New Years eve it's generally a time to celebrate the end of the old year and associated problems and the start of n New one with expectations of a new start.
A new start holds unlimited promise and we often greet one with resolutions of things we plan to change. One of those things is frequently associated with the amount of celebrating done the night before.
A lot of us plan things like losing weight, or finding a new job going back to school or any number of things to improve ourselves.
Less frequently people resolve to improve society by doing more charitable work or helping others in various ways. Experience shows us that these good intentions often don't last very long.
One wonders if the people in charge engage in any retrospection? The ability to admit mistakes is something that conflicts with egos and we currently at least one ego running rampant. Report after report demonstrates that three is very little in the way of introspection and that his belief in his own infallibility is detrimental to good government and management.
We see part of the government shut down, immigration issues escalating, interest rates increasing, trade issues, foreign policy changes that are impulsive and dangerous, failure to address environmental issues, and attacks on many of our institutions.
It would be nice if for the new year we started formulating forward looking policies instead of wishful thoughts about recreating a past that is better in retrospect than in reality.
The post war era was generally good for certain portions of the population, but we still had many underlying problems in this country, some of which like discrimination still exist.
We dominated most of the free world because most of our industrialized allies had been devastated in the second world war which we escaped because of our geography. In the 60s we would start to see this dominance erode as competition increased.
We faced the possibility of almost instant nuclear extinction, a threat that seems to have receded, although it is still there.
Going back in time isn't possible and in all honesty it isn't desirable
.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Fringe Candidates
Watching the blame game over who is responsible for the current impasse over the wall is typical of the way politics is played this year.
There is plenty of room for disagreements over what the best policy should be on issues but we now have moved to an all or nothing nothing strategy.
Politics have changed in this country as the fringes have undue influence. A relatively small but dedicated group of supporters can exert tremendous influence in setting policy because they can control the primaries.
This is why you see the current incumbent cater to a small segment of the population. This strategy worked the last time as he amassed enough delegates to become the nominee which led to many voters voting for him because he was the candidate of their party despite his many flaws.
The strategy depends on who the opponent is in the general election. Last time he lucked out as his opponent was a person hated by many republicans and attacked by their PR machine and congressional committees.
A good candidate is key but the primaries give fringe candidates the same edge as the fringe from the other party.
The end result may very well be that we have two candidates representing the extremes while the majority in the middle ends up voting by party and the winner doesn't really represent them.
There is plenty of room for disagreements over what the best policy should be on issues but we now have moved to an all or nothing nothing strategy.
Politics have changed in this country as the fringes have undue influence. A relatively small but dedicated group of supporters can exert tremendous influence in setting policy because they can control the primaries.
This is why you see the current incumbent cater to a small segment of the population. This strategy worked the last time as he amassed enough delegates to become the nominee which led to many voters voting for him because he was the candidate of their party despite his many flaws.
The strategy depends on who the opponent is in the general election. Last time he lucked out as his opponent was a person hated by many republicans and attacked by their PR machine and congressional committees.
A good candidate is key but the primaries give fringe candidates the same edge as the fringe from the other party.
The end result may very well be that we have two candidates representing the extremes while the majority in the middle ends up voting by party and the winner doesn't really represent them.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Year That Was?
As the year winds down many people take time to reflect on the events and consider ways to avoid the same mistakes.
The year was pretty eventful but not much really happened.
There is so much turmoil in Washington it seems like things are happening, but that's a mirage.
One issue that gets a lot of attention is the immigration issue.
Our country used to welcome immigrants fleeing tyranny, poverty and oppression but now we view them as a threat.
At least some of us do.
All the data shows that immigrants are a net benefit to the country no matter how they got here. Our determination to hunt down and deport long term residents who have demonstrated good behavior is simply wrong.
We have seen a trade war ramp up as tariffs on China led to retaliation. Tariffs on general are a tax on the economy and lead to inefficiencies. They may have some benefit to protect young industries but using them to protect mature industries is fighting a losing battle.
We did see a blue wave in the mid terms as control of the House went to the Democrats. Very little got done with one party in charge, prospects for progress are slim.
They did manage to shut down much of the government over border wall funding. It's a ridiculous thing to shut down over but it is now a game of chicken. Who is going to blink first is unclear.
Trade deals with our neighbors, very much like the ones we already had are negotiated.
The recent announcements about removing troops from Syria and claims about the defeat of ISIS have led to turmoil and some resignations.
Economy has done ok, but some troubling signs are showing up. Trade, housing interest rates stick market volatility all point to a slowdown.
The coming year will tell.
The year was pretty eventful but not much really happened.
There is so much turmoil in Washington it seems like things are happening, but that's a mirage.
One issue that gets a lot of attention is the immigration issue.
Our country used to welcome immigrants fleeing tyranny, poverty and oppression but now we view them as a threat.
At least some of us do.
All the data shows that immigrants are a net benefit to the country no matter how they got here. Our determination to hunt down and deport long term residents who have demonstrated good behavior is simply wrong.
We have seen a trade war ramp up as tariffs on China led to retaliation. Tariffs on general are a tax on the economy and lead to inefficiencies. They may have some benefit to protect young industries but using them to protect mature industries is fighting a losing battle.
We did see a blue wave in the mid terms as control of the House went to the Democrats. Very little got done with one party in charge, prospects for progress are slim.
They did manage to shut down much of the government over border wall funding. It's a ridiculous thing to shut down over but it is now a game of chicken. Who is going to blink first is unclear.
Trade deals with our neighbors, very much like the ones we already had are negotiated.
The recent announcements about removing troops from Syria and claims about the defeat of ISIS have led to turmoil and some resignations.
Economy has done ok, but some troubling signs are showing up. Trade, housing interest rates stick market volatility all point to a slowdown.
The coming year will tell.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Make Things Better
Its pretty easy to ignore things that don't impact you directly.
For example during a war you know there are people enduring difficult and dangerous conditions risking their lives but you hardly think about them, at least most of us, if you are closely involved.
Its just human nature, life goes on and more mundane matters become our focus.
At any time there is a long list of things going on that creates appalling conditions for people, from wars, to famine, to political upheaval, gang violence.
Some places, like much of the Middle East, have constant turmoil, at lest in parts, they just continues.
Others, like many natural disasters flare up and eventually get fixed.
Take the Puerto Rican hurricane, the last I heard many were still suffering, although I just don't hear much about it anymore. I would like to think all the issues are fixed, but I have my doubts.
We also have the issues concerning immigration and immigrants that doesn't seem to have a resolution.
In fact, we seem to be making it worse, at least for many of them who are looking for asylum.
We also have ongoing gun violence which tends to be ignored unless we have a mass shooting.
To those who lose their lives and their survivors, it is an ongoing problem. One that could impact any of us without warning. Yet we tend to treat it like a non-threat.
Perhaps this is simply an evolutionary response to our world. We all were potential victims of predation for much of our time on this planet. If we couldn't move on from close escapes or seeing a member of the tribe eaten, we wouldn't have survived.
Still, it would really be nice if we could start making lives better, rather than worse.
For example during a war you know there are people enduring difficult and dangerous conditions risking their lives but you hardly think about them, at least most of us, if you are closely involved.
Its just human nature, life goes on and more mundane matters become our focus.
At any time there is a long list of things going on that creates appalling conditions for people, from wars, to famine, to political upheaval, gang violence.
Some places, like much of the Middle East, have constant turmoil, at lest in parts, they just continues.
Others, like many natural disasters flare up and eventually get fixed.
Take the Puerto Rican hurricane, the last I heard many were still suffering, although I just don't hear much about it anymore. I would like to think all the issues are fixed, but I have my doubts.
We also have the issues concerning immigration and immigrants that doesn't seem to have a resolution.
In fact, we seem to be making it worse, at least for many of them who are looking for asylum.
We also have ongoing gun violence which tends to be ignored unless we have a mass shooting.
To those who lose their lives and their survivors, it is an ongoing problem. One that could impact any of us without warning. Yet we tend to treat it like a non-threat.
Perhaps this is simply an evolutionary response to our world. We all were potential victims of predation for much of our time on this planet. If we couldn't move on from close escapes or seeing a member of the tribe eaten, we wouldn't have survived.
Still, it would really be nice if we could start making lives better, rather than worse.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Better Candidates?
If the Government were a business, we would be selling its stock.
You have a management in turmoil, parts of it shut down, policies that seem influenced by certain media instead of analysis and an erratic and irrational CEO.
You can't short it, although I guess you can short everything else, i.e. the big sell off.
The problems are not insurmountable, yet, but they aren't getting better.
The next two years will mostly be preparation for the next elections, as the desire to compromise is going to be seen as weak by the voters who control the primaries now.
It seems pretty clear to me that as we made the primaries more open we lost control of the process.
The we I am referring to is the great majority of Americans who disagree over a few issues by really agree on most.
Unfortunately one of the things they tend to agree on is that voting in the primaries is inconvenient.
We therefore turn over the candidate selection process to the angry people on both sides.
The angry people are the ones who show up and vote in the primaries.
The candidates selected often don't reflect the mainstream views of their party, but the mainstream members are faces with a difficult choice.
It gets easier when both sides select extremists.
Until we fix the candidate selection process, it will just get worse.
It will become more and more partisan, not less.
We need to find a way to make the primaries truly representative and not easily controlled by a determined angry minority.
If 100% of a party voted, we would really have much more representative candidates.
You have a management in turmoil, parts of it shut down, policies that seem influenced by certain media instead of analysis and an erratic and irrational CEO.
You can't short it, although I guess you can short everything else, i.e. the big sell off.
The problems are not insurmountable, yet, but they aren't getting better.
The next two years will mostly be preparation for the next elections, as the desire to compromise is going to be seen as weak by the voters who control the primaries now.
It seems pretty clear to me that as we made the primaries more open we lost control of the process.
The we I am referring to is the great majority of Americans who disagree over a few issues by really agree on most.
Unfortunately one of the things they tend to agree on is that voting in the primaries is inconvenient.
We therefore turn over the candidate selection process to the angry people on both sides.
The angry people are the ones who show up and vote in the primaries.
The candidates selected often don't reflect the mainstream views of their party, but the mainstream members are faces with a difficult choice.
It gets easier when both sides select extremists.
Until we fix the candidate selection process, it will just get worse.
It will become more and more partisan, not less.
We need to find a way to make the primaries truly representative and not easily controlled by a determined angry minority.
If 100% of a party voted, we would really have much more representative candidates.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Achievement
I have to admit that when I read articles about certain people, they sometimes have views so alien to mine that I really don't understand how they can feel that way.
I hear some people talk about our last President as if he was ruining the country. I guess the theme is that he was passing too many regulations, being too concerned about the environment, promoting equality and opposed to gun violence.
I gather he was also too soft on immigration, although he deported record numbers of undocumented aliens.
Some thought he was weak on foreign policy and defense.
These attacks are all originated or at least repeated by the rabid fox network and that gives them some legs.
Certainly they criticized everything he did as a matter of principle since he was both a Democrat and a Liberal.
He was also partially African American.
That last factor was not brought up publicly but was always the thing implied.
The fact that he was an American success story, rising to the highest office in the land with not much of a head start in life.
In comparison to the current occupant he displayed dignity and respect for the office and passed a historic health care law that has been under attack ever since.
It remains to be seen how the current administration ends up.
It seems to be heading downhill now.
I hear some people talk about our last President as if he was ruining the country. I guess the theme is that he was passing too many regulations, being too concerned about the environment, promoting equality and opposed to gun violence.
I gather he was also too soft on immigration, although he deported record numbers of undocumented aliens.
Some thought he was weak on foreign policy and defense.
These attacks are all originated or at least repeated by the rabid fox network and that gives them some legs.
Certainly they criticized everything he did as a matter of principle since he was both a Democrat and a Liberal.
He was also partially African American.
That last factor was not brought up publicly but was always the thing implied.
The fact that he was an American success story, rising to the highest office in the land with not much of a head start in life.
In comparison to the current occupant he displayed dignity and respect for the office and passed a historic health care law that has been under attack ever since.
It remains to be seen how the current administration ends up.
It seems to be heading downhill now.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Merry Christmas
Hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas and that as we move into the new year we can adopt actual policies that will move the country forward, and not backward.
We really do have a lot more in common than it would seem, but we seem to be living in a world where misinformation and personal bias plays too big a part.
Ego is the enemy of progress, and progress is not an all or nothing thing.
Politics is difficult but you either represent the country or you represent a faction.
The country should come first.
Merry Christmas again!
We really do have a lot more in common than it would seem, but we seem to be living in a world where misinformation and personal bias plays too big a part.
Ego is the enemy of progress, and progress is not an all or nothing thing.
Politics is difficult but you either represent the country or you represent a faction.
The country should come first.
Merry Christmas again!
Monday, December 24, 2018
Stock Losses
Watching the stock market fall recently is a bit troubling.
Its not surprising since we have a lot of uncertainty in Washington now and that doesn't bode well for business prospects.
To a large extent stocks are more predictive than reactive, so the current sell off represents fear that the economy is headed to a recession.
It might be, we have the trade wars, the divided Government, the deficit, interest rate increases, but generally the economic picture isn't much different than it has been.
However just the chance of a recession will create selling and once it starts it can build on itself for awhile until either it is confirmed or it isn't.
If we were to actually enter a recession, it might be a stimulus to the market as the future would look better than the present.
One of the issues with large sell offs is that many baby boomers are in or near retirement age, and probably without much thought count on the increases in the stock markets we have seen before this year.
To see the amount in their 401k decrease is unsettling and most no longer have the safety of a defined company pension anymore.
If the loss causes you to move your money into something safe, remember you are only right if the sell off continues. It might but it also can easily reverse itself.
You can lock in losses just like you can lock in profits.
The latter is a much better option. Sell high, buy low, if you can.
Its not surprising since we have a lot of uncertainty in Washington now and that doesn't bode well for business prospects.
To a large extent stocks are more predictive than reactive, so the current sell off represents fear that the economy is headed to a recession.
It might be, we have the trade wars, the divided Government, the deficit, interest rate increases, but generally the economic picture isn't much different than it has been.
However just the chance of a recession will create selling and once it starts it can build on itself for awhile until either it is confirmed or it isn't.
If we were to actually enter a recession, it might be a stimulus to the market as the future would look better than the present.
One of the issues with large sell offs is that many baby boomers are in or near retirement age, and probably without much thought count on the increases in the stock markets we have seen before this year.
To see the amount in their 401k decrease is unsettling and most no longer have the safety of a defined company pension anymore.
If the loss causes you to move your money into something safe, remember you are only right if the sell off continues. It might but it also can easily reverse itself.
You can lock in losses just like you can lock in profits.
The latter is a much better option. Sell high, buy low, if you can.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Keep America Free!
The mess this country is in has been effectively orchestrated by people who either want to destroy us or who are so interested in profits that they don't care about the consequences.
We have people on popular "news" channels that spread disinformation and lies because it gets ratings.
We have foreign entities flooding us with misinformation to influence our elections and opinions.
We see attacks on our "mainstream" news organizations to sow distrust.
Items that we once recognized as absurd have now become part of the mainstream.
A significant number of us believe that the country is controlled by secret groups that for some reason are interested in destroying American values.
It might just be public opinion.
As Bob Dylan famously said, the "Times they are a-Changing" so if you believe everyone should revert back to some mythical time where everyone worshiped the same, looked the same, acted the same and oppressed the same, it isn't gonna happen.
The one thing that America represents is Freedom, and you can be free to believe what you want, but so is everyone else.
Sometimes Freedom is hard, and so many have sacrificed so much for it we need to carry that burden.
Freedom is the principle that this nation was founded on and its still our primary right.
For everyone to be free everyone has to respect the rights of others, even those who disagree with them.
Freedom for others doesn't diminish ours, it enhances it.
Lets keep America Free!
We have people on popular "news" channels that spread disinformation and lies because it gets ratings.
We have foreign entities flooding us with misinformation to influence our elections and opinions.
We see attacks on our "mainstream" news organizations to sow distrust.
Items that we once recognized as absurd have now become part of the mainstream.
A significant number of us believe that the country is controlled by secret groups that for some reason are interested in destroying American values.
It might just be public opinion.
As Bob Dylan famously said, the "Times they are a-Changing" so if you believe everyone should revert back to some mythical time where everyone worshiped the same, looked the same, acted the same and oppressed the same, it isn't gonna happen.
The one thing that America represents is Freedom, and you can be free to believe what you want, but so is everyone else.
Sometimes Freedom is hard, and so many have sacrificed so much for it we need to carry that burden.
Freedom is the principle that this nation was founded on and its still our primary right.
For everyone to be free everyone has to respect the rights of others, even those who disagree with them.
Freedom for others doesn't diminish ours, it enhances it.
Lets keep America Free!
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Wall Made of Coal?
The weekend before Christmas is the last chance to get preparations done for the holiday.
Growing up in New York it usually meant a trip into Manhattan, maybe to Radio City (when it showed movies) with the smell of chestnuts and pretzels in the air, busy shoppers everywhere, and old jack frost nipping at your nose.
I remember a few trips to the Santa at Macy's who we knew was the real one based on the movie.
It was a magical time with a feeling of joy and wonder for the young people and maybe not as carefree for the older folks, but still they strived to make it a wonderful time for their families.
We knew the story about scrooge, but even he got the Christmas spirit at the end.
I'm sure it was very similar everywhere,
This year of course we have our very own scrooge putting coal in everyone's stocking, or at least trying to.
Lets make one thing clear, the wall does not mean border security.
A few poor immigrants crossing the border illegally is not much of a threat to this country.
Plus, a wall won't stop them.
This rhetoric about how illegal immigration is hurting this country is simply that, rhetoric.
It impacts almost no one in any significant way.
It certainly isn't worth shutting down the Government for Christmas.
It will create a lot of uncertainty for those Government workers who have nothing to do with the issue.
Its not going to get him a wall and most of us don't want to spend money on it.
Its probably self destructive for him and his party, but it is causing human anguish and suffering too.
He needs to grow up and realize you don't always get what you want.
Growing up in New York it usually meant a trip into Manhattan, maybe to Radio City (when it showed movies) with the smell of chestnuts and pretzels in the air, busy shoppers everywhere, and old jack frost nipping at your nose.
I remember a few trips to the Santa at Macy's who we knew was the real one based on the movie.
It was a magical time with a feeling of joy and wonder for the young people and maybe not as carefree for the older folks, but still they strived to make it a wonderful time for their families.
We knew the story about scrooge, but even he got the Christmas spirit at the end.
I'm sure it was very similar everywhere,
This year of course we have our very own scrooge putting coal in everyone's stocking, or at least trying to.
Lets make one thing clear, the wall does not mean border security.
A few poor immigrants crossing the border illegally is not much of a threat to this country.
Plus, a wall won't stop them.
This rhetoric about how illegal immigration is hurting this country is simply that, rhetoric.
It impacts almost no one in any significant way.
It certainly isn't worth shutting down the Government for Christmas.
It will create a lot of uncertainty for those Government workers who have nothing to do with the issue.
Its not going to get him a wall and most of us don't want to spend money on it.
Its probably self destructive for him and his party, but it is causing human anguish and suffering too.
He needs to grow up and realize you don't always get what you want.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Shutdown and Walls
If you are in charge of the Government and can't keep it open you are obviously bad at your job.
Shutting down part of the Government over a wall that we don't need is mean and silly at the same time.
It will impact the employees during Christmas and while they will almost certainty get paid, it isn't a good thing. Also services will be closed that many Americans use.
You may be one of the few people who think building a wall on the border is important, but most of us don't and to spend a bunch of money on something that won't accomplish anything is simply silly.
To frame it as something we need for border security is pretty absurd.
It is unlikely to accomplish anything and will be very expensive to build, patrol and maintain with little likelihood it will impact border security.
We have had a fair number of people cross our southern border without authorization. This is not desirable but in all honesty it hasn't had much of a negative impact on us.
To think a stationary wall will solve the problem is ridiculous.
You hear a lot of rhetoric about how you aren't a country if you don't control your borders?
Who made up that definition?
We had countries back when border security wasn't something you even considered.
Still, we do need to have some control and the effective way to do that is something that can be debated by experts and an affordable, effective solution can be devised.
Its not a wall.
Shutting down part of the Government over a wall that we don't need is mean and silly at the same time.
It will impact the employees during Christmas and while they will almost certainty get paid, it isn't a good thing. Also services will be closed that many Americans use.
You may be one of the few people who think building a wall on the border is important, but most of us don't and to spend a bunch of money on something that won't accomplish anything is simply silly.
To frame it as something we need for border security is pretty absurd.
It is unlikely to accomplish anything and will be very expensive to build, patrol and maintain with little likelihood it will impact border security.
We have had a fair number of people cross our southern border without authorization. This is not desirable but in all honesty it hasn't had much of a negative impact on us.
To think a stationary wall will solve the problem is ridiculous.
You hear a lot of rhetoric about how you aren't a country if you don't control your borders?
Who made up that definition?
We had countries back when border security wasn't something you even considered.
Still, we do need to have some control and the effective way to do that is something that can be debated by experts and an affordable, effective solution can be devised.
Its not a wall.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Puppet?
Sometimes you look at the news and have a "WTF" moment.
The dontard has decided to pull all our troops out of Syria because ISIS is defeated.
Now no one else agrees it is defeated and it should be noted that ISIS was simply the latest easy target for battling terrorism.
It also seems inconsistent to say they have been planting terrorists in the Central American caravan if they have in fact been defeated.
It does give the Russians unrestricted access to a critical location in the Middle East where they can further pursue policies which most agree are detrimental to this country and Israel.
It also gives Iran a boost and possibly a way to undercut any sanctions the dontard imposes on them.
Our presence in Syria has never been huge but it was at least symbolic. Its goals were never really achieved although we did participate to some extent in dislodging ISIS from certain territory.
It would be nice if we actually had a coherent strategy for the middle east that made sense instead of whatever it is we are doing.
It hasn't worked, unless its aim was to enhance Russian and Iranian influence.
Maybe it was, we know the dictator of Russia may be pulling the strings.
The dontard has decided to pull all our troops out of Syria because ISIS is defeated.
Now no one else agrees it is defeated and it should be noted that ISIS was simply the latest easy target for battling terrorism.
It also seems inconsistent to say they have been planting terrorists in the Central American caravan if they have in fact been defeated.
It does give the Russians unrestricted access to a critical location in the Middle East where they can further pursue policies which most agree are detrimental to this country and Israel.
It also gives Iran a boost and possibly a way to undercut any sanctions the dontard imposes on them.
Our presence in Syria has never been huge but it was at least symbolic. Its goals were never really achieved although we did participate to some extent in dislodging ISIS from certain territory.
It would be nice if we actually had a coherent strategy for the middle east that made sense instead of whatever it is we are doing.
It hasn't worked, unless its aim was to enhance Russian and Iranian influence.
Maybe it was, we know the dictator of Russia may be pulling the strings.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Hows the Economy
How strong is the economy?
There are some numbers that look good, such as unemployment but there are also some troubling signs.
It certainly isn't the best economy ever, we don't actually see a major expansion in employment, we see increases at the edges.
If you consider the stock market as a predictor, it is likely that 2019 is going to be a problem year as interest rates, tariffs and political uncertainty cause disruptions.
As always the economy will be better in some places and not so good in others.
Very little improvement has taken place in our hard hit rust belt, as the promises of reviving manufacturing and coal were really empty ones in the first place.
Coal is simply no longer the fuel of choice and manufacturing just needs a lot less workers now, even if you re-open a plant.
Automation and cheap foreign sources haven't gone away.
We are not making enough progress, especially in the heartland to develop new industries like solar and renewable.
Both coasts are doing well because of tech and service industries, but where brawn in the norm, not so much.
Automated brawn is just cheaper.
Economy is still mixed but not terrible. It is likely to get much worse soon.
We need more trade, not less.
There are some numbers that look good, such as unemployment but there are also some troubling signs.
It certainly isn't the best economy ever, we don't actually see a major expansion in employment, we see increases at the edges.
If you consider the stock market as a predictor, it is likely that 2019 is going to be a problem year as interest rates, tariffs and political uncertainty cause disruptions.
As always the economy will be better in some places and not so good in others.
Very little improvement has taken place in our hard hit rust belt, as the promises of reviving manufacturing and coal were really empty ones in the first place.
Coal is simply no longer the fuel of choice and manufacturing just needs a lot less workers now, even if you re-open a plant.
Automation and cheap foreign sources haven't gone away.
We are not making enough progress, especially in the heartland to develop new industries like solar and renewable.
Both coasts are doing well because of tech and service industries, but where brawn in the norm, not so much.
Automated brawn is just cheaper.
Economy is still mixed but not terrible. It is likely to get much worse soon.
We need more trade, not less.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Wall or no Wall?
It seems like the dontard realizes that his chances of getting his wall built are quickly disappearing and in spite he will shut down some of the Government.
Most Americans just don't care about the wall but his core supporters do so he is playing to his base.
Not good for his party or his chances in 2020 but he gets a big cheer when he mentions the wall at rallies.
I can't envision any money being allocated to his wall, but anything is possible in the world of politics.
Generally the democrats will want to reopen the Government so they made need to agree to something that saves some face for the dontard.
Not what he wants, but if they give him any type of bone, he will turn it into a gigantic skeleton.
Border security is something we need but how much do we need?
People have crossed our southern border fairly regularly for years with no detrimental impact to the country.
The issue is more of a media issue mixed with some racism.
Do some of the people who cross the border do bad things when they get here?
Of course, a small percentage, it is people after all.
They tend to be hard working families trying to build a better, safer life.
Have they taken good paying jobs?
Not really, they tend to do the jobs most Americans don't want to do.
They tend to be a bit browner and speak Spanish, and that has contributed to why they are attacked.
Certainly we don't need a wall that won't even be effective to deal with what is primarily a non-problem.
Yes we have many undocumented immigrants in this country. They have the most risk, not the rest of us.
Most Americans just don't care about the wall but his core supporters do so he is playing to his base.
Not good for his party or his chances in 2020 but he gets a big cheer when he mentions the wall at rallies.
I can't envision any money being allocated to his wall, but anything is possible in the world of politics.
Generally the democrats will want to reopen the Government so they made need to agree to something that saves some face for the dontard.
Not what he wants, but if they give him any type of bone, he will turn it into a gigantic skeleton.
Border security is something we need but how much do we need?
People have crossed our southern border fairly regularly for years with no detrimental impact to the country.
The issue is more of a media issue mixed with some racism.
Do some of the people who cross the border do bad things when they get here?
Of course, a small percentage, it is people after all.
They tend to be hard working families trying to build a better, safer life.
Have they taken good paying jobs?
Not really, they tend to do the jobs most Americans don't want to do.
They tend to be a bit browner and speak Spanish, and that has contributed to why they are attacked.
Certainly we don't need a wall that won't even be effective to deal with what is primarily a non-problem.
Yes we have many undocumented immigrants in this country. They have the most risk, not the rest of us.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Lies, Lies, Lies
We have come to accept as normal the fact that the president lies a lot.
The following link takes you to an article that includes poll results about false statements and the level of belief
Fact Checker
Most don't believe them.
So he lies, we know he lies, but he just keeps lying.
Its so unprecedented in our democracy that it is like something out of the book 1984, except in that book the lies were actually believed.
Its hard t believe that he isn't aware of this, although he might not be, he seems to be one of the few to believe himself.
In some cases the lies are not even very meaningful.
Sometimes contradictory. Is the wall being built or have Democrats stopped him?
In fact, its so bad that when he says something accurate, a lot don't believe him either.
That is the exception to the norm though.
Republicans, at least many of them, no longer value honesty in politicians.
Democrats and Independents still do.
Shows how principles are easily changed.
Sad really.
The following link takes you to an article that includes poll results about false statements and the level of belief
Fact Checker
Most don't believe them.
So he lies, we know he lies, but he just keeps lying.
Its so unprecedented in our democracy that it is like something out of the book 1984, except in that book the lies were actually believed.
Its hard t believe that he isn't aware of this, although he might not be, he seems to be one of the few to believe himself.
In some cases the lies are not even very meaningful.
Sometimes contradictory. Is the wall being built or have Democrats stopped him?
In fact, its so bad that when he says something accurate, a lot don't believe him either.
That is the exception to the norm though.
Republicans, at least many of them, no longer value honesty in politicians.
Democrats and Independents still do.
Shows how principles are easily changed.
Sad really.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Life Choices
It might sound trite but the saying "today is the first day of the rest of your life" is actually some of the best advice there is.
Whatever has happened in the past, whatever has gotten you to your current situation, it isn't the future, the future is determined by what you do starting now.
The only realistic approach to most things is to do the next thing in the best way possible.
Suppose you are a homeless alcoholic or drug user. Clearly that is a lot of baggage and you can't suddenly become a home owning middle class person. What you can do is the best thing out of the options you face. Its probably not to scrounge for the next bottle or steal to get the next hit.
This would be a desperate sort of situation and the options may be limited, but one of those options has to be better than the others, although it can be hard to decide.
Unfortunately you can't go back and do the past differently, and that is a problem for many of us who thing of things we could have done differently. However, past mistakes don't fix themselves, you have to avoid making future ones.
Not wanting to admit to a past mistake can force you to keep making it over and over again.
Suppose you are in an abusive relationship but are keeping it a secret for pride or to protect the children.
Its going to stay abusive if nothing changes.
To think that you will get a different result if you keep doing the same thing is, well, insane or at least delusional.
No one has your answers except you. You can determine your future and make it a better one, but you have to do it.
Sometimes the choice is obvious, sometimes it isn't and everyone makes mistakes.
Just keep choosing the next best thing.
Whatever has happened in the past, whatever has gotten you to your current situation, it isn't the future, the future is determined by what you do starting now.
The only realistic approach to most things is to do the next thing in the best way possible.
Suppose you are a homeless alcoholic or drug user. Clearly that is a lot of baggage and you can't suddenly become a home owning middle class person. What you can do is the best thing out of the options you face. Its probably not to scrounge for the next bottle or steal to get the next hit.
This would be a desperate sort of situation and the options may be limited, but one of those options has to be better than the others, although it can be hard to decide.
Unfortunately you can't go back and do the past differently, and that is a problem for many of us who thing of things we could have done differently. However, past mistakes don't fix themselves, you have to avoid making future ones.
Not wanting to admit to a past mistake can force you to keep making it over and over again.
Suppose you are in an abusive relationship but are keeping it a secret for pride or to protect the children.
Its going to stay abusive if nothing changes.
To think that you will get a different result if you keep doing the same thing is, well, insane or at least delusional.
No one has your answers except you. You can determine your future and make it a better one, but you have to do it.
Sometimes the choice is obvious, sometimes it isn't and everyone makes mistakes.
Just keep choosing the next best thing.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Bipartisan Solution?
On pretty shaky grounds a judge in Texas has ruled that the Tax law of 2017 made the affordable care act of 2010 unconstitutional because it eliminated the penalty for the individual mandate.
What will happen with this is anybody's guess and the logic is very tenuous, but in this country if you find the right judge you can get almost any nonsense.
Now that we see more conservative judges being appointed we may have reason to think this might be upheld, although it is certainly not certain and the law will remain in effect until it winds its way through all the appeals.
It would of course be ideal to simply pass a new law that includes all the things we like but the problem with that is, some conservatives view any interference in the health marketplace as a type of socialism.
Certainly the affordable care act wasn't perfect but it greatly increased coverage, has covered pre-existing conditions and has allowed dependents to stay on coverage longer.
It also mandates that certain preventive services be offered at no additional cost in order to increase the overall health of Americans.
If of course you simply believe that he Government has no role to play here, the good things it does becomes irrelevant.
That is not the view of the great majority of Americans and its time our representatives actually represented us.
This will take a number of years to get to the Supreme Court, its ultimate destination and in two years the American people will have the opportunity to make their voices heard on how they feel.
Its time to have a bipartisan solution.
Unfortunately the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
What will happen with this is anybody's guess and the logic is very tenuous, but in this country if you find the right judge you can get almost any nonsense.
Now that we see more conservative judges being appointed we may have reason to think this might be upheld, although it is certainly not certain and the law will remain in effect until it winds its way through all the appeals.
It would of course be ideal to simply pass a new law that includes all the things we like but the problem with that is, some conservatives view any interference in the health marketplace as a type of socialism.
Certainly the affordable care act wasn't perfect but it greatly increased coverage, has covered pre-existing conditions and has allowed dependents to stay on coverage longer.
It also mandates that certain preventive services be offered at no additional cost in order to increase the overall health of Americans.
If of course you simply believe that he Government has no role to play here, the good things it does becomes irrelevant.
That is not the view of the great majority of Americans and its time our representatives actually represented us.
This will take a number of years to get to the Supreme Court, its ultimate destination and in two years the American people will have the opportunity to make their voices heard on how they feel.
Its time to have a bipartisan solution.
Unfortunately the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Political Correctness
You hear a lot of complaints about political correctness and some are justified and others are not.
Political correctness is an odd thing, it is primarily imposed by institutions and society.
The rules are sort of strange and things become "not" politically correct through a sort of consensus, by I guess people who worry about those sort of things.
There are all sorts of words that were considered at one time descriptive but which are now considered offensive to some or many, its sort of hard to tell.
Certainly, calling someone by a term that they find offensive is not acceptable, but I sometimes wonder if they really feel that way or if they were told to feel that way.
Take a term like Redskin which back in my day was the equivalent of Pale Face. I don't know if these terms originated in real life or if the movies created them, but I didn't realize either was derogatory, although now, some maintain Redskin is.
Outside of referring to a football team and maybe when I used to play as a kid, I don't think I ever used that term, but I didn't think it was an insult.
I certainly wouldn't be offended by being called a Paleface, unless of course I just came back from a beach vacation.
You should of course call people what they want to be called, that being polite, and I support polite correct.
However, when a beloved Christmas song about a man and a women flirting is attacked as being a rape song, I have to draw the line. Seduction and flirting isn't rape, lets not decide they are.
The song implies a possible outcome that wouldn't be innocent, but both parties seemed equally guilty.
Let's not get crazy.
Political correctness is an odd thing, it is primarily imposed by institutions and society.
The rules are sort of strange and things become "not" politically correct through a sort of consensus, by I guess people who worry about those sort of things.
There are all sorts of words that were considered at one time descriptive but which are now considered offensive to some or many, its sort of hard to tell.
Certainly, calling someone by a term that they find offensive is not acceptable, but I sometimes wonder if they really feel that way or if they were told to feel that way.
Take a term like Redskin which back in my day was the equivalent of Pale Face. I don't know if these terms originated in real life or if the movies created them, but I didn't realize either was derogatory, although now, some maintain Redskin is.
Outside of referring to a football team and maybe when I used to play as a kid, I don't think I ever used that term, but I didn't think it was an insult.
I certainly wouldn't be offended by being called a Paleface, unless of course I just came back from a beach vacation.
You should of course call people what they want to be called, that being polite, and I support polite correct.
However, when a beloved Christmas song about a man and a women flirting is attacked as being a rape song, I have to draw the line. Seduction and flirting isn't rape, lets not decide they are.
The song implies a possible outcome that wouldn't be innocent, but both parties seemed equally guilty.
Let's not get crazy.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Conspiracy
People who form or create a conspiracy to commit a crime are breaking the law.
You don't actually have to be the person who breaks the law, by being part of the conspiracy you share in the guilt.
We now know that the dontard's lawyer did in fact break the law, pled guilty and has been sentenced to prison time.
We also know he identified his co-conspirators and one of them happens to now be President of this country.
Further, the National Enquirer has entered into, in exchange for immunity, an agreement to cooperate with the Federal Prosecutors.
They were heavily involved in the conspiracy and have a lot of additional information on our current President who had close ties with their owner/editors. (They have always been the very definition of Fake News, which might explain a lot).
These cases are actually related to violations of campaign finance laws and not the collusion with Russia.
That is also looking like a clear case of conspiracy, although the primary crime seems to have been the perjuries, so we would need proof he was encouraging those perjuries (does anyone doubt that?)
There are likely other crimes involved, its a complicated web of lies and deceit with the intent to cover up many ethical violations.
We have passed a milestone with the latest plea deal, more shoes are about to drop.
You don't actually have to be the person who breaks the law, by being part of the conspiracy you share in the guilt.
We now know that the dontard's lawyer did in fact break the law, pled guilty and has been sentenced to prison time.
We also know he identified his co-conspirators and one of them happens to now be President of this country.
Further, the National Enquirer has entered into, in exchange for immunity, an agreement to cooperate with the Federal Prosecutors.
They were heavily involved in the conspiracy and have a lot of additional information on our current President who had close ties with their owner/editors. (They have always been the very definition of Fake News, which might explain a lot).
These cases are actually related to violations of campaign finance laws and not the collusion with Russia.
That is also looking like a clear case of conspiracy, although the primary crime seems to have been the perjuries, so we would need proof he was encouraging those perjuries (does anyone doubt that?)
There are likely other crimes involved, its a complicated web of lies and deceit with the intent to cover up many ethical violations.
We have passed a milestone with the latest plea deal, more shoes are about to drop.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Border Security
Border security is something that we obviously need to be somewhat concerned about but with two coastlines and thousands of miles of actual borders it is never going to be 100% guarded, it would be both unaffordable and technologically and personnel nearly impossible.
The concern currently is the number of illegal immigrants coming across our Southern Border, because the comprise the majority.
They certainly don't comprise the greatest threat, at least not in any real sense of that word.
They do however create something of cultural threat, speaking a different language, influencing certain programming, and generally being a different type of American, than our European roots.
Of course, they also have European roots, but for various reasons, those roots were Spanish and ours don't include Spanish roots, since they would have obviously emigrated to the Spanish speaking countries.
The people coming here, and they have been coming here for a very long time, come for better economic or because we are generally a safer country than some of our southern neighbors.
Current claims to the contrary they do not consist of gang members and/or terrorists, at least not to any great extent. Terrorists might tag along but they have many other means and the idea that they would first travel to a Latin country to then try to enter this country illegally is both convoluted and a bit silly. If they aren't already a known terrorist, they could probably just get a tourist visa and come here.
The current argument concerns whether we need a hugely expensive border wall to reduce illegal immigration along our southern border. If the reason to do this has to do with keeping out terrorists or gang members, it is extremely silly and almost certainly useless.
I've never seen an analysis that would indicate a wall along the southern border would accomplish anything. We already have created barriers in the areas with the easiest overland access only to have them bypassed or tunneled under. Will a multi-billion dollar wall stop some immigration, certainly, but so would many other more effective measures.
It is a project that would take many years to complete, cost many billions of dollars, and require significant maintenance and manning to accomplish very little.
Its not the way to get effective border security.
The concern currently is the number of illegal immigrants coming across our Southern Border, because the comprise the majority.
They certainly don't comprise the greatest threat, at least not in any real sense of that word.
They do however create something of cultural threat, speaking a different language, influencing certain programming, and generally being a different type of American, than our European roots.
Of course, they also have European roots, but for various reasons, those roots were Spanish and ours don't include Spanish roots, since they would have obviously emigrated to the Spanish speaking countries.
The people coming here, and they have been coming here for a very long time, come for better economic or because we are generally a safer country than some of our southern neighbors.
Current claims to the contrary they do not consist of gang members and/or terrorists, at least not to any great extent. Terrorists might tag along but they have many other means and the idea that they would first travel to a Latin country to then try to enter this country illegally is both convoluted and a bit silly. If they aren't already a known terrorist, they could probably just get a tourist visa and come here.
The current argument concerns whether we need a hugely expensive border wall to reduce illegal immigration along our southern border. If the reason to do this has to do with keeping out terrorists or gang members, it is extremely silly and almost certainly useless.
I've never seen an analysis that would indicate a wall along the southern border would accomplish anything. We already have created barriers in the areas with the easiest overland access only to have them bypassed or tunneled under. Will a multi-billion dollar wall stop some immigration, certainly, but so would many other more effective measures.
It is a project that would take many years to complete, cost many billions of dollars, and require significant maintenance and manning to accomplish very little.
Its not the way to get effective border security.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Deal with the Devil
So we now have some pretty clear allegations that the dontard directed payments that probably violated campaign finance laws.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Safety Net?
One of the great appeals of capitalism is the ability of anyone to aspire to and possibly accumulate great riches.
Of course only a few actually do but in general they are admired and serve as exemplars of what can happen if you have the right combination of skill and luck.
Clearly not everyone does, but the opportunity creates hope and enthusiasm that leads to new ideas, businesses and other enterprises which breeds a healthy progression in society.
We have example after example of rags to riches stories and some of our very largest corporations were started by young people working on an idea that worked.
People often talk about the American Dream but I believe the real American Dream is to become incredibly rich, or at least rich enough to not worry about mundane things like making a mortgage or rent payment.
The downside is the income inequality that is created between winners and losers.
The system creates many more losers, people struggling to get by and make ends meet than winners.
This has been true throughout history.
One difference today is that we generally believe that anyone can succeed in America, while in many societies wealth and success were tied into a caste system for the fortunate few. Most of those societies have been replaced by either an American style capitalism or a European style socialism.
Europe of course has its elites, but it has also taken efforts to assure every citizen has basic things like health care, education and pensions guaranteed by the state.
It does require more taxation and more state involvement but generally it goes a long ways toward eliminating the very poor.
We refer to this concept as the safety net in America but its clearly a pretty low net in comparison to most European countries.
Right now we can't even afford what we have.
Of course only a few actually do but in general they are admired and serve as exemplars of what can happen if you have the right combination of skill and luck.
Clearly not everyone does, but the opportunity creates hope and enthusiasm that leads to new ideas, businesses and other enterprises which breeds a healthy progression in society.
We have example after example of rags to riches stories and some of our very largest corporations were started by young people working on an idea that worked.
People often talk about the American Dream but I believe the real American Dream is to become incredibly rich, or at least rich enough to not worry about mundane things like making a mortgage or rent payment.
The downside is the income inequality that is created between winners and losers.
The system creates many more losers, people struggling to get by and make ends meet than winners.
This has been true throughout history.
One difference today is that we generally believe that anyone can succeed in America, while in many societies wealth and success were tied into a caste system for the fortunate few. Most of those societies have been replaced by either an American style capitalism or a European style socialism.
Europe of course has its elites, but it has also taken efforts to assure every citizen has basic things like health care, education and pensions guaranteed by the state.
It does require more taxation and more state involvement but generally it goes a long ways toward eliminating the very poor.
We refer to this concept as the safety net in America but its clearly a pretty low net in comparison to most European countries.
Right now we can't even afford what we have.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
The Great Scammers
More and more evidence of the fundamental fact that Republicans have become a party that caters to certain voters, mostly white, generally male without college degrees and definitely ethnocentric.
Pretty much the same type of audience that is targeted by various groups such as white nationalists and the Klan, and which, at least for a short time and based on the electoral college can win the Presidency, if all falls out right.
However it is at best a tenuous majority so part of their strategy is to make that vote count extra and suppress by any means possible the votes of everyone else, at least where it matters.
This was a successful strategy in many cases as they were able to get control of many State governments and then gerrymander the congressional districts, pass restrictive voter rules and do everything they could to maintain power.
Sadly they don't use that power to help that group, they use it to help their rich donors and business owners who theoretically will create jobs for this group like they used to have.
They aren't, at least not to any great degree.
To be fair, the group we are talking about ere generally the primary builders of much of this country, not the people alive today so much as their ancestors. In return they were able to live in a prosperous country with good jobs and good benefits.
It may not be a completely accurate picture, but companies and workers, especially as unions got strong, formed a sort of partnership. However, the workers represented a cost and s businesses became less patriarchal and more businesslike, that cost was viewed as a problem that needed to be reduced.
This led to the movement of work to non-union states and eventually to other countries, as well as outsourcing and automation. The good paying low skill jobs effectively disappeared and with them went the union benefits.
The people doing this were the business owners, or more correctly corporate boards that became dominated by people with MBAs and no ties to the communities they operated in, outside of some needed public relations.
The blame for this, is it requires blame is purely on the decision makers in the business, but the blame was deflected fairly successfully to unions, liberals, immigrants, trade deals and the establishment in Washington who catered to the politically correct.
None of that was or is true, it was a matter of economics, not politics and most of the policies blamed were in fact inspired by those same businesses that used the Republican party to get them done.
The success of these policies hinged on what is best called deflection, you lost your manufacturing job, look at all those people crossing the border. They, by the way weren't getting those jobs either.
What about those people disrespecting the flag, or trying to take your guns or making you be politically correct. None of that had anything to do with the economy, and weren't generally even true.
It was and is one of the biggest cons ever and the fact that it worked as long as it has is a tribute to the dedicated scammers who pulled it off.
Pity though.
Pretty much the same type of audience that is targeted by various groups such as white nationalists and the Klan, and which, at least for a short time and based on the electoral college can win the Presidency, if all falls out right.
However it is at best a tenuous majority so part of their strategy is to make that vote count extra and suppress by any means possible the votes of everyone else, at least where it matters.
This was a successful strategy in many cases as they were able to get control of many State governments and then gerrymander the congressional districts, pass restrictive voter rules and do everything they could to maintain power.
Sadly they don't use that power to help that group, they use it to help their rich donors and business owners who theoretically will create jobs for this group like they used to have.
They aren't, at least not to any great degree.
To be fair, the group we are talking about ere generally the primary builders of much of this country, not the people alive today so much as their ancestors. In return they were able to live in a prosperous country with good jobs and good benefits.
It may not be a completely accurate picture, but companies and workers, especially as unions got strong, formed a sort of partnership. However, the workers represented a cost and s businesses became less patriarchal and more businesslike, that cost was viewed as a problem that needed to be reduced.
This led to the movement of work to non-union states and eventually to other countries, as well as outsourcing and automation. The good paying low skill jobs effectively disappeared and with them went the union benefits.
The people doing this were the business owners, or more correctly corporate boards that became dominated by people with MBAs and no ties to the communities they operated in, outside of some needed public relations.
The blame for this, is it requires blame is purely on the decision makers in the business, but the blame was deflected fairly successfully to unions, liberals, immigrants, trade deals and the establishment in Washington who catered to the politically correct.
None of that was or is true, it was a matter of economics, not politics and most of the policies blamed were in fact inspired by those same businesses that used the Republican party to get them done.
The success of these policies hinged on what is best called deflection, you lost your manufacturing job, look at all those people crossing the border. They, by the way weren't getting those jobs either.
What about those people disrespecting the flag, or trying to take your guns or making you be politically correct. None of that had anything to do with the economy, and weren't generally even true.
It was and is one of the biggest cons ever and the fact that it worked as long as it has is a tribute to the dedicated scammers who pulled it off.
Pity though.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
National Taxation
Many people in the United States think we are overtaxed. By pretty much any measure we aren't. In 2015 our tax as a percent of GDP was 26% well below the average of 34% for other developed countries.
Tax by Country
I'm sure taxes are complained about everywhere, and there is no political capital to be gained by proposing to raise them, however, if growth and reduced spending aren't going to eliminate the deficit, the only thing left to do is to raise taxes.
However, besides the political consequences there will also be economic ones. The Government doesn't collect taxes or borrow money to sit on it, it is used for many purposes all of which, except interest on the national debt, end up increasing our GDP.
Whether the money is used to pay for a fighter plane, a federal salary, a social security check or food stamps it enters the economy and circulates.
Since the deficit is so high, we are borrowing over a trillion dollars in 2018 which is stimulating the economy.
Its not much different with people who take out loans or credit card debt to buy things today with the promise of paying the loan back in the future.
So were we to stop borrowing for current costs and instead increase taxes, we would see that amount disappear from the economy, not because of the taxes, that money would be spent, but because we wouldn't have that loan stimulus every year.
I want to make sure it is clear that eliminating the deficit would not eliminate the National Debt. It would take many years of surplus income to do that.
The increase would be in the order of an extra 25% based on 2019 projections where revenue is projected at $3.42 trillion while expenses are estimated at $4.41 trillion. No one is proposing raising taxes that much, in fact, you see very little action related to this issue.
In the best case scenario we see spending go down and tax receipts go up because of economic growth. In a much more troubling scenario we see spending go up and revenue go down because of a recession.
If nothing is done about the debt, at some point we won't be able to borrow enough to fund it and that will lead to any of a number of bad scenarios, such as runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, recession, devaluation of the American dollar.
None of it is good.
Tax by Country
I'm sure taxes are complained about everywhere, and there is no political capital to be gained by proposing to raise them, however, if growth and reduced spending aren't going to eliminate the deficit, the only thing left to do is to raise taxes.
However, besides the political consequences there will also be economic ones. The Government doesn't collect taxes or borrow money to sit on it, it is used for many purposes all of which, except interest on the national debt, end up increasing our GDP.
Whether the money is used to pay for a fighter plane, a federal salary, a social security check or food stamps it enters the economy and circulates.
Since the deficit is so high, we are borrowing over a trillion dollars in 2018 which is stimulating the economy.
Its not much different with people who take out loans or credit card debt to buy things today with the promise of paying the loan back in the future.
So were we to stop borrowing for current costs and instead increase taxes, we would see that amount disappear from the economy, not because of the taxes, that money would be spent, but because we wouldn't have that loan stimulus every year.
I want to make sure it is clear that eliminating the deficit would not eliminate the National Debt. It would take many years of surplus income to do that.
The increase would be in the order of an extra 25% based on 2019 projections where revenue is projected at $3.42 trillion while expenses are estimated at $4.41 trillion. No one is proposing raising taxes that much, in fact, you see very little action related to this issue.
In the best case scenario we see spending go down and tax receipts go up because of economic growth. In a much more troubling scenario we see spending go up and revenue go down because of a recession.
If nothing is done about the debt, at some point we won't be able to borrow enough to fund it and that will lead to any of a number of bad scenarios, such as runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, recession, devaluation of the American dollar.
None of it is good.
Friday, December 7, 2018
National Spending
If you want to reduce or reverse the deficit the concept is simple, income has to exceed spending.
Enough economic growth could do both those things, but as discussed yesterday the likelihood of that happening is next to nothing, based on current economic conditions. If it was to happen it would be great, but it isn't happening.
So why not just reduce spending enough to eliminate the deficit? It would work if it was possible, but Government spending isn't a bunch of wild and reckless extravagance. Most of it is tied into three areas, Defense, Entitlements or Debt service.
I include both Social Security and Medicare under entitlements although for some reason people don't want to, equating entitlements to "give-aways". Since we contribute to those programs we have earned them, and we have meaning we are entitled to them.
To get enough reduction to meaningfully impact the deficit you need to consider the big contributors. Of course the other areas need to be efficient but the numbers, even at zero don't work, and those programs are not about to be zeroed out any tie soon.
Interest on the National Debt is a large expenditure and it is growing as the debt increases and as interest rates climb. This is not optional spending and the only way to reduce it would be to reduce the debt and/or the interest rates. Interest rates have been at historic lows and they are starting to rise. There is little we can do about this area without addressing the other areas.
Entitlement spending is the favorite area to cut except for the fact that the programs included are extremely popular with the public. Some changes to social security and Medicare are probably needed,, but any change is going to face stiff opposition. Other entitlement programs include popular things as well and while there is a general belief that we are giving away billions of dollars to people who don't deserve it, each program has survived multiple years of unfriendly scrutiny by hostile congressmen, so while some waste and abuse will exist, the programs themselves are not overly generous handouts.
Of course there is a factor that has led to some of the waste and abuse as we have reduced the federal workforce who would be charged with enforcement. There is no desire to greatly increase that workforce so enforcement is reliant upon less and less cops on the beat.
Without a significant change to popular programs that would reduce spending significantly, there is simply no way entitlement programs can be reduced enough to eliminate the deficit. In fact the deficit is over a trillion dollars and spending reductions are never going to fix that, although they could contribute.
The last significant area is national defense which is, to some extent, a sacred cow. Expenditures here are increasing as we see little interest in balancing the spending against our budget situation. There is certainly some opportunities for reduction here, but people serving in our military should not be hurt. Defense programs are a double edged sword, since because they are American based they are economic boons for the areas where weapons are manufactured and they create jobs. Reducing our overseas commitments is possible but delicate and not probably in the best interests of our national defense.
Spending, although a popular area to attack is simply not going to eliminate the deficit without sacrifices we aren't willing to accept. In fact we have large spending needs related to infrastructure and border security that will increase spending as well as increases in the areas mentioned above.
That leaves only income as a possible solution.
Enough economic growth could do both those things, but as discussed yesterday the likelihood of that happening is next to nothing, based on current economic conditions. If it was to happen it would be great, but it isn't happening.
So why not just reduce spending enough to eliminate the deficit? It would work if it was possible, but Government spending isn't a bunch of wild and reckless extravagance. Most of it is tied into three areas, Defense, Entitlements or Debt service.
I include both Social Security and Medicare under entitlements although for some reason people don't want to, equating entitlements to "give-aways". Since we contribute to those programs we have earned them, and we have meaning we are entitled to them.
To get enough reduction to meaningfully impact the deficit you need to consider the big contributors. Of course the other areas need to be efficient but the numbers, even at zero don't work, and those programs are not about to be zeroed out any tie soon.
Interest on the National Debt is a large expenditure and it is growing as the debt increases and as interest rates climb. This is not optional spending and the only way to reduce it would be to reduce the debt and/or the interest rates. Interest rates have been at historic lows and they are starting to rise. There is little we can do about this area without addressing the other areas.
Entitlement spending is the favorite area to cut except for the fact that the programs included are extremely popular with the public. Some changes to social security and Medicare are probably needed,, but any change is going to face stiff opposition. Other entitlement programs include popular things as well and while there is a general belief that we are giving away billions of dollars to people who don't deserve it, each program has survived multiple years of unfriendly scrutiny by hostile congressmen, so while some waste and abuse will exist, the programs themselves are not overly generous handouts.
Of course there is a factor that has led to some of the waste and abuse as we have reduced the federal workforce who would be charged with enforcement. There is no desire to greatly increase that workforce so enforcement is reliant upon less and less cops on the beat.
Without a significant change to popular programs that would reduce spending significantly, there is simply no way entitlement programs can be reduced enough to eliminate the deficit. In fact the deficit is over a trillion dollars and spending reductions are never going to fix that, although they could contribute.
The last significant area is national defense which is, to some extent, a sacred cow. Expenditures here are increasing as we see little interest in balancing the spending against our budget situation. There is certainly some opportunities for reduction here, but people serving in our military should not be hurt. Defense programs are a double edged sword, since because they are American based they are economic boons for the areas where weapons are manufactured and they create jobs. Reducing our overseas commitments is possible but delicate and not probably in the best interests of our national defense.
Spending, although a popular area to attack is simply not going to eliminate the deficit without sacrifices we aren't willing to accept. In fact we have large spending needs related to infrastructure and border security that will increase spending as well as increases in the areas mentioned above.
That leaves only income as a possible solution.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
National Debt
How serious is our National Debt problem?
Well, it is very serious or maybe it isn't.
It is certainly at historic amounts and is consuming more and more of our annual budgets every year just to service it.
However as long as people, and countries, are willing to lend us money by buying our bonds and notes, we can move along quite nicely.
Until we can't.
If you consider the current period a bit of a grace period to get our act together, we have to somehow turn our annual deficit into an annual surplus, if we want to reduce the debt.
There is no current scenario where that is going to happen without either an incredible increase in growth, a dramatic reduction in spending or a significant increase in taxes.
Growth would of course be the best scenario as it helps to reduce some entitlement spending and increase taxes as more taxable income is generated.
This was the scenario at the beginning of the second Bush administration and we almost immediately reduced taxes and increased spending.
Per Capita real GDP rose 23% during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency and we went from deficit to surplus. In the 20 years since, it has increase by 21% and we have slid back into deficits.
Yes we had the Internet bubble and the financial crisis, but we would need to return to the growth of the 90s for a prolonged period to get back to surplus. The chance of that happening seems slim to zero, but maybe something will change.
So spending and taxes would have t be addressed, and I'll discuss those next.
Well, it is very serious or maybe it isn't.
It is certainly at historic amounts and is consuming more and more of our annual budgets every year just to service it.
However as long as people, and countries, are willing to lend us money by buying our bonds and notes, we can move along quite nicely.
Until we can't.
If you consider the current period a bit of a grace period to get our act together, we have to somehow turn our annual deficit into an annual surplus, if we want to reduce the debt.
There is no current scenario where that is going to happen without either an incredible increase in growth, a dramatic reduction in spending or a significant increase in taxes.
Growth would of course be the best scenario as it helps to reduce some entitlement spending and increase taxes as more taxable income is generated.
This was the scenario at the beginning of the second Bush administration and we almost immediately reduced taxes and increased spending.
Per Capita real GDP rose 23% during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency and we went from deficit to surplus. In the 20 years since, it has increase by 21% and we have slid back into deficits.
Yes we had the Internet bubble and the financial crisis, but we would need to return to the growth of the 90s for a prolonged period to get back to surplus. The chance of that happening seems slim to zero, but maybe something will change.
So spending and taxes would have t be addressed, and I'll discuss those next.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Medicare For All Costs
There have been a number of articles recently and some misguided statements by proponents on both sides about the cost and implementation of "Medicare for All" or publicly provided health insurance.
It would be expensive, but mathematically it wouldn't require new money, just a switch form privately funded to publicly funded.
How that would happen is the real problem, if in fact we even see it proposed seriously as opposed to a talking point by certain politicians.
To be clear, the cost of health care reflects the cost of health services being provided. Currently most is provided under private insurance plans which are obtained in any number of ways.
Ultimately this cost might rise if more people get covered or it might decrease if the preventive care leads to earlier detection and less late intervention.
That's a matter that can be argued but, the switch from private to public funding wouldn't have a particular impact on overall costs, although of course the cost would show up as a Government expense.
As a reference point the United States has the highest per capita health care costs of any country although Switzerland is close, per the World Health depending of how you value the currencies.
The cost has been going up but it is going up partly because of inflation but also partly because new
and improved technology has been introduced.
By most measures health outcomes do not correspond to the high cost, not that they are bad, but in many measures we are relatively average. Of course because of our profit model, we attract some of the very best specialists in every discipline if, in fact, you can afford them.
The point is unless we are increasing this per capita cost, the total cost will not go up. It's only a matter of how we pay for it.
It would be expensive, but mathematically it wouldn't require new money, just a switch form privately funded to publicly funded.
How that would happen is the real problem, if in fact we even see it proposed seriously as opposed to a talking point by certain politicians.
To be clear, the cost of health care reflects the cost of health services being provided. Currently most is provided under private insurance plans which are obtained in any number of ways.
Ultimately this cost might rise if more people get covered or it might decrease if the preventive care leads to earlier detection and less late intervention.
That's a matter that can be argued but, the switch from private to public funding wouldn't have a particular impact on overall costs, although of course the cost would show up as a Government expense.
As a reference point the United States has the highest per capita health care costs of any country although Switzerland is close, per the World Health depending of how you value the currencies.
The cost has been going up but it is going up partly because of inflation but also partly because new
and improved technology has been introduced.
By most measures health outcomes do not correspond to the high cost, not that they are bad, but in many measures we are relatively average. Of course because of our profit model, we attract some of the very best specialists in every discipline if, in fact, you can afford them.
The point is unless we are increasing this per capita cost, the total cost will not go up. It's only a matter of how we pay for it.
Monday, December 3, 2018
Trade Deals?
So how are the trade negotiations going?
So far not so good but we now have some progress from the G-20. It looks like NAFTA is going to be updated a bit and we have a bit of a truce with China.
Which the dontard has declared as a victory although we're no better off then we were when the whole thing started.
says
Maybe that's about all we can expect from this group. Well at least from their leader.
Even his account of what was agreed to seems questionable as the official account issued by his own administration.
Did they agree to reduce tariffs or just agree not to raise them for a few months?
No doubt everything the dontard says is probably wrong, he doesn't pay attentions and generally doesn't grasp any of the details.
Hopefully some of the people involved actually know how to add and write legal agreements.
It will have to get through congress before anything actually happens.
Even this little bit of progress or no progress is encouraging to the business community who thinks this administration is their friends but head of it is pretty unpredictable, and not in a good way.
Not all the surprises are pleasant ones.
So far not so good but we now have some progress from the G-20. It looks like NAFTA is going to be updated a bit and we have a bit of a truce with China.
Which the dontard has declared as a victory although we're no better off then we were when the whole thing started.
says
Maybe that's about all we can expect from this group. Well at least from their leader.
Even his account of what was agreed to seems questionable as the official account issued by his own administration.
Did they agree to reduce tariffs or just agree not to raise them for a few months?
No doubt everything the dontard says is probably wrong, he doesn't pay attentions and generally doesn't grasp any of the details.
Hopefully some of the people involved actually know how to add and write legal agreements.
It will have to get through congress before anything actually happens.
Even this little bit of progress or no progress is encouraging to the business community who thinks this administration is their friends but head of it is pretty unpredictable, and not in a good way.
Not all the surprises are pleasant ones.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Health Care, Still Under Attack
You may or may not have noticed that this is the time to enroll in a health plan under the Affordable Care Act if you are eligible.
There is virtually no outreach going on for the Federal Exchange if you live in one of the states without their own exchange.
The current administration was unable to repeal it and instead is doing everything it can to destroy it by other means.
Attempts to repeal it outright are probably over, at least for the next two years if not forever, but attempts to undercut it continue.
As predicted with more experience and with a more stable outlook, premiums have generally stabilized and more providers are joining in since they see opportunities to make profits.
Current attempts to destabilize it include the introduction of low cost do little plans designed to appeal to low risk customers. If you can get them out of the plans, it will increase costs.
However for many of those, the full coverage plans in the exchange end up being more affordable when you get the income based subsidy that's part of the act.
Now the administration is trying to allow states to apply those subsidies to non qualifying plans outside of the exchanges.
This is of doubtful legality since the coverages and the subsidies are both pretty clearly spelled out, but when you predict it will collapse and try to undermine it without success, well try harder.
Most Americans have come to, if not love, at least accept the plan and most love some of its best provisions like covering pre-existing conditions or allowing dependents to stay covered longer.
We are now going to see some attempts at expanding it even further as many progressives are pushing the concept of Medicare for All.
It will be interesting to watch.
There is virtually no outreach going on for the Federal Exchange if you live in one of the states without their own exchange.
The current administration was unable to repeal it and instead is doing everything it can to destroy it by other means.
Attempts to repeal it outright are probably over, at least for the next two years if not forever, but attempts to undercut it continue.
As predicted with more experience and with a more stable outlook, premiums have generally stabilized and more providers are joining in since they see opportunities to make profits.
Current attempts to destabilize it include the introduction of low cost do little plans designed to appeal to low risk customers. If you can get them out of the plans, it will increase costs.
However for many of those, the full coverage plans in the exchange end up being more affordable when you get the income based subsidy that's part of the act.
Now the administration is trying to allow states to apply those subsidies to non qualifying plans outside of the exchanges.
This is of doubtful legality since the coverages and the subsidies are both pretty clearly spelled out, but when you predict it will collapse and try to undermine it without success, well try harder.
Most Americans have come to, if not love, at least accept the plan and most love some of its best provisions like covering pre-existing conditions or allowing dependents to stay covered longer.
We are now going to see some attempts at expanding it even further as many progressives are pushing the concept of Medicare for All.
It will be interesting to watch.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Goodbye President Bush
During his life I generally didn't agree with his policies but I'll say I always respected him.
He served this country well in the Military, Government Service and in the executive office and afterward he acted with good will and honesty.
There are going to be many tributes to him published but I just want to say he characterized the period in this country where people could disagree without the acrimony and disharmony we see today.
I didn't of course disagree with all of his policies, many of them were clearly bipartisan and in the interests of the country as a whole.
It seems like after him, the country fell under a type of acrimony that we had been somewhat immune to previously and a lot of that is related to the creation of the Murdoch media empire in this country and the sensationalism that used to get revenue.
Its a history that needs to be written how the greed of one man and new technology spread "fake" news into the mainstream.
Of course we went through a period of yellow journalism once before.
How this period will resolve itself remains to be seen, but that is a bit off point.
This president never stooped to the behavior we now take for granted. He was part of the generation we often refer to as the greatest one, and he took his responsibilities seriously and served honorably.
Goodbye
He served this country well in the Military, Government Service and in the executive office and afterward he acted with good will and honesty.
There are going to be many tributes to him published but I just want to say he characterized the period in this country where people could disagree without the acrimony and disharmony we see today.
I didn't of course disagree with all of his policies, many of them were clearly bipartisan and in the interests of the country as a whole.
It seems like after him, the country fell under a type of acrimony that we had been somewhat immune to previously and a lot of that is related to the creation of the Murdoch media empire in this country and the sensationalism that used to get revenue.
Its a history that needs to be written how the greed of one man and new technology spread "fake" news into the mainstream.
Of course we went through a period of yellow journalism once before.
How this period will resolve itself remains to be seen, but that is a bit off point.
This president never stooped to the behavior we now take for granted. He was part of the generation we often refer to as the greatest one, and he took his responsibilities seriously and served honorably.
Goodbye
Friday, November 30, 2018
Hint of Racism?
When you see the candidates put up by the administration and sometimes confirmed by the Senate, you have to wonder does anyone actually look into these guys?
Forget about their political beliefs but when candidate after candidate has questionable issues in their background that indicate they may have been engaged in a racist activity or maybe sexual abuse, why not find someone without those issues?
It seems like they just don't care or at least the administration doesn't.
The explanation is that the qualities they look for are more about loyalty than character and qualifications.
If you have been a loyal member of the party or loyal to the dontard, a nomination is your reward.
Now patronage of this sort has always been a part of politics, although over the years attempts have been made to reduce it. The success of those attempts are obviously limited.
Prior administrations generally tried to present candidates who could survive a background investigation into their character, at least a legitimate one.
That is part of the problem as the explosion of cable news and Internet sources have led to many bogus conspiracy and character accusations.
If you entertain the idea that some prominent democrats ran a sex ring our of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. (they didn't), these accusations seem tame.
It is hard to determine what is valid vs what isn't with all the bogus stuff being tossed about.
There is plenty of fake news, its just not published by the reputable news agencies.
CNN or the New York Times may have an editorial opinion but what they broadcast or publish is consistent with journalistic standards. The same can't be said for many others who express unfounded opinions which have no foundation.
Unfortunately, this is often mistaken for actual news when it isn't.
It creates a kind of smoke screen for the actual issues.
Forget about their political beliefs but when candidate after candidate has questionable issues in their background that indicate they may have been engaged in a racist activity or maybe sexual abuse, why not find someone without those issues?
It seems like they just don't care or at least the administration doesn't.
The explanation is that the qualities they look for are more about loyalty than character and qualifications.
If you have been a loyal member of the party or loyal to the dontard, a nomination is your reward.
Now patronage of this sort has always been a part of politics, although over the years attempts have been made to reduce it. The success of those attempts are obviously limited.
Prior administrations generally tried to present candidates who could survive a background investigation into their character, at least a legitimate one.
That is part of the problem as the explosion of cable news and Internet sources have led to many bogus conspiracy and character accusations.
If you entertain the idea that some prominent democrats ran a sex ring our of a pizzeria in Washington D.C. (they didn't), these accusations seem tame.
It is hard to determine what is valid vs what isn't with all the bogus stuff being tossed about.
There is plenty of fake news, its just not published by the reputable news agencies.
CNN or the New York Times may have an editorial opinion but what they broadcast or publish is consistent with journalistic standards. The same can't be said for many others who express unfounded opinions which have no foundation.
Unfortunately, this is often mistaken for actual news when it isn't.
It creates a kind of smoke screen for the actual issues.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
Boom Eonomy?
Is the Economy booming?
There are a lot of positive measures and if you are in the top groups you are doing pretty well.
This is a reflection of the ongoing economic trend where skills get rewarded and robots replace the rest.
So we see a concentration of wealth at the top while the middle shrinks and the poor generally get poorer.
This is not an unusual model in world economies, just a bit unusual for this country.
For most of our history we had a labor shortage, not just a shortage of skilled workers but workers for unskilled positions as well.
This enabled those workers, with the help in many cases of unions to win pay raises and benefits for doing, well robotic type work.
The factory used to have many jobs for able bodied people who had few skills, and it paid well.
Then two things happened.
One of the great trends in the last 25 years or so was outsourcing of subassemblies.
Not so long ago, at least it doesn't seem that long ago, a major manufacturer would build everything in plant with some exceptions for specialized items.
Then we saw a realization that parts could be outsourced, at first domestically and later internationally for less then it cost to build them, partly because of the pay and benefits of employees.
So non-union domestic shops started taking jobs from union workers in the old manufacturing plants. This expanded to non-union and non-domestic shops as we saw shipping costs reduce and trade barriers disappeared.
The second thing was the advent of automation. Robots could weld, turn bolts, cut parts and move objects with a vey small amount of human intervention. I remember years ago in IT, the goal was to have a lights out environment for the servers meaning no people needed to be involved. We are getting close to that in many of our manufacturing plants.
If you see pictures of an auto assembly plant (they are assembling all those outsourced parts) you see robots and generally no people.
Of course it was more than just manufacturing, automation has impacted every aspect of our lives. New jobs were created, primarily in service areas and generally lower paying with fewer benefits, if any so we see low unemployment rates but little growth in disposable income, for these people.
The profits increased as payroll decreased and those profits went to the owners and managers as well as the fewer skilled workers still needed.
Most of the prior workers got left out.
So booming? If you are one of the fortunate ones, it is.
But to quote an old song, for a lot of the country, "It ain't me".
There are a lot of positive measures and if you are in the top groups you are doing pretty well.
This is a reflection of the ongoing economic trend where skills get rewarded and robots replace the rest.
So we see a concentration of wealth at the top while the middle shrinks and the poor generally get poorer.
This is not an unusual model in world economies, just a bit unusual for this country.
For most of our history we had a labor shortage, not just a shortage of skilled workers but workers for unskilled positions as well.
This enabled those workers, with the help in many cases of unions to win pay raises and benefits for doing, well robotic type work.
The factory used to have many jobs for able bodied people who had few skills, and it paid well.
Then two things happened.
One of the great trends in the last 25 years or so was outsourcing of subassemblies.
Not so long ago, at least it doesn't seem that long ago, a major manufacturer would build everything in plant with some exceptions for specialized items.
Then we saw a realization that parts could be outsourced, at first domestically and later internationally for less then it cost to build them, partly because of the pay and benefits of employees.
So non-union domestic shops started taking jobs from union workers in the old manufacturing plants. This expanded to non-union and non-domestic shops as we saw shipping costs reduce and trade barriers disappeared.
The second thing was the advent of automation. Robots could weld, turn bolts, cut parts and move objects with a vey small amount of human intervention. I remember years ago in IT, the goal was to have a lights out environment for the servers meaning no people needed to be involved. We are getting close to that in many of our manufacturing plants.
If you see pictures of an auto assembly plant (they are assembling all those outsourced parts) you see robots and generally no people.
Of course it was more than just manufacturing, automation has impacted every aspect of our lives. New jobs were created, primarily in service areas and generally lower paying with fewer benefits, if any so we see low unemployment rates but little growth in disposable income, for these people.
The profits increased as payroll decreased and those profits went to the owners and managers as well as the fewer skilled workers still needed.
Most of the prior workers got left out.
So booming? If you are one of the fortunate ones, it is.
But to quote an old song, for a lot of the country, "It ain't me".
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Future Jobs
We see a lot of outrage over the recent announcement by GM that it was closing a number of auto plants in the US and laying off a significant number of employees.
This was of course an economic decision in line with decisions made by many other plants and factories in recent years.
It is designed to increase profitability and shareholder value.
Our favorite dontard is outraged and it clearly demonstrates that his promises to reverse this trend and keep and increase jobs in these industries is simply meaningless.
Its a promise he had no way of keeping and the economy is way too complex for him to understand.
Now, there may even be a face saving press release that will act like the plans were revised, but whatever it says it will not interrupt the economic forces that led to the decision.
During the campaign we saw photo ops at a number of plants the dontard claimed to have saved, but most of them went ahead with their plans anyway.
They were based on economics, not rhetoric.
In fact the uncertainty of the tariffs from the dontard will almost definitely encourage more off-shore production.
The US market is a very profitable one, but it is also a mature one. Population and wage growth are low and that limits growth for most existing products. Yes, if someone develops something new, like say the I-Phone, you might see explosive growth, but we already have plenty of cars.
You need to compete in emerging markets and you need to incorporate low cost imported parts.
Our trade policy becomes a problem.
Our future prosperity needs to be tied to future products, renewable energy, solar panels, technology, services, etc. A policy that tries to bring back the past is simply short sighted and doomed.
This was of course an economic decision in line with decisions made by many other plants and factories in recent years.
It is designed to increase profitability and shareholder value.
Our favorite dontard is outraged and it clearly demonstrates that his promises to reverse this trend and keep and increase jobs in these industries is simply meaningless.
Its a promise he had no way of keeping and the economy is way too complex for him to understand.
Now, there may even be a face saving press release that will act like the plans were revised, but whatever it says it will not interrupt the economic forces that led to the decision.
During the campaign we saw photo ops at a number of plants the dontard claimed to have saved, but most of them went ahead with their plans anyway.
They were based on economics, not rhetoric.
In fact the uncertainty of the tariffs from the dontard will almost definitely encourage more off-shore production.
The US market is a very profitable one, but it is also a mature one. Population and wage growth are low and that limits growth for most existing products. Yes, if someone develops something new, like say the I-Phone, you might see explosive growth, but we already have plenty of cars.
You need to compete in emerging markets and you need to incorporate low cost imported parts.
Our trade policy becomes a problem.
Our future prosperity needs to be tied to future products, renewable energy, solar panels, technology, services, etc. A policy that tries to bring back the past is simply short sighted and doomed.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Mississippi Senate Race
My only actual experience with Mississippi is that some flights I took had stops in Jackson.
Images of the State are generally not very good, at least to most people from the North as it was the deepest of deep south states with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, chain gangs, school segregation etc. etc.
It is now about to elect a Senator in a runoff and the odds are they will elect the Republican.
That wouldn't normally be much news except this one has displayed either outright racism or at least a strong hint of it with comments about public hangings, the confederacy, and is the embodiment of the white establishment in the start.
She might not actually be a racist, at least by her standards, but I'm pretty certain she grew up in a way that distinguished between white people and non-white people.
This is by no means unique to Mississippi or southern states, we have enough of it in the north.
Its just not as blatant.
It would be a real sign of change if the republican lost, although it isn't very likely.
Mississippi has the largest percentage of black people of any state.
Sooner or later they will have a strong say on the future of the State.
Maybe today is a place to start.
Images of the State are generally not very good, at least to most people from the North as it was the deepest of deep south states with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, chain gangs, school segregation etc. etc.
It is now about to elect a Senator in a runoff and the odds are they will elect the Republican.
That wouldn't normally be much news except this one has displayed either outright racism or at least a strong hint of it with comments about public hangings, the confederacy, and is the embodiment of the white establishment in the start.
She might not actually be a racist, at least by her standards, but I'm pretty certain she grew up in a way that distinguished between white people and non-white people.
This is by no means unique to Mississippi or southern states, we have enough of it in the north.
Its just not as blatant.
It would be a real sign of change if the republican lost, although it isn't very likely.
Mississippi has the largest percentage of black people of any state.
Sooner or later they will have a strong say on the future of the State.
Maybe today is a place to start.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Increase Spending, Reduce Taxes, Deficit?
It seems the current administration has a problem with math. If you reduce income and increase spending it turns our you have less money, not more.
Of course the fuzzy logic was that the growth rate was going to explode and increase revenue even with the reduced tax rates.
Problem with this was the country was already well into the recovery and growth could at best be tweaked.
If we had had a large number of unemployed, we might have seen users turning into contributors but we already had low unemployment. The bigger issue was that many of the jobs were low paying service jobs as opposed to high paying manufacturing jobs.
Those jobs aren't coming back in the numbers that would be required and in fact, more and more of them will fall victim to automation.
The well paid jobs require skills or at least an entrepreneurial spirit.
However, being employed but making minimum wage or something close to it, does not solve the deficit problem since it doesn't result in much in taxes, and may keep you on some benefit programs.
When you consider the tax reductions mostly ended up in the pockets of wealthy individuals who didn't increase anything that would create jobs, the fuzzy math gets fuzzier.
Meanwhile the spending on mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare as well as increased spending on defense, border security and infrastructure with a increase in the cost of money has led to a skyrocketing deficit.
It is of course a mathematical certainty, but not to this group.
If they were asked to do a math problem with one train traveling east and the other train traveling west, the answer would be the trains colliding.
Of course the fuzzy logic was that the growth rate was going to explode and increase revenue even with the reduced tax rates.
Problem with this was the country was already well into the recovery and growth could at best be tweaked.
If we had had a large number of unemployed, we might have seen users turning into contributors but we already had low unemployment. The bigger issue was that many of the jobs were low paying service jobs as opposed to high paying manufacturing jobs.
Those jobs aren't coming back in the numbers that would be required and in fact, more and more of them will fall victim to automation.
The well paid jobs require skills or at least an entrepreneurial spirit.
However, being employed but making minimum wage or something close to it, does not solve the deficit problem since it doesn't result in much in taxes, and may keep you on some benefit programs.
When you consider the tax reductions mostly ended up in the pockets of wealthy individuals who didn't increase anything that would create jobs, the fuzzy math gets fuzzier.
Meanwhile the spending on mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare as well as increased spending on defense, border security and infrastructure with a increase in the cost of money has led to a skyrocketing deficit.
It is of course a mathematical certainty, but not to this group.
If they were asked to do a math problem with one train traveling east and the other train traveling west, the answer would be the trains colliding.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Embedded Government
One theme that recurs with the current administration is how they like to portray themselves as victims .
This plays well with their base which also considers themselves victimized by the powers that be, apparently themselves.
Ignoring the theme of denied self entitlement, this administration faces the same checks and balances as every other administration has.
Government doesn't reboot itself when a new administration gets elected. First we have 235 years of previous history where laws and the constitution guarantee certain behaviors by Government employees.
Some things can be changed by Executive Orders, but, that is limited by the division of powers.
To think anything about this is unique is of course part of their victim mentality.
The business of government is by its very nature a bureaucratic thing and it requires planning, hard work, and compromise, all areas not strong points with this group.
They think that they can push things through by public announcements and attacking this with different opinions
It has led to a lot of public bluster but few actual lasting changes.
Considering the policies they tried to enact that's not the worst thing.
This plays well with their base which also considers themselves victimized by the powers that be, apparently themselves.
Ignoring the theme of denied self entitlement, this administration faces the same checks and balances as every other administration has.
Government doesn't reboot itself when a new administration gets elected. First we have 235 years of previous history where laws and the constitution guarantee certain behaviors by Government employees.
Some things can be changed by Executive Orders, but, that is limited by the division of powers.
To think anything about this is unique is of course part of their victim mentality.
The business of government is by its very nature a bureaucratic thing and it requires planning, hard work, and compromise, all areas not strong points with this group.
They think that they can push things through by public announcements and attacking this with different opinions
It has led to a lot of public bluster but few actual lasting changes.
Considering the policies they tried to enact that's not the worst thing.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Science or Opinion?
Not everything is a matter of opinion.
For example, we know when water boils, and if you want to hold a different opinion you are just wrong.
The age we live in has in some ways allowed certain people to treat everything as relative.
Most things aren't.
It often doesn't matter when people decide to reject certain facts. If you want to believe the Earth is flat, go ahead. You are demonstrably wrong, but who cares?
If on the other hand you fail to vaccinate your children because you believe the proven fallacies of the dangers of vaccination you are risking them and others to dangerous diseases.
Are vaccinations risk free? Well nothing is risk free really, but the risks are not related to the wild rumors on the Internet, they are extremely rare.
Similarly, the impact of man on the climate is no longer a matter of opinion if it ever was.
Clearly pumping tons of pollutants into the air is not a beneficial thing and while we had trouble measuring the full impact at one time, science can now determine its impacts and consequences.
Science likes to express some facts as ranges, because even when the data is clear, the calculations almost always include some variables that can change the prediction.
The change is a matter of range, not of reversal.
So if the prediction is that something bad will happen in 50 to 60 years, it is not unsettled science, it is the nature of future variability.
The federal government issued a report after detailed studies which spells out the catastrophic consequences of climate change if we don't do something. In some cases it is probably already too late.
Denial is not really an option and the results are sound science, not opinions.
You can't wish them away.
For example, we know when water boils, and if you want to hold a different opinion you are just wrong.
The age we live in has in some ways allowed certain people to treat everything as relative.
Most things aren't.
It often doesn't matter when people decide to reject certain facts. If you want to believe the Earth is flat, go ahead. You are demonstrably wrong, but who cares?
If on the other hand you fail to vaccinate your children because you believe the proven fallacies of the dangers of vaccination you are risking them and others to dangerous diseases.
Are vaccinations risk free? Well nothing is risk free really, but the risks are not related to the wild rumors on the Internet, they are extremely rare.
Similarly, the impact of man on the climate is no longer a matter of opinion if it ever was.
Clearly pumping tons of pollutants into the air is not a beneficial thing and while we had trouble measuring the full impact at one time, science can now determine its impacts and consequences.
Science likes to express some facts as ranges, because even when the data is clear, the calculations almost always include some variables that can change the prediction.
The change is a matter of range, not of reversal.
So if the prediction is that something bad will happen in 50 to 60 years, it is not unsettled science, it is the nature of future variability.
The federal government issued a report after detailed studies which spells out the catastrophic consequences of climate change if we don't do something. In some cases it is probably already too late.
Denial is not really an option and the results are sound science, not opinions.
You can't wish them away.
Friday, November 23, 2018
The Refugee Problem
One of the success stories of western civilization and western economics is that it attracts so many people from poorer countries.
It is of course also one of its problems, the number of people who are attracted to the better life it promises.
Most of the western world has consumer based economies where the production of consumer items employs many at good wages leading to more money to spend on consumer items.
Underlying this economy is of course certain fundamental industries, but as we see consumer spending growing every year it becomes a bigger percentage of the economy as a whole. It is currently a little over 70% of the economy, as measured by GDP.
To people living is poor, war ravaged areas where clean drinking water is a real concern, seeing images of people ordering exotic coffees or any of the million other consumer items we hardly think about is an image of a paradise they want to be a part of.
Obviously not all of them but enough that it becomes a problem for many western countries, or at least a perceived problem.
It obviously varies country by country and some of the poorer European countries with high unemployment can hardly afford thousands of more needy people.
On the other hand the United States actually has plenty of work for them once they get acclimated and the objections are generally more related to social issues, and rhetoric.
The nature of the issues tends to define the areas hardest hit, so the southern tier of European countries are generally the most accessible to most of the new refugees and ask for help from richer northern European countries.
It is however more of a worldwide issue that should probably be dealt with via consensus, although of course we are currently not interested in such arrangements.
It really is a much more problematic issue elsewhere but it is a tale of human misery which impacts all of us to at least some extent.
It is of course also one of its problems, the number of people who are attracted to the better life it promises.
Most of the western world has consumer based economies where the production of consumer items employs many at good wages leading to more money to spend on consumer items.
Underlying this economy is of course certain fundamental industries, but as we see consumer spending growing every year it becomes a bigger percentage of the economy as a whole. It is currently a little over 70% of the economy, as measured by GDP.
To people living is poor, war ravaged areas where clean drinking water is a real concern, seeing images of people ordering exotic coffees or any of the million other consumer items we hardly think about is an image of a paradise they want to be a part of.
Obviously not all of them but enough that it becomes a problem for many western countries, or at least a perceived problem.
It obviously varies country by country and some of the poorer European countries with high unemployment can hardly afford thousands of more needy people.
On the other hand the United States actually has plenty of work for them once they get acclimated and the objections are generally more related to social issues, and rhetoric.
The nature of the issues tends to define the areas hardest hit, so the southern tier of European countries are generally the most accessible to most of the new refugees and ask for help from richer northern European countries.
It is however more of a worldwide issue that should probably be dealt with via consensus, although of course we are currently not interested in such arrangements.
It really is a much more problematic issue elsewhere but it is a tale of human misery which impacts all of us to at least some extent.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Happy Thanksgiving
There are many things to be thankful for and we should probably remember that more than once a year.
Still I guess once a year is better than never so I hope everyone has a wonderful day and considers all the things that are good instead of just focusing on some of the bad.
There is plenty of days to focus on the bad things around.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Still I guess once a year is better than never so I hope everyone has a wonderful day and considers all the things that are good instead of just focusing on some of the bad.
There is plenty of days to focus on the bad things around.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
2020 Will We See Better?
Was looking at some poll results and our dontard manages to get over 50% on the economy but much lower numbers in every other category.
These polls were speculating about re-election scenarios and whether his "glowing" reviews on the economy will be enough to get re-elected.
Not sure how scores just over 50% are glowing, but they are at least on the plus side.
I think any speculation about 2020 is premature, but that's not going to stop me from expressing some views.
Clearly, as the polls pointed out, the electoral college works to his favor as many smaller population rural states have extras representation. Since we are not going to get rid of the college easily this has to factor in to any campaign strategy.
One issue facing both parties is that the democrats have become associated with coastal elitism while republicans appeal to less educated white men and to a lesser extent white women. We saw in the recent mid-terms that college educated voters were strongly against the republican party as it is today.
The reason for this is partly because the power structure and economics are changing in a way that has resulted in some erosion of what is white privilege, viewed by them as reverse discrimination.
So the issue is to somehow overcome the fake news network which paints this picture and show that rising opportunities for all is not a bad thing and that the economy is not a zero sum game.
Unfortunately, they were hit by economic forces related to automation and in some cases trade but these are not because the jobs and opportunities were funneled to immigrants and minorities, but because the owners made more profits.
Who is best to convey this message remains to be determined, but the message has to be that they are part of the future, not just relegated to the past.
These polls were speculating about re-election scenarios and whether his "glowing" reviews on the economy will be enough to get re-elected.
Not sure how scores just over 50% are glowing, but they are at least on the plus side.
I think any speculation about 2020 is premature, but that's not going to stop me from expressing some views.
Clearly, as the polls pointed out, the electoral college works to his favor as many smaller population rural states have extras representation. Since we are not going to get rid of the college easily this has to factor in to any campaign strategy.
One issue facing both parties is that the democrats have become associated with coastal elitism while republicans appeal to less educated white men and to a lesser extent white women. We saw in the recent mid-terms that college educated voters were strongly against the republican party as it is today.
The reason for this is partly because the power structure and economics are changing in a way that has resulted in some erosion of what is white privilege, viewed by them as reverse discrimination.
So the issue is to somehow overcome the fake news network which paints this picture and show that rising opportunities for all is not a bad thing and that the economy is not a zero sum game.
Unfortunately, they were hit by economic forces related to automation and in some cases trade but these are not because the jobs and opportunities were funneled to immigrants and minorities, but because the owners made more profits.
Who is best to convey this message remains to be determined, but the message has to be that they are part of the future, not just relegated to the past.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Infighting
It always seems that success leads to distractions in politics. The Democrats have taken control of the House but the big story concerns the revolt against Nancy Pelosi.
She has significant baggage since she was the speaker of the house the last time the Democrats were in charge.
She has a big role in passing the affordable care act but at the time she took a lot of criticism.
Any politician in a position of power is going to get criticised but th criticisms of Pelosi have taken on a life of their own.
She has been a staunch supporter of Democratic policies and equal opportunity, but she has had to make compromises over the years.
Compromise is not acceptable to some of our newly elected Progressives but they should realize compromise is the oil that gets things done.
Moving the party further left is fine but taking extreme positions isnt. It's also important to choose the right battles and fighting over the leadership after an electoral victory probably isnt.
She has significant baggage since she was the speaker of the house the last time the Democrats were in charge.
She has a big role in passing the affordable care act but at the time she took a lot of criticism.
Any politician in a position of power is going to get criticised but th criticisms of Pelosi have taken on a life of their own.
She has been a staunch supporter of Democratic policies and equal opportunity, but she has had to make compromises over the years.
Compromise is not acceptable to some of our newly elected Progressives but they should realize compromise is the oil that gets things done.
Moving the party further left is fine but taking extreme positions isnt. It's also important to choose the right battles and fighting over the leadership after an electoral victory probably isnt.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Government Distrust
One of the things that has always been somewhat confusing about the American democracy is how many people think the Government is their enemy.
This tracks back to our earliest days when mistrust of the Government led to the Bill of Rights, a protection from the Government oppressing us.
If we are a Government of the people, why so much mistrust?
Governments in general tend to restrict what you can do, at least the way we perceive it.
We tend to forget that without Government, a lot of things we take for granted would be problematic.
For example, we all know that the various parts of the Government provide law enforcement, which, assuming you are law abiding, is a positive thing.
The problem generally is that the Government protects the many, who take it for granted, while making the few toe the line.
So a business owner told by OSHA that he has to incur costs for the safety of his workers is not going to be happy, and probably his workers won't care or may feel their jobs are being threatened.
Food processors like to stamp their products as Government approved, but they don't like when the Government costs them money.
Almost all of us, at least those who work, feel some pain from the payroll deductions to pay for all this, and inherently feel we pay too much, even thought we don't actually pay the full costs.
The point I am making is that the benefits of Government are spread over a large number, in effect making it almost invisible, while enforcement is much more targeted.
We pay too much and get too little and every so often the Government bothers us, making us get permits, or licenses, or possibly giving us a ticket or even arresting us.
We could do without it, except of course without it there would be anarchy.
Its just so annoying.
This tracks back to our earliest days when mistrust of the Government led to the Bill of Rights, a protection from the Government oppressing us.
If we are a Government of the people, why so much mistrust?
Governments in general tend to restrict what you can do, at least the way we perceive it.
We tend to forget that without Government, a lot of things we take for granted would be problematic.
For example, we all know that the various parts of the Government provide law enforcement, which, assuming you are law abiding, is a positive thing.
The problem generally is that the Government protects the many, who take it for granted, while making the few toe the line.
So a business owner told by OSHA that he has to incur costs for the safety of his workers is not going to be happy, and probably his workers won't care or may feel their jobs are being threatened.
Food processors like to stamp their products as Government approved, but they don't like when the Government costs them money.
Almost all of us, at least those who work, feel some pain from the payroll deductions to pay for all this, and inherently feel we pay too much, even thought we don't actually pay the full costs.
The point I am making is that the benefits of Government are spread over a large number, in effect making it almost invisible, while enforcement is much more targeted.
We pay too much and get too little and every so often the Government bothers us, making us get permits, or licenses, or possibly giving us a ticket or even arresting us.
We could do without it, except of course without it there would be anarchy.
Its just so annoying.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Party Politics
When you consider the political landscape most Americans end up being poorly represented.
Having been in a job that takes you to many different areas of the country and being able to talk and listen to what people want it generally comes down to pretty similar things.
The problem is that we have, for want of a better term, the lunatic fringes.
So a few people want to remove all restrictions on gun ownership and a few want to ban guns completely but the vast majority want reasonable restrictions to make sure gun owners are not likely to go out and shoot up a crowded concert.
Most issues have a position that the majority, in some cases the vast majority of Americans can support, but party politics and our primary system push the parties further and further apart.
There isn't a short term solution for this, until at least we face a real crisis such as a financial collapse or a major war where party politics might be forgotten.
The answer of course is to get more participation, not just in the general elections but in the primaries.
Making it easier to vote in both would be a good start but in man states the trend is just the opposite as fallacies about voter fraud are used to restrict voting.
With the technology we have we should be able to assure every citizen gets to vote, without looking for ways to invalidate citizen's ballots who you might disagree with.
That should be bipartisan.
Having been in a job that takes you to many different areas of the country and being able to talk and listen to what people want it generally comes down to pretty similar things.
The problem is that we have, for want of a better term, the lunatic fringes.
So a few people want to remove all restrictions on gun ownership and a few want to ban guns completely but the vast majority want reasonable restrictions to make sure gun owners are not likely to go out and shoot up a crowded concert.
Most issues have a position that the majority, in some cases the vast majority of Americans can support, but party politics and our primary system push the parties further and further apart.
There isn't a short term solution for this, until at least we face a real crisis such as a financial collapse or a major war where party politics might be forgotten.
The answer of course is to get more participation, not just in the general elections but in the primaries.
Making it easier to vote in both would be a good start but in man states the trend is just the opposite as fallacies about voter fraud are used to restrict voting.
With the technology we have we should be able to assure every citizen gets to vote, without looking for ways to invalidate citizen's ballots who you might disagree with.
That should be bipartisan.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
The Grater Good
If you consider politics, at least in a democracy, the people trying to win your vote argue that they represent the greater good.
Of course what the greater good is may not be agreed upon.
Much of our politics can be broken down into two visions of how to achieve it.
One vision is a belief that it takes leaders to move us forward and that to encourage these leaders they must be rewarded for their efforts.
Its a pretty simple premise, especially when you look at how it worked in the past. Starting an enterprise is risky and to encourage that risk taking you need sufficient rewards. Enterprises generate jobs and trade and many benefit form them in addition to the original owner.
The general concept is hard to argue with, with the only issue being what level of reward is enough? We see income inequality growing greater and greater as technology and the global economy has resulted in less actual "trickle down".
The other view is similar in that it wants economic growth, but the source of that growth is not rewarded as much. Using a progressive tax system, the reward diminish as they grow with the taxes being used to help the needy.
There is of course a third system where you effectively eliminate the entrepreneurs and do everything communally, but that isn't really something being considered in this country.
Its of course further complicated by the fact that most large enterprises are now publicly held so owners re not always easily identified.
Still, does the owner of Amazon care whether he has a few billion more dollars? Maybe he does or maybe after some point it is simply a game to see where he is on the richest peoples list.
Certainly people with that much money can decide to use it for "good" but is that better than letting society decide where the money is most needed.
These are the questions we struggle with in this country and there is no clear answer.
We know that in the past when the inequality exceeded certain levels it led to uprisings and revolution.
That is certainly not the greater good.
Of course what the greater good is may not be agreed upon.
Much of our politics can be broken down into two visions of how to achieve it.
One vision is a belief that it takes leaders to move us forward and that to encourage these leaders they must be rewarded for their efforts.
Its a pretty simple premise, especially when you look at how it worked in the past. Starting an enterprise is risky and to encourage that risk taking you need sufficient rewards. Enterprises generate jobs and trade and many benefit form them in addition to the original owner.
The general concept is hard to argue with, with the only issue being what level of reward is enough? We see income inequality growing greater and greater as technology and the global economy has resulted in less actual "trickle down".
The other view is similar in that it wants economic growth, but the source of that growth is not rewarded as much. Using a progressive tax system, the reward diminish as they grow with the taxes being used to help the needy.
There is of course a third system where you effectively eliminate the entrepreneurs and do everything communally, but that isn't really something being considered in this country.
Its of course further complicated by the fact that most large enterprises are now publicly held so owners re not always easily identified.
Still, does the owner of Amazon care whether he has a few billion more dollars? Maybe he does or maybe after some point it is simply a game to see where he is on the richest peoples list.
Certainly people with that much money can decide to use it for "good" but is that better than letting society decide where the money is most needed.
These are the questions we struggle with in this country and there is no clear answer.
We know that in the past when the inequality exceeded certain levels it led to uprisings and revolution.
That is certainly not the greater good.
Friday, November 16, 2018
Economic Concerns
There is a rising level of evidence that the short term policies that have been stoking the economy under the current administration are starting to run out of steam.
The tax breaks didn't translate into a lot of high paying jobs and the deficit has grown.
The FED has interpreted the flare up as a potential inflation indicator and has started raising the cost of money.
The elimination of some regulations have enabled some companies to make extra profits but once again this has not led to an explosion of new jobs and taxes so the deficit continues to grow.
Further dampening the economy is the terrible trade policies which will result in higher prices and less exports for the economy.
What is important to note is that the developed countries are, well, developed, meaning that they are nearly at the maximum for consumption. They have had the most money and were clearly the most important markets, and will remain important markets for a long time. However they are not where the dramatic growth is.
The most growth is going to be in the countries that are still developing as they increase their per capita incomes and become greater consumers. American companies need to capture some of those markets to have the sort of growth that ultimately creates jobs.
If the components needed to complete products get more expensive because of tariffs, the end products produced here will be non-competitive. The reason the components are made elsewhere is because the costs are significantly less than here and increasing the cost in this market is not going to change that for the rest of the world.
So America needs a trade policy that allows us unrestricted access to these markets and one that keeps our products competitive.
The spiteful nature of our current policies may hurt others but it is going to be more harmful to us in the long run as we lose market share in developing markets that will be hard to recapture.
This is all pointing to an economic downturn that may have already started. The market seems to think so.
The tax breaks didn't translate into a lot of high paying jobs and the deficit has grown.
The FED has interpreted the flare up as a potential inflation indicator and has started raising the cost of money.
The elimination of some regulations have enabled some companies to make extra profits but once again this has not led to an explosion of new jobs and taxes so the deficit continues to grow.
Further dampening the economy is the terrible trade policies which will result in higher prices and less exports for the economy.
What is important to note is that the developed countries are, well, developed, meaning that they are nearly at the maximum for consumption. They have had the most money and were clearly the most important markets, and will remain important markets for a long time. However they are not where the dramatic growth is.
The most growth is going to be in the countries that are still developing as they increase their per capita incomes and become greater consumers. American companies need to capture some of those markets to have the sort of growth that ultimately creates jobs.
If the components needed to complete products get more expensive because of tariffs, the end products produced here will be non-competitive. The reason the components are made elsewhere is because the costs are significantly less than here and increasing the cost in this market is not going to change that for the rest of the world.
So America needs a trade policy that allows us unrestricted access to these markets and one that keeps our products competitive.
The spiteful nature of our current policies may hurt others but it is going to be more harmful to us in the long run as we lose market share in developing markets that will be hard to recapture.
This is all pointing to an economic downturn that may have already started. The market seems to think so.
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Blndering Policies
There are no magic wands. Some issues are simply complicated and difficult.
For example, if you want to create new jobs going forward, the logical approach would be to identify the industries that will be creating those jobs and supporting them. Of course that requires some idea of what those industries might be.
The long term answer isn't to wistfully look at the past and try to recreate the jobs that used to exist, as we are apparently trying to do.
Coal is old renewable is new.
If someone could actually find a way to economically use coal in a non environmentally damaging way, it would be wonderful since we have so much of it, but the odds of that are slim. It also wouldn't create a lot of new jobs since most coal mining is now much more dependent on machines than people although of course people are still somewhat involved.
Building up renewable energy sources like wind and solar would require significant development and new technology, both of which translate into jobs.
Speaking of development, we need to develop or repair our infrastructure to move forward. This would create a lot of jobs, but after we gave the tax cuts to the industries that would benefit from infrastructure improvements we don't have the money to do it. Using it to build a wall instead of internal infrastructure would be insane. the wall has not long term economic benefit.
Something that does have long term economic benefits is trade. The more trade the better and yes the trade should be conducted on a level playing field. However trade is also a complex issue. Actions taken often have multiple consequences, many of them unintended. Increase the cost of some components used by an industry that exports goods, it may make their cost too high, leading to loss of market share and reduced exports. Retaliatory actions also are problematic.
Trade generally requires less government involvement, and the involvement needs to be surgically precise. Is China stealing trade secrets? Address that issue with specific actions, don't start a trade war that hurts many Americans (and Chinese too).
We seem ill equipped to approach most issues as we conduct policy based on late night thoughts, that are almost always a poor substitute for good analysis. Almost always.
For example, if you want to create new jobs going forward, the logical approach would be to identify the industries that will be creating those jobs and supporting them. Of course that requires some idea of what those industries might be.
The long term answer isn't to wistfully look at the past and try to recreate the jobs that used to exist, as we are apparently trying to do.
Coal is old renewable is new.
If someone could actually find a way to economically use coal in a non environmentally damaging way, it would be wonderful since we have so much of it, but the odds of that are slim. It also wouldn't create a lot of new jobs since most coal mining is now much more dependent on machines than people although of course people are still somewhat involved.
Building up renewable energy sources like wind and solar would require significant development and new technology, both of which translate into jobs.
Speaking of development, we need to develop or repair our infrastructure to move forward. This would create a lot of jobs, but after we gave the tax cuts to the industries that would benefit from infrastructure improvements we don't have the money to do it. Using it to build a wall instead of internal infrastructure would be insane. the wall has not long term economic benefit.
Something that does have long term economic benefits is trade. The more trade the better and yes the trade should be conducted on a level playing field. However trade is also a complex issue. Actions taken often have multiple consequences, many of them unintended. Increase the cost of some components used by an industry that exports goods, it may make their cost too high, leading to loss of market share and reduced exports. Retaliatory actions also are problematic.
Trade generally requires less government involvement, and the involvement needs to be surgically precise. Is China stealing trade secrets? Address that issue with specific actions, don't start a trade war that hurts many Americans (and Chinese too).
We seem ill equipped to approach most issues as we conduct policy based on late night thoughts, that are almost always a poor substitute for good analysis. Almost always.
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
Bad Decisions?
If you want t make a good decision the best way is to gather all the data you can, analyze it and evaluate the potential outcomes choosing the option that results in the most overall benefits.
Or you can throw darts at a dartboard.
Sometimes the second method works just as well because today's data may not be tomorrow's data.
If you think about the business failures we see, and some American icons are falling by the wayside, you wonder how did they let themselves get so bad.
Surely when a company like Sears or Toys-r-Us was riding high, they could afford some of the best talent or hire consultants to make good decisions.
Still they obviously made bad ones while other companies made good ones.
Its likely that every decision was supported by a significant amount of data and demonstrated how it was going to lead to long term success.
It didn't.
I don't have all the data I would need to analyze why they failed, but I suspect it was related to the usual culprits, taking n debt for a project that didn't pay off, say the acquisition of K-Mart.
Sears actually saw its competition growing and knew how they were doing it.
It was at first Wal-Mart and then Amazon.
Their attempts to compete were at best misguided and ineffective as they lost market share and had higher and higher fixed costs.
Toys-r-Us faced the same competition and failed faster.
There are a lot of other details that will come out but ultimately the final nail is always when you don't have enough free cash to pay your debtors.
Decisions made years ago failed to accurately predict the future. They often do.
Or you can throw darts at a dartboard.
Sometimes the second method works just as well because today's data may not be tomorrow's data.
If you think about the business failures we see, and some American icons are falling by the wayside, you wonder how did they let themselves get so bad.
Surely when a company like Sears or Toys-r-Us was riding high, they could afford some of the best talent or hire consultants to make good decisions.
Still they obviously made bad ones while other companies made good ones.
Its likely that every decision was supported by a significant amount of data and demonstrated how it was going to lead to long term success.
It didn't.
I don't have all the data I would need to analyze why they failed, but I suspect it was related to the usual culprits, taking n debt for a project that didn't pay off, say the acquisition of K-Mart.
Sears actually saw its competition growing and knew how they were doing it.
It was at first Wal-Mart and then Amazon.
Their attempts to compete were at best misguided and ineffective as they lost market share and had higher and higher fixed costs.
Toys-r-Us faced the same competition and failed faster.
There are a lot of other details that will come out but ultimately the final nail is always when you don't have enough free cash to pay your debtors.
Decisions made years ago failed to accurately predict the future. They often do.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Two More Years
It has been two years since the dontard got elected and it feels much longer.
He's managed to move the republican party to the right, making it a home for racists and bigots while getting evangelicals to hold their nose and support his anti-abortion stance.
He may have tainted the Supreme Court for the next few decades with our second sexual abuser on it.
He's managed to give his rich cronies a nice tax break while spreading a few crumbs around for most of us, that were eaten up by the increased prices on imports due to his trade policies.
He has made enemies of our friends overseas while toadying up to the Russian Dictator
He is perceived as something between a buffoon and an out of control toddler carrying an automatic weapon.
His administration is unable to put together competent appointees as he seems to take advice from whomever he talks to last. His acting attorney general is either a fine man who he knows very well, or someone who he has never met who he apparently appointed by throwing darts.
Possibly both if it turns out his mental disorder goes that way.
Democrats taking the house was almost a complete victory, not sure if he remembers what party he is in.
Our deficit is ballooning and he wants to increase it further with more tax cuts and more spending.
He has delayed our progress on cleaning up the environment, since he doesn't think the millions and millions of metric tons of carbon released every day is causing any problems.
We are taking steps back in guaranteeing equal protection under the law and have gone after long time residents who have done nothing wrong except being here.
The jobs being created are fine but they are the same type of jobs that have been created under the new normal, lower paying service jobs, not high paying manufacturing jobs, for the most part.
Of course, his state of the union address will tout a lot of imaginary achievements and probably blame the democrats for what didn't happen.
Two more years.
He's managed to move the republican party to the right, making it a home for racists and bigots while getting evangelicals to hold their nose and support his anti-abortion stance.
He may have tainted the Supreme Court for the next few decades with our second sexual abuser on it.
He's managed to give his rich cronies a nice tax break while spreading a few crumbs around for most of us, that were eaten up by the increased prices on imports due to his trade policies.
He has made enemies of our friends overseas while toadying up to the Russian Dictator
He is perceived as something between a buffoon and an out of control toddler carrying an automatic weapon.
His administration is unable to put together competent appointees as he seems to take advice from whomever he talks to last. His acting attorney general is either a fine man who he knows very well, or someone who he has never met who he apparently appointed by throwing darts.
Possibly both if it turns out his mental disorder goes that way.
Democrats taking the house was almost a complete victory, not sure if he remembers what party he is in.
Our deficit is ballooning and he wants to increase it further with more tax cuts and more spending.
He has delayed our progress on cleaning up the environment, since he doesn't think the millions and millions of metric tons of carbon released every day is causing any problems.
We are taking steps back in guaranteeing equal protection under the law and have gone after long time residents who have done nothing wrong except being here.
The jobs being created are fine but they are the same type of jobs that have been created under the new normal, lower paying service jobs, not high paying manufacturing jobs, for the most part.
Of course, his state of the union address will tout a lot of imaginary achievements and probably blame the democrats for what didn't happen.
Two more years.
Monday, November 12, 2018
Political?
There are some things that don't seem like they should be political, but they are.
Take climate change.
Its hard to imagine why anyone would object to reducing pollutants of any type except some businesses that it might add cost to.
Those types of things can be addressed by using regulations or taxes to level the field but we see people attacking the science, which is pretty irrefutable.
The solution is a cleaner world and less greenhouse gases, can't we work commonly towards that?
It isn't some conspiracy to hurt America, the facts and figures are available to all.
Similarly, I'm not familiar with anyone who thinks innocent people getting gunned down is a good thing. Solutions to that problem don't require confiscating peoples guns but it might involve restricting the types of guns available without special background checks.
Once again the only ones who actually oppose these restrictions are the companies that profit by having unrestricted gun sales.
Profit is not an acceptable substitute for living and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also guaranteed.
What w don't protect is people's right to vote. Some states have tried to do everything they can to suppress the wrong type of voter.
Of course the ones they consider wrong varies and the justification, usually related to voter fraud is unfounded. Every citizen should be able to vote and they shouldn't be denied because they might vote for the wrong candidate.
We currently see attacks being made irresponsibly about recounts in some close elections. Those recounts are observed by both parties and are not fraudulent or manipulated.
Count every vote is really not something we should be disagreeing about.
Its democracy.
Take climate change.
Its hard to imagine why anyone would object to reducing pollutants of any type except some businesses that it might add cost to.
Those types of things can be addressed by using regulations or taxes to level the field but we see people attacking the science, which is pretty irrefutable.
The solution is a cleaner world and less greenhouse gases, can't we work commonly towards that?
It isn't some conspiracy to hurt America, the facts and figures are available to all.
Similarly, I'm not familiar with anyone who thinks innocent people getting gunned down is a good thing. Solutions to that problem don't require confiscating peoples guns but it might involve restricting the types of guns available without special background checks.
Once again the only ones who actually oppose these restrictions are the companies that profit by having unrestricted gun sales.
Profit is not an acceptable substitute for living and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are also guaranteed.
What w don't protect is people's right to vote. Some states have tried to do everything they can to suppress the wrong type of voter.
Of course the ones they consider wrong varies and the justification, usually related to voter fraud is unfounded. Every citizen should be able to vote and they shouldn't be denied because they might vote for the wrong candidate.
We currently see attacks being made irresponsibly about recounts in some close elections. Those recounts are observed by both parties and are not fraudulent or manipulated.
Count every vote is really not something we should be disagreeing about.
Its democracy.
Sunday, November 11, 2018
The Great War
It seems odd to think that World War 1 or the Great War ended 100 years ago. It always seemed to be more distant than it actually was to me. probably because the second World War was so much closer.
I don't remember knowing any veterans of the first one, although it seems inevitable that I must have met at least one. Of course I did meet lots of veterans from all the subsequent wars.
The Great War was certainly not great for anyone and it introduced horrors we still worry about today, such as poison gas, tanks, air wars.
We can romanticize some of this, especially the air war parts, but we shouldn't forget they resulted in people dying.
The war was long and bitter and the American part in it was bad enough, but of course the Europeans saw a generation get decimated.
The world that emerged after that war was very different from the one that entered it, with Imperial empires gone in most of Europe and the concept of war as glorious pretty much destroyed.
Unfortunately the peace only lasted long enough for the next generation to go through their own hell 20 years later.
We honor our veterans today and that is something we should do. We honor our war dead on Memorial day so this is a day to commemorate those who survived.
It is of course also the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War, so that needs to be commemorated.
The war was so horrible and fought so bravely that it should be commemorated.
It was a significant event that changed the world.
However the peace didn't last and we had a more horrible one too soon after it.
I don't remember knowing any veterans of the first one, although it seems inevitable that I must have met at least one. Of course I did meet lots of veterans from all the subsequent wars.
The Great War was certainly not great for anyone and it introduced horrors we still worry about today, such as poison gas, tanks, air wars.
We can romanticize some of this, especially the air war parts, but we shouldn't forget they resulted in people dying.
The war was long and bitter and the American part in it was bad enough, but of course the Europeans saw a generation get decimated.
The world that emerged after that war was very different from the one that entered it, with Imperial empires gone in most of Europe and the concept of war as glorious pretty much destroyed.
Unfortunately the peace only lasted long enough for the next generation to go through their own hell 20 years later.
We honor our veterans today and that is something we should do. We honor our war dead on Memorial day so this is a day to commemorate those who survived.
It is of course also the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War, so that needs to be commemorated.
The war was so horrible and fought so bravely that it should be commemorated.
It was a significant event that changed the world.
However the peace didn't last and we had a more horrible one too soon after it.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Saturday Musings
Mass shootings, as horrible as they are, have become routine enough that start to rate them as being more or less horrible than each other. Innocent people or children get gunned down, they can't lose their shock value.
I see a lot of talking heads on TV ignoring what really happened in 2016 and predict that our current dontard will get re-elected in 2020. He didn't even really win in 2016, it was simply a few states that swung the electoral college and no one is going to take them for granted going forward. Of course elections are a bit hard to predict but he's not wining any popularity contests.
The economy is fine in many ways but the issue of high paying manufacturing jobs going away and unequal distribution of income hasn't gotten better, maybe worse. A lot of old manufacturing areas are still in recession if not depression and will need to reinvent themselves.
When you consider energy, our dependence on oil and coal is diminishing as people switch to renewable or natural gas. Oil consumption has recovered some since the recession but is still lower than it was in 2008. Its not happening fast enough but its starting.
One of the not so secret problems in America is how much racism had worked its way into our culture over the years. It's certainly better than it was but its why the term politically correct is so onerous, it suppresses these learned behaviors. The dontard is part of the generation that grew up with all these racist stereotypes and it just seems normal to him.
Its actually ingrained into some of our news reports. I see a lot of them talking about how "white" people will become a minority in a certain number of years. Well, as long as we are all Americans, what difference does it make?
Once again we have a democratic congress that has to deal with a tremendous deficit from a republican administration. Who is the party of big spenders again?
I see a lot of talking heads on TV ignoring what really happened in 2016 and predict that our current dontard will get re-elected in 2020. He didn't even really win in 2016, it was simply a few states that swung the electoral college and no one is going to take them for granted going forward. Of course elections are a bit hard to predict but he's not wining any popularity contests.
The economy is fine in many ways but the issue of high paying manufacturing jobs going away and unequal distribution of income hasn't gotten better, maybe worse. A lot of old manufacturing areas are still in recession if not depression and will need to reinvent themselves.
When you consider energy, our dependence on oil and coal is diminishing as people switch to renewable or natural gas. Oil consumption has recovered some since the recession but is still lower than it was in 2008. Its not happening fast enough but its starting.
One of the not so secret problems in America is how much racism had worked its way into our culture over the years. It's certainly better than it was but its why the term politically correct is so onerous, it suppresses these learned behaviors. The dontard is part of the generation that grew up with all these racist stereotypes and it just seems normal to him.
Its actually ingrained into some of our news reports. I see a lot of them talking about how "white" people will become a minority in a certain number of years. Well, as long as we are all Americans, what difference does it make?
Once again we have a democratic congress that has to deal with a tremendous deficit from a republican administration. Who is the party of big spenders again?
Friday, November 9, 2018
Adult Governance
How much of an impact the democratic controlled congress will have on certain issues remains to be seen.
It clearly isn't able to pass legislation without buy in from the senate and the administration, so its ability to start new initiatives is going to be limited.
It can however impact the other sides initiatives in a similar fashion meaning that to get things passed, legislation will have to include some concessions to them.
This is in fact called democracy where negotiation becomes more important then rhetoric.
Some of the areas where this will have the most impact include social issues.
It can protect things like freedom of choice, health care, social security which were targeted to reduce the deficit.
Maybe the most important role it has is to be reasonable and not pave the way for a reversal in two years.
The last two years have seen the appointment of two conservative judges to the Supreme Court who will influence day to day American life for decades. Other seats will inevitably come up and if not in the next two years certainly in the four after that.
There is a pretty clear demographic trend that indicates America becoming more progressive. It looks inevitable but the inevitable part of it may take years.
Having a federal judiciary that is going to prevent progress would be a lasting legacy of intransigence we don't need.
Adult leadership that doesn't chase windmills but doesn't abandon progressive causes is what's need.
There has been a real absence of that recently.
It clearly isn't able to pass legislation without buy in from the senate and the administration, so its ability to start new initiatives is going to be limited.
It can however impact the other sides initiatives in a similar fashion meaning that to get things passed, legislation will have to include some concessions to them.
This is in fact called democracy where negotiation becomes more important then rhetoric.
Some of the areas where this will have the most impact include social issues.
It can protect things like freedom of choice, health care, social security which were targeted to reduce the deficit.
Maybe the most important role it has is to be reasonable and not pave the way for a reversal in two years.
The last two years have seen the appointment of two conservative judges to the Supreme Court who will influence day to day American life for decades. Other seats will inevitably come up and if not in the next two years certainly in the four after that.
There is a pretty clear demographic trend that indicates America becoming more progressive. It looks inevitable but the inevitable part of it may take years.
Having a federal judiciary that is going to prevent progress would be a lasting legacy of intransigence we don't need.
Adult leadership that doesn't chase windmills but doesn't abandon progressive causes is what's need.
There has been a real absence of that recently.
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Voting Thougts
As we enter our first ever lame duck ala orange period, it will be interesting what the approach is.
For the next seven weeks the republicans still control both houses of congress but traditionally, when we were more civil, the outgoing congress did not so things they know the incoming congress would oppose.
However we are not in an era of actual animosity where its more likely that common courtesy is a forgotten thing.
Maybe civility will actually return.
One of the things the last few elections showed us is that races can be lost before any voting takes place.
Looking at the 2016 election and the mid-terms certain races were decided by less votes than the votes suppressed by restrictive measures.
In North Dakota, they tried to suppress native American votes by requiring a street address, something many of them don't have, although in the election it probably didn't impact the outcome.
In many states, including Georgia and Florida, voter suppression efforts may have actually changed the election outcome. It's hard to actually count those who don't vote because of these efforts, but when the elections are so close, you know every vote mattered.
It seems like the sort of thing we should be able to agree on, giving every citizen the ability to exercise the franchise, but for some that is a path to defeat and they will do what they can to avoid it.
We have two years to make sure the next election is more democratic, its important.
For the next seven weeks the republicans still control both houses of congress but traditionally, when we were more civil, the outgoing congress did not so things they know the incoming congress would oppose.
However we are not in an era of actual animosity where its more likely that common courtesy is a forgotten thing.
Maybe civility will actually return.
One of the things the last few elections showed us is that races can be lost before any voting takes place.
Looking at the 2016 election and the mid-terms certain races were decided by less votes than the votes suppressed by restrictive measures.
In North Dakota, they tried to suppress native American votes by requiring a street address, something many of them don't have, although in the election it probably didn't impact the outcome.
In many states, including Georgia and Florida, voter suppression efforts may have actually changed the election outcome. It's hard to actually count those who don't vote because of these efforts, but when the elections are so close, you know every vote mattered.
It seems like the sort of thing we should be able to agree on, giving every citizen the ability to exercise the franchise, but for some that is a path to defeat and they will do what they can to avoid it.
We have two years to make sure the next election is more democratic, its important.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
What Next?
Some of the votes are still being counted but the Democrats are now the majority in the House of Representatives while the Senate stays Republican, in fact they picked up some seats.
Politics is not horseshoes, you either win or lose, but, some losers get recognition despite losing. It remains to be seen how two of the Democratic contenders who were viewed as future leaders fare after narrow defeats.
Still we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the objective of elections is to elect people who will represent the people of America and work together to move the country forward.
In some cases we may disagree about what "moving forward" means and that's OK, but we generally agree on most of the important issues.
Whether the new congress will be able to compromise on issues and get legislation passed is of course the question. Some of the most radical attempts to gut the ACA or waste money on walls along the border should be over now.
The congress needs to take its oversight responsibility seriously and not engage if silly investigations that go no where and accomplish nothing except to provide fodder for the media.
More substance, less meaningless rhetoric.
Sane, honest responsible government, It would be refreshing.
Politics is not horseshoes, you either win or lose, but, some losers get recognition despite losing. It remains to be seen how two of the Democratic contenders who were viewed as future leaders fare after narrow defeats.
Still we sometimes lose sight of the fact that the objective of elections is to elect people who will represent the people of America and work together to move the country forward.
In some cases we may disagree about what "moving forward" means and that's OK, but we generally agree on most of the important issues.
Whether the new congress will be able to compromise on issues and get legislation passed is of course the question. Some of the most radical attempts to gut the ACA or waste money on walls along the border should be over now.
The congress needs to take its oversight responsibility seriously and not engage if silly investigations that go no where and accomplish nothing except to provide fodder for the media.
More substance, less meaningless rhetoric.
Sane, honest responsible government, It would be refreshing.
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Get Out and Vote
I guess we will see from the results today whether the last minute campaign push by the dontard helps or hurts republicans overall.
His message is so secular that it is only designed to appeal to the people who are already true believers, and he is trying to get them out to vote.
However, they represent a minority of the voters and his controversial visits might very well incite the opposition to get out and vote.
These rallies are more entertainment events than places to spread a message, since the message is so partisan.
The results will be in by tomorrow and its not clear if they will show if he helped or hindered his party.
His alarmist views seem to have given a few democratic senators a bump in the polls but we know that many of them were in very difficult races in states they normally support republican candidates.
Of course republican candidates used to be more centrist, but in the current situation they have to adopt the radical policies of the administration regarding immigration, abortion, guns, etc.
Some of this plays well, some of it doesn't and when you consider how farmers are being hurt by the trade policies and tariffs, we may see a shift in some of the voting.
The turnout is probably the biggest issue today, lets hope its huge.
His message is so secular that it is only designed to appeal to the people who are already true believers, and he is trying to get them out to vote.
However, they represent a minority of the voters and his controversial visits might very well incite the opposition to get out and vote.
These rallies are more entertainment events than places to spread a message, since the message is so partisan.
The results will be in by tomorrow and its not clear if they will show if he helped or hindered his party.
His alarmist views seem to have given a few democratic senators a bump in the polls but we know that many of them were in very difficult races in states they normally support republican candidates.
Of course republican candidates used to be more centrist, but in the current situation they have to adopt the radical policies of the administration regarding immigration, abortion, guns, etc.
Some of this plays well, some of it doesn't and when you consider how farmers are being hurt by the trade policies and tariffs, we may see a shift in some of the voting.
The turnout is probably the biggest issue today, lets hope its huge.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Another Election
Tomorrow is election day although millions have already voted in early voting in the states the allow it.
The good news is the the electoral college is not a factor,
The bad news is that the gerrymandered congressional districts are a factor, although probably not enough of one to stop the House from changing.
The Senate was very unfavorable this year since most of the seats up for election were held by democrats and the odds of holding all of them and picking up two more was a difficult task.
Still it all depends on who turns out to vote and it looks like we will have a very high turnout for a midterm election.
Of course that is still going to be a pretty low percentage if you think about it of everyone who could or should vote.
Voting should be convenient and easy for citizens who want to exercise their fundamental right.
We have certain interests who prefer some people not vote so we throw up impediments.
The idea that we have any significant voter fraud has been debunked over and over but some still use it to put up restrictions aimed at certain minorities.
Democracy is dependent on the will of all the people, not just some of them.
The really good news is that so far we in America still respect the rule of law and accept the results.
The last time some didn't in 1860 it didn't go very well.
Vote and move America forward.
The good news is the the electoral college is not a factor,
The bad news is that the gerrymandered congressional districts are a factor, although probably not enough of one to stop the House from changing.
The Senate was very unfavorable this year since most of the seats up for election were held by democrats and the odds of holding all of them and picking up two more was a difficult task.
Still it all depends on who turns out to vote and it looks like we will have a very high turnout for a midterm election.
Of course that is still going to be a pretty low percentage if you think about it of everyone who could or should vote.
Voting should be convenient and easy for citizens who want to exercise their fundamental right.
We have certain interests who prefer some people not vote so we throw up impediments.
The idea that we have any significant voter fraud has been debunked over and over but some still use it to put up restrictions aimed at certain minorities.
Democracy is dependent on the will of all the people, not just some of them.
The really good news is that so far we in America still respect the rule of law and accept the results.
The last time some didn't in 1860 it didn't go very well.
Vote and move America forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)