to the globalization of trade.  We see the British vote to leave the European Union although the vote was close.  In the recent US election, one factor was that certain areas felt that globalization had led to the loss of jobs and opportunities and immigrants and refugees challenged our way of life.

It seems to me that the ultimate end of all this has to be more globalization.  It is clear that humanity needs to learn we all share the same basic issues and have the same basic needs.  It is not going to be a smooth path.  There are too many people who thrive because of the things that divide us.

As was demonstrated many times over the years, nationalism can also lead to internal cleansing to get rid of those who aren't like us and don't belong.  The idea that all people are created equal is unfortunately not a credo that most follow.

There is a saying that a stranger is simply a friend you haven't met yet.  

Nationalism and Loyalty

Convincing citizens to sacrifice for the good of the nation seems like it would be a difficult task, but between early indoctrination, constant propaganda and peer pressure it has a successful road map.

Consider the concept of sacrificing your life thousands of miles away from your home to help one group of people you don't know defeat another group for goals which are often ill defined.  If you survive you may get the privilege of killing complete strangers because they are "the enemy".

Now this is called serving your country and that is the noble purpose that inspires the action.  The fact that so many have died on all sides for this noble purpose is a testament to the success of the indoctrination road map.

If you simply consider the human condition it is the same for everybody, whatever your nationality or location.  We are born, struggle to survive and eventually die.  However there are perceived differences based on skin color, religion, wealth and politics that feed into a nationalistic story line.

They are different is the primary argument, how they are different varies.  In a country such as America, forged by immigration that means we encapsulate so much diversity, this adds a dimension to the argument.  However, the appeal to the dominant group and those who want to be part of that group can be successful.

We create myths about the past, like how every previous group of immigrants immediately dropped all their cultural norms and languages to assimilate.  Clearly there are areas in most major cities and towns in parts of the country where this lie is obviously false, but it persists.  In fact the typical path is based on a number of generations before assimilation is complete, although complete is a bit hard to define since certain cultural preferences persist for many generations.

Why and how the nation state arose is of course debated by academics and some theories are discussed in the link below.

http://www.columbia.edu/~aw2951/WimmerFeinstein.pdf

(to be continued)

Nationalism and Loyalty

Human history is really rather brief.  It wasn't all that long ago that the very idea of a nation simply didn't exist.  Going back to pre-history is of course fairly speculative, but we have examples from the historic period that confirm that we originally coalesced our groups by clans or extended families.

This is fairly obvious since the essential thing almost all humans share is being part of a family.  In fact in those times, not having a family to protect you most likely meant you died or ended up as a slave.

Of course over time the need to survive led to clans becoming tribes large enough to provide defense or in some cases expansion for their members.

Now tribes require leadership and a certain amount of loyalty.  It was loyalty that required you to consider people not directly related to you in a manner similar to the way you viewed your kin.  Of course one element that made that somewhat easier to do was that tribes tended to be self contained, where over time many members had connections through blood or marriage to most of the other members.

Now nationalism is generally viewed as an outgrowth of tribalism where the tribe becomes expanded and the loyalty for the tribe gets transferred.  The link below has some discussion of this.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-tribalism-and-nationalism

Nationalism because of its scope encompasses quite disparate groups, all of whom end up being loyal to some central idea.  At one time this was embodied in a king or prince who became the embodiment of the state.  However, whatever the symbol it represents something greater.  In fact its the very essence of this relationship that we acknowledge a greater good.

Now every member may have their own view of what the greater good is.  Its the loyalty that matters not the object to which the loyalty is given.  In fact nationalism prefers blind loyalty, my country right or wrong is preferred.

Maintaining such loyalty requires constant effort to convince the citizens that they are better off in this particular country.  In many cases the lives of a citizen in country x and country z are indistinguishable, but they are frequently told how much better off they are to be where they are.

It is also important to define a common enemy against whom the tyrant can offer protection. 

It is this us vs them that allows soldiers to sacrifice themselves for essentially strangers.  They serve the greater good, or at least they are convinced they do.

The horrible wars of the last century were in general caused by extreme nationalism and millions upon millions sacrificed their lives.  The actual differences between most of the countries at war were minor in that they shared common histories and religions as well as traditions.  Yet they vilified each other.

We are seeing a rise of extreme nationalism as some people feel that they are losing their national identity and view that as a negative thing.

It isn't, the ideal state of the world would be where we treat each other as brothers and sisters working for the common good.

Nationalism serves the interests of the rich and powerful, not the people.  There is no real difference between a person based on the location of their birth, the differences relate to wealth and power. 

The idea that we are playing a zero sum game is what allows them to continue this illusion, "they" are after what you have.  Yes, assuming you have more than them, they might want to have the same, but they want their own, not yours.

We ultimately need to be loyal to humanity and the earth as a whole, it is really a spaceship and we are all in it together.

Root for Success?

One of the things you hear is that after the election we should hope the new President is successful since his success means America is successful.

Bullshit.

Destroying the planet by doing nothing on climate change is not success for America.

Taking away freedom of choice for American women is not success for America.

Disrupting the lives of million of American residents who came here for a better life is not success for America.

Removing regulations designed to prevent the abuses that led to the financial crisis is not success for America.

Building a pointless wall that in the end wouldn't achieve anything is not success for America.

Ripping up trade deals and causing a worldwide crisis that will heavily impact the average American is not success for America.

Not honoring our international agreements designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in not success for America.

Taking away health insurance from millions of Americans without providing adequate replacement is not success for America.

Privatizing Social Security and putting older Americans at risk is not success for America.

Reducing taxes on the rich and increasing the National Debt is not success for America.

Increasing the output of coal that nobody wants anymore is not success for America.

Refusing to accept refugees because of xenophobia is not success for America.

Increasing hate by tacitly supporting racism and bigotry is not success for America.

Cosying up to tyrants and accepting it is not success for America.

Causing our closest allies to worry about our support is not success for America.

And so much more.

Trends again

This may seem like a bit of a leap from my last blog, but the trend I am highlighting here that the high paying jobs of the future will require a characteristic that machines lack, creativity.

Now creativity is not restricted to art or music.  It is one of the features most needed to succeed in business, allowing you to see opportunities and solutions that are missed by most.

Sometimes you here it call things like risk taking and thinking out of the box, but finding opportunities and solutions is something humans can do that machines normally can't.

If all you bring to the table is brawn or a blind adherence to procedure, you may survive but you are not going to thrive.

Conversely, if your job is simply work that can be automated or mechanized, requiring no thought to do it, it will be done ultimately by a machine.

Certainly its not going to get the high pay it once did in the heyday of American manufacturing.

This is leading to a world of haves and have nots.

If you demonstrate the skills required to succeed, you will end up making a good salary.

Everyone else is effectively on a downward spiral due to the competition they face.

It is simply supply and demand, creative thinking is is short supply and high demand.  Manual labor is in high supply and short demand.

Each person has to develop their "brand" demonstrating their value now.

When I was young, there were some futurists or sci-fi writers who envisioned such a future.  It was either a wonderful thing or a new feudal order.

What we make of the future requires us to understand it and not long to return to some past that is either gone or going.

Trends (continued)

The move to automation is a great boost to productivity and is one of the reasons that income inequality is growing. The number of people in corporate offices is not declining except maybe in some clerical and support people while the factory floor is full of machines and a few machine operators.  The workers who used to have these jobs are working in lower paying service jobs, self employed or unemployed.

The most telling statistic is the story in the chart below where output per worker has been increasing exponentially.



Without turning this is to a chart and statistics fest, the basic point is that while China has seen a great increase in manufacturing output, the US has been increasing also.  However, in the US the increase is being driven by automation, not workers.

Now the manufacturing that is worker intensive has shifted to China and other countries but these are not the high paying manufacturing jobs that people lost, these are low paying jobs that are not worth automating.  If these companies brought this work back to the US they would either automate it or abandon it since they would be non-competitive.

(to be continued)

Trends

Some things are happening is post industrial America that cause some pain to people.  These are trends caused by the improvements in technology and globalization of world markets.

Now similar to other major economic changes, there are those who want to stop them or blame particular individuals for the issues.  However the culprit is the emotionless realm of economics and despite any one's best efforts it is inexorable.

Automation and technology has eliminated many jobs.  In the office environment these were generally lower paying jobs but nonetheless good jobs that provided a pathway for many.

In manufacturing the jobs that can be done by robots will be.  If you don't convert and your competitors do you will be non-competitive.

The forces at work here are what is called progress, which is constant and not easily ignored.  Progress has caused disruption before and has been resisted before, but ultimately it always wins, because those who adapt it become more successful than those who don't.

So what does it mean?

The future has a certain amount of uncertainly about it but certain trends are fairly clear.

It is better to use machines if feasible, they are more reliable and manageable.

Where you have to use manual labor you need to do it as cheaply as you can to be competitive.  So as we globalize, work will be outsourced if it is cheaper.

People with the correct skills to manage the machines or the enterprise will be in demand.

So what about everyone else?

What is left is simply service jobs.

Now some service jobs are in demand but be clear, there are efforts underway to automate many of them.

Take tax preparation.  As tax programs grow and prove accurate, the number of people who use traditional tax services is declining.  Similarly, many legal services can be done using automation, although in many places the legal profession has made rules protecting themselves.

Even in the medical world we see more and more automated options that reduce the need to visit a health professional.

(to be continued)

Supporting America

America has from the time of the first colonists represented a land of opportunity.

It represented an opportunity to practice the religion of your choice.

It represented an opportunity to succeed by working hard and taming the wilderness.

It represented an opportunity to escape the concept of kings and emperors and live free.

Now of course it wasn't like that for everyone who came here, the slaves, the Chinese who were brought in to work on the railroads, but for many it did.

Now the people who came here initially were not anarchists, they simply wanted to practice what they believed in or pursue fortune without the restrictions in the old world.

Native Americans were for most an inconvenience who either needed to be eliminated or transformed.

Throughout the growth of America we provided this sense of opportunity to waves of immigrants who fled hardships or tyranny.  At times because of conditions in their home country we would have an influx of one particular group, like the Irish during the potato famine, We tend to forget that they weren't greeted with open arms, but rather viewed as threats to the established order.

Many of our immigrants continued our westward expansion but the concept of "legal" immigration didn't exist until we started passing laws designed to protect our ethnic identity and restrict certain undesirable nationalities.  I've included the list below, and it should be noted that many people who claim their ancestors came here legally are only right because we didn't have any laws to restrict them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

Now currently America is still viewed by many as a land of opportunity.  Despite the delusion of the alt-right, immigrants and refugees to this country do not get a free ride and are for the most part very much the same as the immigrants who preceded them.

This is a basic feature of America that we need to support and not buy into the xenophobic actions of the alt-right.

A lot of the people who think immigrants and refugees are destroying America are sitting around complaining rather than doing what the immigrants and refugees are doing, trying to succeed.

Veterans Day

Today we honor our veterans on the anniversary of the armistice that ended the first world war, or as it was called at the time the Great War.

Of course time takes its toll and our oldest combat era veterans are from WW2 and Korea followed by out Vietnam Era Vets.

It was because of Vietnam that we went to an all volunteer army.

Since then we have in effect a military that while more professional, costs more and reflects a less diverse slice of America.

We still make people register for the draft but generally its not considered likely by most.

There has long been a discussion about whether service to the country should be universal.

The argument in favor has basically been that it would give everyone a real stake in how we use our military and create a military reflective of our total country.  Of course after any initial period, those who stay would form our permanent volunteer military and the others would return to civilian life.

The argument against is simply that people shouldn't be required to serve if they don't want to except possibly in time of war and that some object on religious or other grounds.

I tend to think requiring service is the better option, but there should be an option that allows for non-combat service.

For one thing, in the military you get to actually interact with people that you likely never would normally, leading to a better understanding of the humanity we all share.

Second, it equals an investment in the success of our country that will carry forward in their subsequent lives as citizens.

Third, it would be a way to justify funding educational benefits or technical training for more.

However, I realize that its unlikely and in all honesty not sure we would be prepared to handle the numbers that would result.

Anyway, Happy Veterans Day to my fellow veterans!

The Flawed Campaign

When you consider politics you have to consider the fundamental fact that politics is much more about emotions than it is about facts.

Ultimately people need to feel a connection with the candidate on some level.

We've all most likely had the experience where someone running for local office either knocks on your door or approaches you in a public place introduces themselves as "CandidateX", hands you some literature and asks you to vote for them.

You would think this is a pretty stupid way to get votes, but it isn't.  A certain number of people will remember that they met that candidate and assuming it isn't someone who rubs them the wrong way or has a position they are diametrically opposed to, will vote for that candidate.

They feel a connection at that point because of the contact and because he made them feel he/she cared.

Its not the same when the person doing that canvassing is not the actual candidate. Not to say that doesn't help some but but its not as effective.

In 2008 and the other day Hillary lost to people who made better connections with the voters than she did.

She almost lost in the primaries for the same reason.

In all those cases she was pretty clearly the better and more qualified candidate, but she herself admits she's not a natural politician like her husband was.

Now watching her speak or seeing her performance in the campaigns has a certain power, but what it always seems to lack is that connection with the viewer.

I know some do feel that connection either because she managed to touch them or because they felt so strongly about her issues, but its also pretty clear that she didn't make enough of a connection with "regular" Americans.

Its not really transferable.  The support generated for Bernie did not automatically go to Hillary.  The support for President Obama did not transfer to Hillary.  The celebrities and others couldn't make people feel that connection.  It was her job to do it and I think she simply failed at it.

One thing that she should have done differently was less preparation and more campaigning.  Two states that ultimately proved her undoing were never visited by her during the campaign.

It wouldn't have taken much to win Wisconsin or Michigan, they were both very close, but it required something.

Everyone likes being asked to dance, no one likes being ignored.

However, it might not have mattered if she didn't create that sense of oneness with the voters which gives them an emotional reason to vote.

You need to reach out on issues they care about personally and you also need to care.

If the audience doesn't believe you mean it, you are doomed to fail.  In too many instances her positions simply didn't resonate as hers as much as some compromise she had made to get the nomination.

She needed more Charisma.

We have these things called Elections

People get to vote for whoever they want, its called democracy and its part of what has always made this country great.

Two things happened in my opinion.  Hillary as a candidate never really addressed all the negative things being said about her in the press but rather spent time saying why Trump was unsuitable.  This led to a general conclusion that they were bought equally bad.

Second, too many of the people that should have voted for her either stayed home or voted for a third party candidate as a protest while Trump supporters turned out to vote.

The first issue contributed to the second one and while there will be a ton of data and analysis after this election I'm fairly confident that these two factors played a big part.

There are still so many people who think the e-mail scandal is actually something when it is really nothing at all.  I always felt that it should have been addressed it more forcibly instead of the way it was which almost seemed like relief that she got away with something.

It may have been the fact that she seems uncomfortable dealing with the press and in giving press conferences, but it was fairly obvious from the social media that the e-mail should have been addressed better.

The other thing is simply that for the most part she doesn't create enough enthusiasm.  She was clearly the most qualified candidate and the exit polls support that America felt that way.  However, her approach was too calculated and mechanical and not emotional enough.  Yes some of her supporters were very enthused by her campaign, but she simply didn't get the enthusiasm she should have.

So that lack of enthusiasm and the sense that she was a a flawed candidate led to the outcome in my opinion.

What does it mean?  That will be seen and discussed after the inauguration, but pretty confident that his supporters will be disappointed in the end.

The Future Part 7

The issue of environmental disaster is simply too dangerous to ignore as a species.  When one of the candidates and many Americans refuse to accept that we are playing with our survival as a species, it is troubling.

The danger of a bomb going off and killing you from a terrorist attack is a danger, not very likely in comparison to other immediate dangers, but something that gets a lot of attention.  But if you consider the devastation of any war we have seen, as terrible as it may have been,destroying the environment and climate will be worse.

It is happening now and it can be difficult to distinguish between what would be normal weather and what is climate change, but as we see storms of the century almost every year and the average force of hurricanes and tornadoes increases along with the earth's temperature it become a strong correlation.

The data is so very clear and the danger so real that it is hard to find any reputable scientist who doesn't agree.  The few that do, normally employed by energy companies, usually try to argue that these are natural changes, not caused by human activity. They can't really dispute the data but they argue the cause is different.  The simple point is that spewing dangerous pollutants and carbon into the air we breath is definitely not a beneficial thing.

We need to make this a cost of production and we need to impose it on all products, not just ones produced in this country.  Since any tax imposed on sales is regressive by nature, we should offset the regressiveness of it in other taxes or credits, but making pollution a cost of production will help with the deficit and make industry find creative solutions.

There is no better motivator than an economic one.

Of course any such action will meet resistance in our current political climate and what is probably the biggest challenge we face for the future is making the American public more aware.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we have many sites spreading misinformation.  I'm not talking about opinions, but actual lies.  It may be the biggest challenge we have, It isn't an easy thing to fix.

I like to think that we are providing our children the skills they need to determine fact from fiction, but I am afraid that it isn't so.  So ultimately, creating an informed citizenry able to determine what is true vs what is false and forming an informed opinion is the biggest challenge we have.

We see to opposition to the common core efforts which ultimately were designed to deliver needed skills but too many in our society don't want an informed citizenry.

So the future is our children whom we need to protect from us and educate to make informed decisions.

The Future Part 6

This has primarily been about the national debt and what are our options.  I should note that economic issues while potentially devastating are ultimately self resolving, one way or the other.  In the very worst case, a nation that defaults and leaves our seniors and others without the Government benefits they earned, we will survive.

However, the national debt in and of itself is certainly manageable.  We do control our currency so in a worst case scenario we can devalue the debt, and survive.  However, by increasing certain taxes and maybe removing the income cap on social security with continued spending reductions we can manage it until the demographics improve.

Now the area that is much more dangerous to America and the world as a whole is the environment.  There is no easy recovery from an environmental disaster.  We don't really have any way to determine certain historical events but I believe it is reasonable to argue that the pollution and environmental damage we have done has resulted in a significant amount of human pain and death already.

Of course some diseases are possibly simply related to the increased life span of humans while others are clearly linked to specific things like tobacco, but it is hare to imagine that the noxious pollutants dumped into our atmosphere,ground and water have not had a debilitating impact on us.

The point is that the Earth will survive us, the question is whether we will survive us?

We have seen more attention recently to climate change and the excess carbon we are releasing.  This is easily demonstrated via science and is really irrefutable.  To deny it is simple ridiculous, and the impact of the carbon in the atmosphere is both predictable and observable.

The ability of the earth to scrub this carbon our is reduced as we eliminate rain forests saturate our oceans.  The scenario is clear that as the ice on land masses melts, it will increase ocean levels.  It will also create changes in ocean currents based on the interaction between the fresh ice melt and the saltier ocean.

Yes some habitats will be destroyed, coastlines will be flooded, extreme weather will increase and populations will be disrupted.  We may ultimately adjust to these changes but the cost in resources and misery will be great.

It is ultimately reversible but we can't simply let that happen, because we are not guaranteed to survive it.

(to be continued)

The Furure Part 5

I've been talking about the national debt and what we can do to manage it, which means try to reduce it,keep it where it is or let it grow at a controlled pace.

There is an argument that some of the debt is needed.  If I want to build a new road or bridge that is expected t last 50 years, why not issue bonds payable over the useful life of the item?  In fact much of the New York bridges and tunnels were built that way and tolls were used to pay back the debt.  The tolls turned into a money maker, but that a whole story related to New York - New Jersey politics that is not something for here.

The real danger concerning debt is not being able to pay it and therefore defaulting.  This is actually something that has happened to many countries over the years but when medieval France defaulted, it was a matter for the court and the bankers with little impact on the French people, who had very little stake it any of it.  In today's society it would mean not meeting our obligations to our social security recipients as well as our creditors and the political consequences would be devastating.

Default is very unlikely so we are back to managing it.  Clearly the best option is to control it withing limits that keep it manageable while not destroying the economy for everybody.

While increased taxes are politically difficult, it might make sense to continue to increase user fees to make users of the assets pay for them.  Of course reducing Government spending can help but there really isn't much discretionary spending (proportionately) in the Government to cut.  Of course keeping interest rates low while having some inflation also helps manage the debt since it makes the principle a bit cheaper each year while reducing the annual charge for the money.

Perhaps the bet way to address the debt is also a way to help the environment.  Impose a usage fee for pollution.  Now this has been very controversial and has issues but if, similar to tolls on roads and bridges we charged people who pollute the air and water the cost of cleaning it up, it would be inherently fair.  Of course it we only charge American companies it would make them less competitive, so maybe the charge has to be on end products based on standards related to the originator's pollution index.

It would be fairly easy, to do this as a reward incentive.  Products that don't show how they are non-polluting get the full charge.  This charge is reduced based on certified proof of environmental compliance.

This is of course a new tax and therefore will be opposed.  I'll discuss this more as we move into the environment.

(to be continued)

The Future Part 4

So partly because of our demographics and partly because of tax cuts and expensive wars we have seen deficits and the National Debt grow significantly since the last Clinton administration.

The demographics of that period are not going to repeat themselves in the near future and any significant tax increases are unlikely, so what is the solution.

Of course one potential answer will be to inflate our way out of it.  If we allow inflation to increase the value of the debt will decrease proportionately.  Now of course that will lead to rising interest rates and cause issue for a certain percentage of the population but would have the effect of making payback more affordable since it would be in cheaper dollars.

However, inflation is not something that is likely to be pursued as a deliberate policy outside of the nominal inflation rate the Fed considers healthy.  It may happen anyway since if the world decides the US can't fulfill its obligations and weakens our dollars.   If we don't do something about the debt at some point this could be a real possibility but not in the immediate future.

One potential way of dealing with the debt is simply to accept it and try to keep it to some percent of the GDP.  Similar to individual credit scores that consider amount of debt versus income to determine credit worthiness, there could be a consious effort to simply cap the debt at a certain percentage.

This is a way to manage the debt and realistically it is unlikely that the country will ever actually eliminate the debt but of course the risk here is the same.  The discipline required to stay within the limits is difficult, but even worse are increases already baked into our economy.

Social Security and Medicare are going to increase as the Baby Boomer generation retires and without a counterbalanceing population increase of productive workers it will impact us for the next 20-50 years.

Interestingly, the improvements in medical technology that help people live longer are pretty harmful to the debt as we see older indiviual use health care and receive benefits longer than previously anticipated.

Ultimately the debt problem has to be dealt with via annual budgets, since the debt rises or falls based on the surplus or deficit in that budget.  We did have surpluses but instead of using them to pay down the debt when we had a chance we decided to reduce taxes and return that money to the public.

That falls into the next way to deal with the debt, increae the economy which will increae the tax base and create tax surpluses.  This is sometimes called supply side economics although you could also approach it from the demand side.   Generally a reduction in cost, such as reduced taxes will lead to reduced prices which will increase demand.  As demand increases efficiencies of scale lead to further price reductions leading to more demand and so on.

The model works in an academic scenario but has certain issues in real life.  For example, there is a dimishing demand as markets get saturated.  One everybody has a usable car, they don't keep buying them.  So it really requires there to be pent up demand that can be freed by lower prices.  Increase supply without increased demand lead to deflation, which has its own issues.

Also, we have sources that can fill the demand that are not domestic.  So the increase activity is potentially not benefitting our tax base.  It could be argued, although I don't have enough data to show it that the tax cuts of the early 2000s benefitted China much more than us.  Trade deals are a piece of that but we now see that many of our companies have become multinational and keep offshoure profits to avoid taxes.

(to be continued)

The Future Part 3

So if the basic issue is the individual versus the collective what does that mean?

Human civilization is in effect a development towards cooperation.

In pre-historic times people banded together for protection, to help each other on the hunt, to gather effectively.

As civilization developed we needed to work together to develop irrigation systems, provide water and sanitation services and a marketplace where what we produced could be exchanged for what we needed using a common means of exchange.

Of course in each stage individuals were able to do better than others but they couldn't normally succeed in isolation.

This has continued until the modern times with the common good helping all including the "individuals" who certainly benefit from defense, laws, infrastructure and education.

So what does it mean to want little to no government so the individual rights can be protected?

Generally it simply means that they want as much Government as the need to succeed but not a bit more.

Of course if you are creating costs to the rest of us by polluting our air and water or leaving your workers dependent on the Government in their old age, that isn't their problem, they aren't responsible.

These posts are about the future and not just the short term future.   As a society we have to decide what we want the future to look like, not just for us but for our descendents.

I talked about some basic goals in the first post that I think are generally things most people agree on.  However, we also need to consider the impacts we are having on our future generations.

This includes things like the national debt as well as the environment.

These are things that could have dramatic impacts on future generations.

Of the two I think the bigger issue is the environment since that has the potential to disrupt or kill billions of people so lets talk about economic issues first.

Money is a medium of exchange.  We use it to measure the value of various items so we can exchange them more or less fairly.  Before money we simply bartared but that is problematic in that you have to find someone who has what you need and wants what you have.  With money you can sell what you have to anyone and use that money to buy what you need from someone else.

Money is also an easier way to accumulate wealth.  If you have a tremendous amount of say wheat, storing it for a long period can be problematic considering spoilage, theft, infestation, etc.  It is easier to sell it and keep its equivalent value in money.

Money in general has no independant value.  Now at one time gold was widely used for money and some think that gold has some intrinsic value, which to the extent it can be used in jewelry it does, but as money it is no different really, except the underlying gold might go up or down.

Money alows us to exchange future promised to pay against current needs.  If I want to buy a house I might take a mortgage where the bank puts up the money in exchange for my promise to pay over time with interest.  In that case the house serves as collateral.  Eventually the mortgage is paid off and the house in mine.

However it is generally a bad idea to go into debt to pay routine expenses since there is no reason to believe the situation will change.  For example, if you simply spend more than you make every month and use credit cards, each month you situation will get worse until you can no longe pay and survive.

Many people view our national debt exactly like that.  Each month that we spend more than we take in, it increases and the cost of the money adds to the burden.

So similar to the individual they argue we need to spend less or take in more.  Since increased taxes are pretty much a sure way to lose an election, the emphasis is on spending less.

Of course thats problematic.  What can we cut?

There is one other option.  Much of our current issue is driven by demographics and some unwise tax cuts made in the past.  Ignoring the tax cuts, we have the baby boomer generation moving from being productive members of the workforce to beneficiaries.  The number of people who can contribute is way less than it needs to be.

Now the demographics will eventually improve but not for quite a while and in the mean time the debt will increase and the ability to pay benefits will be jeopardised.

(to be continued)

The Future Part 2

In discussing the future of this country its important to decide on what kind of country we want to be.

There are goals that I think most people can agree on and I discussed some of those yesterday.  However there are even more basic choices we have to decide on.

In its most basic form it is do we work individually or collectively?

The individual model wants each of us to be responsible for for our successes and failures and thinks the best Government is no Government.  They don't want to be told what to do or conform to what the group decides.

On the other end of that spectrum is the collective mentality.  This person thinks the group succeeds or fails together.  That individual talents are best used for the good of all and rewards should be shared.

America is generally viewed as a country which honors the individual allowing them to succeed or fail depending on their talents and abilities.

It was one of the things that allowed the country to expand so rapidly and industrialize.  Of course there was always support from the Government that favored the "individuals" followed by some progressive reforms that protected the collective.

It would be hard to imagine the country without Social Security, unemployment insurance, veterans benefits, and other social support functions that are designed to help the weakest and poorest among us.

However each of those programs were attacked in their own time as socialism or worse.

Generally the movement has been progressive in direction with things like the minimum wage, holidays, and labor laws won after hard struggles.

To a great extent the battles continue however the people who benefit the most from these progressive programs often oppose new ones.

This is a reaction to the changes in the economy and a certain belief that these progressive programs have hurt our competitive capabilities and led to a worsening of the average workers condition.

(to be continued)

The Future part 1

What sort of future would we like for America and the World?

What goals should we set regardless of party or short term impediments?

Most of us are too preoccupied with the present to think about it very much but I think having long term goals are important to making short term decisions.

For example if you have a goal of losing weight as opposed to gaining weight, your decision about that cheesecake might be very different, even though in the short term the cheesecake will be just as delicious.

Even so you still might eat it but you now it sets you back a bit.

So what are America's goals?

Well first we have to take care of basic human needs, food, shelter, safety.

So that would be a goal.

We have to live in this world so we want it to be habitable.

If we hold certain truths to be self evident, than all men are created equal and deserve to be treated equally, no matter what they believe, who they love, or where they come from.

They are entitled to be treated with respect and dignity.

People need the opportunity to learn and develop so we need a school system that serves everybody, based on their abilities.

People should have access to good medical care without regard to income level or location.

We need to protect ourselves from internal and external threats to achieve safety but without violating individual rights.

(to be continued)

Maybe its you

We live in a capitalist society where profit is the primary motivation for business.

Now business owners come in many varieties and many are very patriotic and god fearing, but ultimately they have to manage their business as, well, a business.

Now to some extent we can be viewed as individual businesses.  Of course some of us are, if you have a family farm, or a small store, etc.  However even if you work for someone else you are more and more required to treat yourself as a business, or in the modern parlance a brand.

What does your brand say about you?

If you can't answer that question, no one else will be able to either.

Is your brand some sort of generic worker who doesn't offer anything special?

Well that brand is pretty cheap and unlikely to draw much attention.

Sometimes it generates no demand at all.

Especially if you are priced too high.

You can complain about how you've been let down by the Government, by society, by pretty much everyone.

You can look at successful people and wonder why them and not you?

You can complain about how millenials expect everything handed to them.

Well look in a mirror.  If you sat back thinking you had some entitlement, you are the same.

You never did and never will.

You were and are in charge of your life.

If it turned out badly, there's really only one person to blame.