To be honest, it put me to sleep.
It might not have been the most boring or even the longest ever, but it certainly wasn't exciting enough to keep me awake after a fairly long day.
I probably wouldn't have watched it at all if the Knicks-Nets game was closer.
I guess the message was lets be bipartisan, all you Democrats do what we want you to do.
That's actually uni-partisan, or capitulation not a bipartisan agenda.
The agenda is what it is and mostly we are talking about more or less of something.
He wants less immigrants, less abortions, more defense spending, more border security, less regulations, less taxes on business, less trade agreements, less environmental protections, more coal, more jobs, less public education and less domestic programs for the needy.
Not sure this is a complete list and not everything was mentioned last night. Some of these items, like more jobs isn't really controversial, just the approach varies. For example most economists would argue that trade agreements create jobs, so getting rid of them isn't productive.
He kept talking about the people as opposed I guess to immigrants and of course his characterization of certain things like the Affordable Care Act or "chain" migration is like always simply incorrect.
It didn't seem to change anything and reading the press articles about it, I didn't seem to miss much.
That's not really unusual, you would think a State of the Union would require that certain factual things be reported but that hasn't really been the case.
Just more politics.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Missed Deadlines
In the Alice in Wonderland world of Washington DC, apparently people believe that an issue that has been contentious for years can be solved in a couple of weeks if you create a deadline.
These are our employees after all and they keep giving themselves short term extensions to do their jobs.
Clearly the public and most of the elected officials think Dreamers should be allowed to stay. A few don't but if they held a vote to permanently extend DACA or something like it, it seems like it would pass overwhelmingly. I also think the president would sign it although that might be less certain.
It isn't going to get voted on because of the procedural rules that govern in both chambers.
So will the solution be worked out before the next self imposed deadline?
I wouldn't bet on it.
Will they shut the Government down again?
Doesn't seem likely considering the risk, although some in the Democratic party are ready to man the ramparts, so to speak.
Still I doubt it, it could hurt the mid-term elections.
So probably another short term spending bill and another deadline will follow.
I guess November is the real deadline here.
These are our employees after all and they keep giving themselves short term extensions to do their jobs.
Clearly the public and most of the elected officials think Dreamers should be allowed to stay. A few don't but if they held a vote to permanently extend DACA or something like it, it seems like it would pass overwhelmingly. I also think the president would sign it although that might be less certain.
It isn't going to get voted on because of the procedural rules that govern in both chambers.
So will the solution be worked out before the next self imposed deadline?
I wouldn't bet on it.
Will they shut the Government down again?
Doesn't seem likely considering the risk, although some in the Democratic party are ready to man the ramparts, so to speak.
Still I doubt it, it could hurt the mid-term elections.
So probably another short term spending bill and another deadline will follow.
I guess November is the real deadline here.
Monday, January 29, 2018
Wages and Compensation
How is the economy actually doing after a year with the dotard?
Pretty much the same as it was when he took over with most trends continuing.
There at of course some changes and the elimination of regulations and big tax gift to corporations is going to help their profitability and may lead to some hiring.
In general the unemployment numbers have improved over the last year, although they were already pretty low by historic standards.
Unemployment trends
What these numbers never measured were the people who were forced to take lower paying service jobs who used to have high paying manufacturing jobs.
The other area that hits workers is that while total compensation is up, the share of that compensation going to benefits is continuing to grow.
Increases in the cost of health insurance are not seen as pay raises by most. Increasing costs with higher co-pays and deductibles.
Further there has been a trend in many companies and industries to switch from defined benefit pension plans to 401 K plans which makes the employee put aside additional take home pay.
These three changes, rotation into service jobs, increased health costs and increase pension contributions have made the growth in compensation less noticeable.
The current administration is not going to do anything to reverse these trends.
If labor gets scarce enough you may see companies reversing some of this, but they really prefer to simply use one time cash payments.
Its not a commitment.
Of course if you do work in the right place and the right industry, things are just fine.
Pretty much the same as it was when he took over with most trends continuing.
There at of course some changes and the elimination of regulations and big tax gift to corporations is going to help their profitability and may lead to some hiring.
In general the unemployment numbers have improved over the last year, although they were already pretty low by historic standards.
Unemployment trends
What these numbers never measured were the people who were forced to take lower paying service jobs who used to have high paying manufacturing jobs.
The other area that hits workers is that while total compensation is up, the share of that compensation going to benefits is continuing to grow.
Increases in the cost of health insurance are not seen as pay raises by most. Increasing costs with higher co-pays and deductibles.
Further there has been a trend in many companies and industries to switch from defined benefit pension plans to 401 K plans which makes the employee put aside additional take home pay.
These three changes, rotation into service jobs, increased health costs and increase pension contributions have made the growth in compensation less noticeable.
The current administration is not going to do anything to reverse these trends.
If labor gets scarce enough you may see companies reversing some of this, but they really prefer to simply use one time cash payments.
Its not a commitment.
Of course if you do work in the right place and the right industry, things are just fine.
Sunday, January 28, 2018
Clinton Obsession
It doesn't matter if you like the Clintons or detest them they apparently get you sales or clicks or attention when you attack them.
Long after it could possibly matter to anything we see articles or speeches about what her campaign did or did not do about a sexual harasser in 2008, whether she was given preferential treatment during the silly investigation into her e-mails, as well as continuing allegations about how they misused or misused their foundation.
Since there has never been a lack of public scrutiny on anything they do I feel safe to predict that none of this will amount to anything except, as I said a few extra clicks, a few extra sales or a bit more press coverage.
Clearly the people who have grown to hate them aren't ever going to be satisfied until the unprovable is proven.
Oddly while there are a certain number who are convinced they are evil and should be punished, both of them are still among the most admired people in the country.
It seems like a real love hate relationship, although the hate seems much more virulent.
A lot of conspiracy theories are kept alive by our fo(a)z(ke) news media joke with seemingly endless discussion of all the evil things they have done.
It sold and it still sells, so they keep pushing it.
Its more than a fad, its a real obsession.
Long after it could possibly matter to anything we see articles or speeches about what her campaign did or did not do about a sexual harasser in 2008, whether she was given preferential treatment during the silly investigation into her e-mails, as well as continuing allegations about how they misused or misused their foundation.
Since there has never been a lack of public scrutiny on anything they do I feel safe to predict that none of this will amount to anything except, as I said a few extra clicks, a few extra sales or a bit more press coverage.
Clearly the people who have grown to hate them aren't ever going to be satisfied until the unprovable is proven.
Oddly while there are a certain number who are convinced they are evil and should be punished, both of them are still among the most admired people in the country.
It seems like a real love hate relationship, although the hate seems much more virulent.
A lot of conspiracy theories are kept alive by our fo(a)z(ke) news media joke with seemingly endless discussion of all the evil things they have done.
It sold and it still sells, so they keep pushing it.
Its more than a fad, its a real obsession.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Economic Thoughts
We have an economy that is very much like the economy we have had for the last few years.
The recovery from the recession was a little slower but it was pretty steady.
Some part of the economy have also seen changes which are related to long term economic trends and not short term business cycles.
The decline of coal and rise of cleaner energy.
Increased automation in the workplace.
Cheaper shipping costs and trade agreements that allowed unskilled jobs to be exported.
None of these are likely to be reversed so the areas hardest hit need to develop new opportunities.
Economics indicates that at some point they will be viable again for some industry.
Not what they once had, but something else.
However the idea that there is a short term fix is simply ridiculous and the disenchanted there are surely still disappointed.
They believed to some extent a liar who claimed to have answers.
He didn't understand the problems and certainly had no answers.
Economics is a dismal science, it doesn't care about people, just its laws.
The recovery from the recession was a little slower but it was pretty steady.
Some part of the economy have also seen changes which are related to long term economic trends and not short term business cycles.
The decline of coal and rise of cleaner energy.
Increased automation in the workplace.
Cheaper shipping costs and trade agreements that allowed unskilled jobs to be exported.
None of these are likely to be reversed so the areas hardest hit need to develop new opportunities.
Economics indicates that at some point they will be viable again for some industry.
Not what they once had, but something else.
However the idea that there is a short term fix is simply ridiculous and the disenchanted there are surely still disappointed.
They believed to some extent a liar who claimed to have answers.
He didn't understand the problems and certainly had no answers.
Economics is a dismal science, it doesn't care about people, just its laws.
Friday, January 26, 2018
Increased Profits, Increased Deficit
Good article today in the Wall Street Journal about various impacts of the new tax law, the link is below.
Tax Law Impacts
The analysis is generally favorable in the sense that companies will have more money to use and the uses will also be more profitable.
Of course that was clear in the reduction of the corporate tax rate, but the question about whether the impact will be enough to pay for the increase in the deficit isn't really addressed but based on the article there is no reason to believe it will even come close.
Yes in some cases the investments in new facilities will be spent in this country but the number of jobs from new facilities may after all be offset by the modernization which actually results in less jobs.
The article discusses a simple law of economics that companies will only expand if there is a market for their additional products.
So a biological research company that needed a new facility now decides it is cheaper to build it here, will create some jobs.
However additional use of robots in existing plants that get modernized will cost jobs.
Small businesses may grow faster, but growth is still a measure of demand.
Expansion without customers = bankruptcy.
The amount of economic growth being forecast as a result of the tax changes is modest indeed and it points out the flaw in the republican math without meaning to.
I've heard them say we only need .4% growth to offset the costs, but they mean .4% each year. We might get a one time .4% boost but then it becomes as we say, cooked in, and the next year it doesn't generate new growth.
The companies have more money to use and it may reduce debt, increase dividend, even increase wages and bonuses some, but this was all money that used to get paid as taxes and without it the Government has to increase the deficit.
Its going to have to get paid sometime.
Thursday, January 25, 2018
Wall Silliness
You have to wonder what world the dotard occupies that he somehow thinks a wall between the US and Mexico will have some miraculous result.
There are so many better ways to utilize the amounts required that would achieve better results.
Clearly walls can be breached, so to prevent that you will need about the same amount of security as you would if the wall wasn't there.
The wall might keep out some harmless people who simply are looking for work or to join family in the States but it is unlikely to deter any serious person who wants to reach this country.
The idea that thousands or millions of Mexicans are simply strolling across an undefended border is ridiculous, but the dotard tends to believe the ridiculous.
Most of the border is in territory that is rugged and dangerous.
If it was a simple stroll, the coyotes wouldn't be getting rich ferrying people in various vehicles.
The areas where you can simply walk across are also the areas most heavily protected.
In fact, the desirability of coming to this country is not what it once was.
Partly because of NAFTA and other economic trends, there are more jobs in Mexico than there once was.
This paranoia about Mexican and Central American immigrants is simply misplaced.
Yes some recent and not so recent immigrants join gangs but that is nothing new. It is also true that people born here also join gangs.
It is sad that based on the news reports the dotard wants to bargain the lives of dreamers over something as stupid as the wall is. They deserve to have their lives decided by something other that this stupidity.
There are so many better ways to utilize the amounts required that would achieve better results.
Clearly walls can be breached, so to prevent that you will need about the same amount of security as you would if the wall wasn't there.
The wall might keep out some harmless people who simply are looking for work or to join family in the States but it is unlikely to deter any serious person who wants to reach this country.
The idea that thousands or millions of Mexicans are simply strolling across an undefended border is ridiculous, but the dotard tends to believe the ridiculous.
Most of the border is in territory that is rugged and dangerous.
If it was a simple stroll, the coyotes wouldn't be getting rich ferrying people in various vehicles.
The areas where you can simply walk across are also the areas most heavily protected.
In fact, the desirability of coming to this country is not what it once was.
Partly because of NAFTA and other economic trends, there are more jobs in Mexico than there once was.
This paranoia about Mexican and Central American immigrants is simply misplaced.
Yes some recent and not so recent immigrants join gangs but that is nothing new. It is also true that people born here also join gangs.
It is sad that based on the news reports the dotard wants to bargain the lives of dreamers over something as stupid as the wall is. They deserve to have their lives decided by something other that this stupidity.
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
Stall
The odds of much changing between now and the next deadline on the funding issue is probably slim to none.
What should be the strategy to get things the American people want while avoiding things they don't want.
We know that the last measure had an extension of CHIPS the childhood health program, so while some view what happened as a setback, the hint of any progress in the Washington environment is a positive thing.
I would argue that a series of short term funding bills that have some progressive bone thrown in might in fact be the best strategy.
A deal on a budget is going to be nearly impossible considering the things the conservative House members want and most people don't want.
Of course the priority is to protect the Dreamers but it might take a series of baby steps to get there.
Similar to what the Republicans did with Obama's Supreme Court nominee, it might be in the best interest of the Democrats to simply make a long term deal impossible since short term funding bills continue the prior funding.
Is it the best way to run a Government?
Clearly no and the strategy requires the Democrats to win big in November so they can better control the agenda.
It is better than giving up.
What should be the strategy to get things the American people want while avoiding things they don't want.
We know that the last measure had an extension of CHIPS the childhood health program, so while some view what happened as a setback, the hint of any progress in the Washington environment is a positive thing.
I would argue that a series of short term funding bills that have some progressive bone thrown in might in fact be the best strategy.
A deal on a budget is going to be nearly impossible considering the things the conservative House members want and most people don't want.
Of course the priority is to protect the Dreamers but it might take a series of baby steps to get there.
Similar to what the Republicans did with Obama's Supreme Court nominee, it might be in the best interest of the Democrats to simply make a long term deal impossible since short term funding bills continue the prior funding.
Is it the best way to run a Government?
Clearly no and the strategy requires the Democrats to win big in November so they can better control the agenda.
It is better than giving up.
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Two Parties = no Progress
So left to their own devices politicians can make a deal.
Whether the deal gets honored or not is another question.
I do believe that a measure will be introduced on the Senate floor if there isn't a bigger deal, but whether it will pass in the house or get signed is another problem.
The rules under which the Senate and the House operate are pretty restrictive and designed to control democracy.
For example, if a majority of the representatives and senators favor a piece of legislation, you would assume it would pass.
If they get a chance to vote on it.
The leadership of both houses has significant control over what members get to vote on. In addition each party has some internal rules they follow.
So for example say some legislation is favored by over two thirds of the representatives but the majority party splits 40-60. The odds of it getting voted on is exactly zero.
I understand the need for some order in the way business is conducted but I also think there should be democracy.
The two party system is not part of the constitution and was never voted on.
It allows radicals on the left and the right undeserved influence over the agendas and has led to the dysfunction we see in Washington.
Whether the deal gets honored or not is another question.
I do believe that a measure will be introduced on the Senate floor if there isn't a bigger deal, but whether it will pass in the house or get signed is another problem.
The rules under which the Senate and the House operate are pretty restrictive and designed to control democracy.
For example, if a majority of the representatives and senators favor a piece of legislation, you would assume it would pass.
If they get a chance to vote on it.
The leadership of both houses has significant control over what members get to vote on. In addition each party has some internal rules they follow.
So for example say some legislation is favored by over two thirds of the representatives but the majority party splits 40-60. The odds of it getting voted on is exactly zero.
I understand the need for some order in the way business is conducted but I also think there should be democracy.
The two party system is not part of the constitution and was never voted on.
It allows radicals on the left and the right undeserved influence over the agendas and has led to the dysfunction we see in Washington.
Monday, January 22, 2018
You Get What You Vote For
It seems that the only reason we have a shutdown is because the dotard wants one.
The issues are effectively non-existent for a continuing resolution since both parties agree on the main elements.
In fact there was a bipartisan solution pitched that the dotard rejected not too long ago.
Protect the dreamers and it goes away and everybody says they want too.
It seems that the dotard and republicans feel the democrats want it more so they want to use it to bargain on other immigration issues.
Even then the democrats were willing to include some money for the silly wall, but the dotard turned to jello and shifted his position.
We have to live with the jello man for another three years barring some unforeseen situation, and the simple fact is that he is not either a politician or a man of his word.
He used to change deals with his vendors all the time, often refusing to make final payments and seeing if they would bother suing him.
Many of them couldn't afford the cost of that, which is what he counted on.
He had no honor was never faithful to his wives and lied constantly.
All of this was obvious and yet he won the primaries and the electoral college.
We probably got what we deserved, or what some wanted. A dysfunctional government.
The issues are effectively non-existent for a continuing resolution since both parties agree on the main elements.
In fact there was a bipartisan solution pitched that the dotard rejected not too long ago.
Protect the dreamers and it goes away and everybody says they want too.
It seems that the dotard and republicans feel the democrats want it more so they want to use it to bargain on other immigration issues.
Even then the democrats were willing to include some money for the silly wall, but the dotard turned to jello and shifted his position.
We have to live with the jello man for another three years barring some unforeseen situation, and the simple fact is that he is not either a politician or a man of his word.
He used to change deals with his vendors all the time, often refusing to make final payments and seeing if they would bother suing him.
Many of them couldn't afford the cost of that, which is what he counted on.
He had no honor was never faithful to his wives and lied constantly.
All of this was obvious and yet he won the primaries and the electoral college.
We probably got what we deserved, or what some wanted. A dysfunctional government.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Great Dealmaker/
What's going on in Washington now is all geared towards the upcoming mid-term elections, not governing the country.
There is a clear path to a short term budget resolution that includes things both sides effectively favor but to just agree to it would possibly jeopardize certain elections in November.
The Republican want to tie the Dreamer issue to other immigration issues, such as the wall or the ban on people from shithole countries while the Democrats want it addressed in the short term resolution more as a separate issue.
Meanwhile the extension of the Childhood Insurance Program and the elimination of some medical taxes is included in the resolution, trying to make it look like the Democrats are blocking those issues.
This is all geared to talking points that are aimed at helping certain representatives win re-election in a mid term that right now doesn't look good for the Republicans.
How the public perceives the current impasses is going to be telling and it is a bit uncertain right now how that will fall out.
Of course the odds are that the great deal maker will be blamed for his inability to make a deal and the reports on both sides is that he takes inconsistent positions.
I'm familiar with negotiators like the dotard who never want to honor what they agreed to the day before.
They don't trust themselves and tend to say things they regret.
They are hard to negotiate with but you have to force them to do it all in one day if you want to get it done.
Or leave them out of it completely.
There is a clear path to a short term budget resolution that includes things both sides effectively favor but to just agree to it would possibly jeopardize certain elections in November.
The Republican want to tie the Dreamer issue to other immigration issues, such as the wall or the ban on people from shithole countries while the Democrats want it addressed in the short term resolution more as a separate issue.
Meanwhile the extension of the Childhood Insurance Program and the elimination of some medical taxes is included in the resolution, trying to make it look like the Democrats are blocking those issues.
This is all geared to talking points that are aimed at helping certain representatives win re-election in a mid term that right now doesn't look good for the Republicans.
How the public perceives the current impasses is going to be telling and it is a bit uncertain right now how that will fall out.
Of course the odds are that the great deal maker will be blamed for his inability to make a deal and the reports on both sides is that he takes inconsistent positions.
I'm familiar with negotiators like the dotard who never want to honor what they agreed to the day before.
They don't trust themselves and tend to say things they regret.
They are hard to negotiate with but you have to force them to do it all in one day if you want to get it done.
Or leave them out of it completely.
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Shutdown Politics
The issue that led to the shutdown is more along the lines of who is going to get blamed by the voters rather than any fundamental differences.
The republicans liked the fact that the dreamers felt betrayed last time and took heat for agreeing to a short term deal that didn't include them, so they knew that they couldn't do it again. Of course they shouldn't and why should they?
There's no reason to believe that if they delay doing something no that anything will happen before the next deadline.
Both sides want to allow the dreamers to stay as do most Americans. They are not tied to any other issues related to immigration, they are a pretty clear category of people who while being born elsewhere grew up as Americans and are as American as anyone.
Clearly they were too young to have any control over where they went or lived and at this point should be allowed to stay and ultimately become citizens.
One could of course make a similar argument for anyone who has lived in this country for many years, but if they came here as an adult they knew what they were doing so in that case they have some culpability.
Of course if the goal is to have good, hard working citizens, someone who has been just that for many years should probably be considered to have passed the probation period.
Entering this country without papers is of course a violation of US law and the main punishment is to be expelled. That is something worth discussing but not the same as the dreamers who were young children when they came here.
The republicans liked the fact that the dreamers felt betrayed last time and took heat for agreeing to a short term deal that didn't include them, so they knew that they couldn't do it again. Of course they shouldn't and why should they?
There's no reason to believe that if they delay doing something no that anything will happen before the next deadline.
Both sides want to allow the dreamers to stay as do most Americans. They are not tied to any other issues related to immigration, they are a pretty clear category of people who while being born elsewhere grew up as Americans and are as American as anyone.
Clearly they were too young to have any control over where they went or lived and at this point should be allowed to stay and ultimately become citizens.
One could of course make a similar argument for anyone who has lived in this country for many years, but if they came here as an adult they knew what they were doing so in that case they have some culpability.
Of course if the goal is to have good, hard working citizens, someone who has been just that for many years should probably be considered to have passed the probation period.
Entering this country without papers is of course a violation of US law and the main punishment is to be expelled. That is something worth discussing but not the same as the dreamers who were young children when they came here.
Friday, January 19, 2018
This is His Best
Recent testing seemed to reveal that the dotard is not currently suffering from diminished mental capacity. This is being touted as good news except it means that this is the best we can expect.
If you read his tweets or read summaries of them one of the things that is often clear is that he doesn't know how most things work or in many cases what is going on.
For example, the monkey house wanted to include a long term provision about dreamers in a short term funding bill. Just to clarify what this means, a bill that is passed by congress and signed by the president doesn't expire, it becomes the law of the land. The provisions of that bill may have expirations or deadlines but the bill itself becomes a part of the permanent record.
So a bill that contains short term funding and a long term solution to a problem is fine, the two things are separate. However the dotard tweeted he didn't want CHIP to be part of the short term funding but rather a long term solution.
Well it was slated as a long term provision in the same bill as the short term funding extension.
The tweet seemed to confuse people who think he might know what he is saying but this is the best that can be expected from him, apparently.
Of course if the mistakes were infrequent or quickly corrected that would be one thing, but he tweets things out with a lack of knowledge and could easily tweet out something contradictory the next day.
Sadly this is as good as its going to get.
If you read his tweets or read summaries of them one of the things that is often clear is that he doesn't know how most things work or in many cases what is going on.
For example, the monkey house wanted to include a long term provision about dreamers in a short term funding bill. Just to clarify what this means, a bill that is passed by congress and signed by the president doesn't expire, it becomes the law of the land. The provisions of that bill may have expirations or deadlines but the bill itself becomes a part of the permanent record.
So a bill that contains short term funding and a long term solution to a problem is fine, the two things are separate. However the dotard tweeted he didn't want CHIP to be part of the short term funding but rather a long term solution.
Well it was slated as a long term provision in the same bill as the short term funding extension.
The tweet seemed to confuse people who think he might know what he is saying but this is the best that can be expected from him, apparently.
Of course if the mistakes were infrequent or quickly corrected that would be one thing, but he tweets things out with a lack of knowledge and could easily tweet out something contradictory the next day.
Sadly this is as good as its going to get.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
Accurate News
The dotard in the White House tried to list fake news items on the GOP web site which promptly crashed a couple of times. The items included a few know instances of media mistakes and one was an opinion piece which by definition is not news.
Looking at the things included, in the list, most of them were of little consequence in the first place, did it matter it someone did or did not shake the dotard's hand or if a bust was or was not removed from the oval office?
If these are the examples of fake news that they could come up with, I would argue it demonstrates the fact that the vast majority of items are actually accurate and when a mistake occurs it is quickly corrected.
Per a PBS-Marist Poll 58% of respondents trust their favorite news outlet more than the dotard with slightly less than a third going the other way.
Our mainstream media has always had many checks and rules in place to report accurately. Of course mistakes happen, but they are relatively rare and normally quickly corrected.
There is of course a need to distinguish between fact and opinion and much of what is in the media is opinion and not required to conform to the same standards. Some of the people who have popular opinion shows purport to report facts on occasion and those should be held to the same journalistic standards as regular reporting but generally aren't.
You can strive to be accurate or you can strive to avoid legal penalties, the two things are different.
Unfortunately we have a ton of new media and much of it doesn't try to be accurate, only beyond prosecution.
This creates some of the sense that fake news is prevalent, and in some cases it is, but it is partly our responsibility to know who is publishing the item and what standard they use.
It isn't that hard most of the Times.
Looking at the things included, in the list, most of them were of little consequence in the first place, did it matter it someone did or did not shake the dotard's hand or if a bust was or was not removed from the oval office?
If these are the examples of fake news that they could come up with, I would argue it demonstrates the fact that the vast majority of items are actually accurate and when a mistake occurs it is quickly corrected.
Per a PBS-Marist Poll 58% of respondents trust their favorite news outlet more than the dotard with slightly less than a third going the other way.
Our mainstream media has always had many checks and rules in place to report accurately. Of course mistakes happen, but they are relatively rare and normally quickly corrected.
There is of course a need to distinguish between fact and opinion and much of what is in the media is opinion and not required to conform to the same standards. Some of the people who have popular opinion shows purport to report facts on occasion and those should be held to the same journalistic standards as regular reporting but generally aren't.
You can strive to be accurate or you can strive to avoid legal penalties, the two things are different.
Unfortunately we have a ton of new media and much of it doesn't try to be accurate, only beyond prosecution.
This creates some of the sense that fake news is prevalent, and in some cases it is, but it is partly our responsibility to know who is publishing the item and what standard they use.
It isn't that hard most of the Times.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Sanctuary!
Saw a headline today about how the DOJ is considering whether it can arrest politicians in sanctuary cities. The article was based on a number of comments and not any official policy as of now. Its unlikely even an administration as backward as this one would not have lawyers telling them that this would almost definitely be unconstitutional.
Still it is interesting when an administration that claims to favor State's rights only does so is the States exercise rights they agree with.
States which pass restrictive voting rules need the right to do so, but states that want to protect some of its residents aren't allowed to do so.
Refusing to provide the Federal Government with free labor to enforce a law it doesn't agree with, especially when the Federal Government just said that the taxes paid by their citizens are no longer fully deductible, seems perfectly legal to me.
It would certainly be an interesting Supreme Court case when a States Rights majority would have to rule on an issue suppressing States Rights.
Cities were always one of the places people could go to in order to escape oppression. City air was free air in the middle ages since a peasant escaping to the city got "sanctuary" from his feudal lord.
Its a long tradition that predates the founding of this country.
The immigrants in question are not accused of additional crimes outside of immigration related ones so they don't actually constitute a danger.
Most immigrants don't despite the rhetoric coming from the dotard.
Some do, of course, but crime isn't restricted to our immigrant community, or for that matter to our minority community, although looking at our prisons you might think it almost is.
Of course prisons is a whole different topic.
Still it is interesting when an administration that claims to favor State's rights only does so is the States exercise rights they agree with.
States which pass restrictive voting rules need the right to do so, but states that want to protect some of its residents aren't allowed to do so.
Refusing to provide the Federal Government with free labor to enforce a law it doesn't agree with, especially when the Federal Government just said that the taxes paid by their citizens are no longer fully deductible, seems perfectly legal to me.
It would certainly be an interesting Supreme Court case when a States Rights majority would have to rule on an issue suppressing States Rights.
Cities were always one of the places people could go to in order to escape oppression. City air was free air in the middle ages since a peasant escaping to the city got "sanctuary" from his feudal lord.
Its a long tradition that predates the founding of this country.
The immigrants in question are not accused of additional crimes outside of immigration related ones so they don't actually constitute a danger.
Most immigrants don't despite the rhetoric coming from the dotard.
Some do, of course, but crime isn't restricted to our immigrant community, or for that matter to our minority community, although looking at our prisons you might think it almost is.
Of course prisons is a whole different topic.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Racist and Dotard = Racetard?
We now have a number of republican representatives who are denying that Trump use the "shithole" country comment.
Trump also denies it and it is possibly from what I am reading that what he actually said was "shithouse" in reference to Haiti and some African countries.
I guess they can claim they aren't lying because of that technicality, but the issue here is the same issue we had when other vulgarities were uttered by the dotard, do these people have any principles?
People like the dotard are enabled by people who sacrifice principle for political power. It of course is a slippery slope, because once you start down, its hard to recover.
While I believe his economic policies are short sighted and dangerous in the long run, the real issue with the dotard is his regressive social views.
He is clearly one of the most racist people despite his statements to the contrary. He supports measures that would suppress the black vote in many states and would really prefer reversing demographic trends and whiten up the country with the white immigrants.
Unfortunately for him, the countries he would want to have immigration from, no longer generate the type of emigration they once did and are themselves places people emigrate to.
With or without immigration the country is changing as minority birth rates exceed white birth rates.
America is becoming greater as we slowly accept diversity in race, religion and sexual preference allowing everyone the pursuit of happiness.
It an inalienable right after all.
Trump also denies it and it is possibly from what I am reading that what he actually said was "shithouse" in reference to Haiti and some African countries.
I guess they can claim they aren't lying because of that technicality, but the issue here is the same issue we had when other vulgarities were uttered by the dotard, do these people have any principles?
People like the dotard are enabled by people who sacrifice principle for political power. It of course is a slippery slope, because once you start down, its hard to recover.
While I believe his economic policies are short sighted and dangerous in the long run, the real issue with the dotard is his regressive social views.
He is clearly one of the most racist people despite his statements to the contrary. He supports measures that would suppress the black vote in many states and would really prefer reversing demographic trends and whiten up the country with the white immigrants.
Unfortunately for him, the countries he would want to have immigration from, no longer generate the type of emigration they once did and are themselves places people emigrate to.
With or without immigration the country is changing as minority birth rates exceed white birth rates.
America is becoming greater as we slowly accept diversity in race, religion and sexual preference allowing everyone the pursuit of happiness.
It an inalienable right after all.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Martin Luther King Day
I was thinking after the recent evidence of racist attitudes exhibited by the dotard in the White House that we haven't made the progress concerning racism that I thought we had.
I like to think that the younger generation doesn't share the same problem that the dotard's generation has, it is difficult to erase the lessons learned at a very young age.
In the 50s and 60s we saw blatant racist behavior in schools, voting, public transportation and facilities that slowly disappeared over the following decades. However, if you lived through that period, many people started thinking of black people as inherently different.
This is the essence of a racist attitude, treating any identifiable group as different.
In those days it wasn't uncommon to attribute the situation that many blacks found themselves in to some innate flaw in their race.
We never really dealt with the effects of slavery and its repercussions so the millions of slaves that were freed were forced to try and survive as best they could without much support or property.
Fundamentally, eating and finding a place to live is more important than voting so we saw, especially after reconstruction ended, a system created where most freed slaves were barely better off than they were as slaves.
Some of course rose out of the poverty, but the Jim Crow society that grew up and was maintained for many decades provided minimal opportunities and it was only marginally better in the northern states. Certain jobs were acceptable for blacks and of course within their own communities they could be teachers or doctors or lawyers, but they weren't generally expected to provide those services to whites.
Separate but equal became a catchphrase which sounded better than it was in actuality since the resources available were never equal.
Progress towards equality was exceedingly slow and it took the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement to identify and start to break the status quo.
We went form a period in the 50s where blatant racism was OK to a period where it could no longer be blatant, but for many it was still there.
It was apparent in housing discrimination, job discrimination, opportunity discrimination and the efforts to combat it, Affirmative Action, were treated as reverse discrimination by some.
As Dr. King said:
I like to think that the younger generation doesn't share the same problem that the dotard's generation has, it is difficult to erase the lessons learned at a very young age.
In the 50s and 60s we saw blatant racist behavior in schools, voting, public transportation and facilities that slowly disappeared over the following decades. However, if you lived through that period, many people started thinking of black people as inherently different.
This is the essence of a racist attitude, treating any identifiable group as different.
In those days it wasn't uncommon to attribute the situation that many blacks found themselves in to some innate flaw in their race.
We never really dealt with the effects of slavery and its repercussions so the millions of slaves that were freed were forced to try and survive as best they could without much support or property.
Fundamentally, eating and finding a place to live is more important than voting so we saw, especially after reconstruction ended, a system created where most freed slaves were barely better off than they were as slaves.
Some of course rose out of the poverty, but the Jim Crow society that grew up and was maintained for many decades provided minimal opportunities and it was only marginally better in the northern states. Certain jobs were acceptable for blacks and of course within their own communities they could be teachers or doctors or lawyers, but they weren't generally expected to provide those services to whites.
Separate but equal became a catchphrase which sounded better than it was in actuality since the resources available were never equal.
Progress towards equality was exceedingly slow and it took the turbulence of the Civil Rights movement to identify and start to break the status quo.
We went form a period in the 50s where blatant racism was OK to a period where it could no longer be blatant, but for many it was still there.
It was apparent in housing discrimination, job discrimination, opportunity discrimination and the efforts to combat it, Affirmative Action, were treated as reverse discrimination by some.
As Dr. King said:
..." I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American
dream.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out
the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal."
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Risk vs Cost
One of the things that is different between the Government and private industry is profit motivation.
Private industry in order to exist must make money and in order to make money they have to sell a product at a profit.
This tends to make cost the most important factor in many decisions.
Government on the other hand is really about risk.
The risk to human lives, the risk to the environment, the risk to our national security.
Risk is a factor in private industry and cost is a factor in Government but facing the same decision about trading risk for cost (less risk more cost), private industry will opt for more cost in cases where Government will opt for less risk.
Of course the vast majority of decisions are probably decided the same by both, but in a few crucial one, one will accept a risk which the other will not.
Its hard to say what the better approach actually is, there is a risk of being too risk averse and never quite finishing and of course the other side risk is that we have breakdowns and human lives at risk.
I've read quite a few examples where certain industries determined that the cost of paying settlements would be less than the cost of eliminating a problem.
Of course the gamble is with us, the consumer, and the unlucky few that suffer the consequences will often never recover.
We are in a period where the current administration wants to eliminate as much Government as it can and rely upon private industry. It probably will be cheaper but not necessarily better.
What is the risk of the banks regulating themselves?
I think 2008 might be the answer.
Private industry in order to exist must make money and in order to make money they have to sell a product at a profit.
This tends to make cost the most important factor in many decisions.
Government on the other hand is really about risk.
The risk to human lives, the risk to the environment, the risk to our national security.
Risk is a factor in private industry and cost is a factor in Government but facing the same decision about trading risk for cost (less risk more cost), private industry will opt for more cost in cases where Government will opt for less risk.
Of course the vast majority of decisions are probably decided the same by both, but in a few crucial one, one will accept a risk which the other will not.
Its hard to say what the better approach actually is, there is a risk of being too risk averse and never quite finishing and of course the other side risk is that we have breakdowns and human lives at risk.
I've read quite a few examples where certain industries determined that the cost of paying settlements would be less than the cost of eliminating a problem.
Of course the gamble is with us, the consumer, and the unlucky few that suffer the consequences will often never recover.
We are in a period where the current administration wants to eliminate as much Government as it can and rely upon private industry. It probably will be cheaper but not necessarily better.
What is the risk of the banks regulating themselves?
I think 2008 might be the answer.
Saturday, January 13, 2018
Saturday Musings Again
If you live in a prosperous European nation and someone invited you to come to a place with rampant gun violence, poor and expensive medical care, terrible income inequality, rampant drug addiction, significant homophobia, a large military which uses a large amount of the budget, a significant anti-science minority, and blatant racism the most likely answer is probably no thank you.
Probably shouldn't be calling other countries names.
America does have some economic benefits, but I can't imagine any Western European admiring our Government or the way we elect it. They actually are used to a more democratic system.
After the revolution we were possibly the most democratic nation on earth, we have slipped from that pedestal as we continue to use 18the century methods in the 21st century.
I don't know if anyone except a few wealthy people feel the Government represents them, similar to some of the countries our dotard insulted.
Years ago I remember being told the difference between managing people and leading people. The manager tries to make everyone the same, effectively treating everybody as cogs in a machine that needs to be maintained. There's nothing really wrong with that approach, but the people in it feel, well like parts of a machine. Leading people means treating each one as a unique element of your organization with different strengths and weaknesses. You become one with the group and everyone feels like they want the whole to succeed.
People feel like people.
You can manage from the rear, but you lead from the front.
There are of course many books on management and leadership and they may very well point out other characteristics, but leadership is much more a feeling than a set of characteristics.
At least the way I see it.
Probably shouldn't be calling other countries names.
America does have some economic benefits, but I can't imagine any Western European admiring our Government or the way we elect it. They actually are used to a more democratic system.
After the revolution we were possibly the most democratic nation on earth, we have slipped from that pedestal as we continue to use 18the century methods in the 21st century.
I don't know if anyone except a few wealthy people feel the Government represents them, similar to some of the countries our dotard insulted.
Years ago I remember being told the difference between managing people and leading people. The manager tries to make everyone the same, effectively treating everybody as cogs in a machine that needs to be maintained. There's nothing really wrong with that approach, but the people in it feel, well like parts of a machine. Leading people means treating each one as a unique element of your organization with different strengths and weaknesses. You become one with the group and everyone feels like they want the whole to succeed.
People feel like people.
You can manage from the rear, but you lead from the front.
There are of course many books on management and leadership and they may very well point out other characteristics, but leadership is much more a feeling than a set of characteristics.
At least the way I see it.
Friday, January 12, 2018
Land Of Opportunity
There is no doubt that looking at the world and its countries some are doing better, at least economically than others.
The reasons for this are varied and generally the result of historical and geographic issues that aren't necessarily related to the people there now.
America for a number of reasons has done exceedingly well in this regard. People born here are generally going to have economic opportunities greater than many other nations, who have not developed in the same manner as us.
One of the reasons for America's success and growth is the fact that it is a real melting pot where people from all countries, not just European, came here and in building a better future for themselves provided the ingenuity and talent for great progress.
What this proves in the great experiment of America is that people from just about anywhere can excel in the right environment.
One would think that immigrants and the children and grandchildren of those immigrants would be at a disadvantage to people who were long established here, but looking at prominent people in this country what stands out to a large extent is how many are second or third generation immigrants, including the President.
Trump Immigrant Background
So if you want to know what immigrants are stealing American jobs you don't have to look too far.
The countries that have been less fortunate generally were more agricultural than industrial. Of course that can change as evidenced in our American south which for many years was essentially a producer of raw agricultural products until it began to attract more industry.
A country like Haiti which was primarily a large sugar producing colony for many years populated by imported slave who were not provided education or opportunity has developed slowly and has significant poverty. The people born and raised there are not at fault, and the more industrious of them often feel they can get better opportunities elsewhere, often in this country,
To insult the people or the country reminds me of the movie where an arrogant slum lord was forced to live in one of his tenements and learned that people, whatever their economic conditions, are basically the same.
Being the land of opportunity is something to be proud of and that opportunity should be shared with immigrants who need it.
Its the American way.
The reasons for this are varied and generally the result of historical and geographic issues that aren't necessarily related to the people there now.
America for a number of reasons has done exceedingly well in this regard. People born here are generally going to have economic opportunities greater than many other nations, who have not developed in the same manner as us.
One of the reasons for America's success and growth is the fact that it is a real melting pot where people from all countries, not just European, came here and in building a better future for themselves provided the ingenuity and talent for great progress.
What this proves in the great experiment of America is that people from just about anywhere can excel in the right environment.
One would think that immigrants and the children and grandchildren of those immigrants would be at a disadvantage to people who were long established here, but looking at prominent people in this country what stands out to a large extent is how many are second or third generation immigrants, including the President.
Trump Immigrant Background
So if you want to know what immigrants are stealing American jobs you don't have to look too far.
The countries that have been less fortunate generally were more agricultural than industrial. Of course that can change as evidenced in our American south which for many years was essentially a producer of raw agricultural products until it began to attract more industry.
A country like Haiti which was primarily a large sugar producing colony for many years populated by imported slave who were not provided education or opportunity has developed slowly and has significant poverty. The people born and raised there are not at fault, and the more industrious of them often feel they can get better opportunities elsewhere, often in this country,
To insult the people or the country reminds me of the movie where an arrogant slum lord was forced to live in one of his tenements and learned that people, whatever their economic conditions, are basically the same.
Being the land of opportunity is something to be proud of and that opportunity should be shared with immigrants who need it.
Its the American way.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
First Amendment
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances.
I wonder if he is really unaware that the majority of news reports in our major media are in fact properly sourced and reasonably accurate.
There is something wrong with an administration that decides either directly or indirectly to try to control the narrative by coercion. It is of course unlikely to succeed and in the official fake news twitter account it will be attributed to the "Deep State" opposition.
It is curious that people who get so riled up at any mention of controlling guns are fine with efforts to control the press.
I see a lot of rot printed, and it seems to me that much of it is actually pushing some of the absurd things that helped this administration get elected, like the "Deep State" or Clinton imaginary crimes or Obama's origin or in general the misrepresentation of the social progress being made in allowing each individual to pursue happiness in the manner they need to.
I find it atrocious at times but I don't want the Government deciding what is acceptable or not.
That would be much more dangerous.
This list reflects things that the colonies felt King George III had tried to do to suppress them.
These are things that serve to enable people to form opinions that are not in accordance with the Government, express them and demand changes.
We now see a president who finds these freedoms problematic. He would like to establish this as a Christian country, control the press and I'm sure crack down on anti-Government assemblies.
The ongoing cries of fake news when most f the fake news originates out of media outlets that support him is almost funny.
There is something wrong with an administration that decides either directly or indirectly to try to control the narrative by coercion. It is of course unlikely to succeed and in the official fake news twitter account it will be attributed to the "Deep State" opposition.
It is curious that people who get so riled up at any mention of controlling guns are fine with efforts to control the press.
I see a lot of rot printed, and it seems to me that much of it is actually pushing some of the absurd things that helped this administration get elected, like the "Deep State" or Clinton imaginary crimes or Obama's origin or in general the misrepresentation of the social progress being made in allowing each individual to pursue happiness in the manner they need to.
I find it atrocious at times but I don't want the Government deciding what is acceptable or not.
That would be much more dangerous.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Priorities for 2018
With the mid term elections coming up and the Senate majority down to 1 there is suddenly a push for more bi-partisan cooperation by at least some of the Republicans.
That is probably just not going to happen but I think if you consider what the framers of the constitution envisioned it shouldn't be so hard.
The fact that we evolved into a two party system with a President from one of those two parties is actually a misrepresentation of how the original constitution was written, at least as I read it.
The President was supposed to be a distinguished person who won the most support from the electoral college which was going to include primarily the elite of the country.
The Vice President would be the person with the second most votes.
This would logically mean that they would be two distinguished individuals who could be counted on to have the best interests of the country at stake, not the best interests of an individual party.
In fact the type of partisan politics we find ourselves in was never the intent of the founders.
In fact we had a president, John Adams and a vice president, Thomas Jefferson who were political antagonists.
Government is supposed to represent the people of the United States, not just some of the people. Clearly some issues are viewed differently by various groups and the ideal Government would find the acceptable middle ground which could garner enough votes to pass.
In our current all or nothing environment, we see little such compromise, except some horse trading by the party in charge to secure enough votes.
Some issues are clearly favored by a majority of Americans and should be no brainers for our politicians, except for the fact that they get their support from a partisan group that is in fact only interested in their interests, not the interests of the nation.
The real priority for 2018 would be to somehow eliminate some of this partisanship and replace it with good government and patriotism.
That is probably just not going to happen but I think if you consider what the framers of the constitution envisioned it shouldn't be so hard.
The fact that we evolved into a two party system with a President from one of those two parties is actually a misrepresentation of how the original constitution was written, at least as I read it.
The President was supposed to be a distinguished person who won the most support from the electoral college which was going to include primarily the elite of the country.
The Vice President would be the person with the second most votes.
This would logically mean that they would be two distinguished individuals who could be counted on to have the best interests of the country at stake, not the best interests of an individual party.
In fact the type of partisan politics we find ourselves in was never the intent of the founders.
In fact we had a president, John Adams and a vice president, Thomas Jefferson who were political antagonists.
Government is supposed to represent the people of the United States, not just some of the people. Clearly some issues are viewed differently by various groups and the ideal Government would find the acceptable middle ground which could garner enough votes to pass.
In our current all or nothing environment, we see little such compromise, except some horse trading by the party in charge to secure enough votes.
Some issues are clearly favored by a majority of Americans and should be no brainers for our politicians, except for the fact that they get their support from a partisan group that is in fact only interested in their interests, not the interests of the nation.
The real priority for 2018 would be to somehow eliminate some of this partisanship and replace it with good government and patriotism.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Musings
Well congrats to Alabama they did what they had to do although there were some issues with the officials, it is a hard earned victory.
Sometimes you see things in the news that make you wonder.
There's a new book about the president which indicates that many of his own staff have strong doubts about his intellectual capacity.
In response he tweets that he is a "stable genius" which almost proves he isn't.
I gather that after losing the Alabama senate seat at a meeting with congressional republicans they have decided to present a united front.
Not sure that is what the people who elected him want, but as far as I can determine they just want to see the Government be dysfunctional.
This was the appeal, give America back to real Americans and let them do what they want.
What they want is however not at all clear.
In general there are people in this nation who aren't really in favor of change, either because of religious teachings or just a general feel that change is bad.
So they want to be left alone.
Some of the change is economic where just going to high school no longer guarantees a good paying job.
Other changes are social with same-sex marriage or transgender rights.
Other things concern perceived reverse discrimination.
The appeal of "Make America Great Again" was all about rolling back this changes and societal evolution.
Of course its not really possible to roll back the economic changes, companies are still interested in making profits, and societal progress will continue to evolve.
In some period of time, new jobs will appear and the economy will adjust as inevitably the technological advances spread to improve opportunities.
Jobs in renewable energy, infrastructure rebuilding and industries yet to be invented will sustain our workforce, if they have the right skills. The Henry Ford Assembly lines are however now manned by robots, so learn how to operate one.
Monday, January 8, 2018
Politics
It seems like the cold weather in the northeast is starting to revert to a more normal temperature range and that is certainly welcome news.
Congress is back in session and they have a number of issues they need to solve.
One is funding the Government and that's challenging because on one hand fiscal conservatives want spending cuts and on the other hand some want to address the "dreamers" in that bill.
It once again points out the polarizing influence of our two party system.
It seems pretty clear that there is a fairly large majority spread across both parties that want to fund the Government and want to provide a safe haven for the dreamers.
However each party has to deal with the fringe groups that have undo influence largely because in our system a dedicated minority can sway a primary election.
It leads to the inability for bipartisan compromise even when a large majority of Americans want a specific outcome.
Of course right now we have a president who was elected because of a rather bizarre series of events who more and more seems out of touch with reality.
Of course he has assured us all that he is a stable genius, so I guess there's nothing to worry about.
Lets see if he can actually craft any deals.
Sunday, January 7, 2018
Immigration
A lot of time is spent arguing about immigrants and refugees and about the number of undocumented or illegal immigrants who have come here from Mexico in particular, although other countries are involved.
Ultimately as a country descended from immigrants who came here to escape oppression or improve their economic situation it seems a bit odd that so many view immigrants as negatively as they do.
The country has gone through anti-immigration movements before, going back to the early 1800s, but of course we have had great waves of immigrants since then who while keeping some of their unique customs are now as American as anyone else.
Experience tells us that immigrants actually tend to work harder at menial jobs than the average American.
In a large group there will of course be instances of criminal behavior or in some cases terrorist behavior but that is also true for people born here from older immigrant stock.
It would be a Utopia indeed if somehow eliminating future immigrants would also eliminate the threat of terrorism and crime, it won't and it would leave a sever labor shortage.
One of the things that has probably led to the ongoing reaction to immigration is that so many low level jobs get filled with immigrants, either legal or illegal and there seems to be a perception that they are "stealing" these jobs from "real" Americans.
The reason they can get these jobs is that there aren't enough "real" Americans willing to do them, at least not at the wages they pay.
One of the biggest issues facing this country is the fact that "real" Americans are getting older and not creating as many new Americans as we need.
We need immigrants to backfill the jobs that will go unfilled without immigration and to reduce the average age of our workforce.
We are facing a demographic crisis in this country and without immigrants it will get a lot worse before it levels off.
Ultimately as a country descended from immigrants who came here to escape oppression or improve their economic situation it seems a bit odd that so many view immigrants as negatively as they do.
The country has gone through anti-immigration movements before, going back to the early 1800s, but of course we have had great waves of immigrants since then who while keeping some of their unique customs are now as American as anyone else.
Experience tells us that immigrants actually tend to work harder at menial jobs than the average American.
In a large group there will of course be instances of criminal behavior or in some cases terrorist behavior but that is also true for people born here from older immigrant stock.
It would be a Utopia indeed if somehow eliminating future immigrants would also eliminate the threat of terrorism and crime, it won't and it would leave a sever labor shortage.
One of the things that has probably led to the ongoing reaction to immigration is that so many low level jobs get filled with immigrants, either legal or illegal and there seems to be a perception that they are "stealing" these jobs from "real" Americans.
The reason they can get these jobs is that there aren't enough "real" Americans willing to do them, at least not at the wages they pay.
One of the biggest issues facing this country is the fact that "real" Americans are getting older and not creating as many new Americans as we need.
We need immigrants to backfill the jobs that will go unfilled without immigration and to reduce the average age of our workforce.
We are facing a demographic crisis in this country and without immigrants it will get a lot worse before it levels off.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Supply Side?
The jobs report in December was a bit disappointing but one month is not a trend.
The impact of the tax breaks on employment will only be seen over time. This is a supply side approach where reducing the cost of production leads to cheaper products and more consumption.
It looks good on a graph but is that how it actually works in real life?
If there are products that people would buy if they could afford them, lowering those prices would result in a purchase. The question is how significant is that event and do the lower prices make sense for the manufacturer.
If you accept the supply side theory it implies that manufacturers are eager to expand production an accept lower profit margins for the sake of market share. This may be true in some cases. However, expanding production and hiring more workers, the essential part of the theory is risky.
Expanding is a risky endeavor and hiring workers is a bit of a commitment. Each industry is of course different but the other factor is simply will the demand materialize?
Take something like smartphones. Market saturation is close and the future seems to be in developing new features rather than making the product cheaper. There are already cheaper alternatives available so how much incentive is there for the market leaders to reduce prices in the hope of greater market share instead of simply increasing profit margin?
I don't think its much.
A lot of these theories seem to assume that demand will simply materialize but if America is a fairly mature market will limited population growth, I would wonder where this demand is coming from?
Certainly some new demand may be generated by lower prices but is it going to stir the type of economic growth we would need to offset the loss of revenue? I don't see anyone predicting that and it doesn't seem remotely likely.
Increased profits is very likely and the stock market reflects that.
More jobs? Maybe a few.
More debt? Quite a bit and a likely attack on entitlements nearly certain.
The impact of the tax breaks on employment will only be seen over time. This is a supply side approach where reducing the cost of production leads to cheaper products and more consumption.
It looks good on a graph but is that how it actually works in real life?
If there are products that people would buy if they could afford them, lowering those prices would result in a purchase. The question is how significant is that event and do the lower prices make sense for the manufacturer.
If you accept the supply side theory it implies that manufacturers are eager to expand production an accept lower profit margins for the sake of market share. This may be true in some cases. However, expanding production and hiring more workers, the essential part of the theory is risky.
Expanding is a risky endeavor and hiring workers is a bit of a commitment. Each industry is of course different but the other factor is simply will the demand materialize?
Take something like smartphones. Market saturation is close and the future seems to be in developing new features rather than making the product cheaper. There are already cheaper alternatives available so how much incentive is there for the market leaders to reduce prices in the hope of greater market share instead of simply increasing profit margin?
I don't think its much.
A lot of these theories seem to assume that demand will simply materialize but if America is a fairly mature market will limited population growth, I would wonder where this demand is coming from?
Certainly some new demand may be generated by lower prices but is it going to stir the type of economic growth we would need to offset the loss of revenue? I don't see anyone predicting that and it doesn't seem remotely likely.
Increased profits is very likely and the stock market reflects that.
More jobs? Maybe a few.
More debt? Quite a bit and a likely attack on entitlements nearly certain.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Fantasy White House
By now I would like to think that anyone who is paying attention knows that the dotard lies regularly.
He does it so frequently and with such conviction that it doesn't seem like he even knows he is lying.
For example he claims that after 9-11 he saw radical Islamic terrorists celebrating on a rooftop in New Jersey when no such footage exists. The most logical sequence to me is that he conflated two different events. He seems convinced that this happened.
So technically, if your fantasies become your reality, you aren't actually lying, you are simply wrong.
I think that's the bigger danger, he sees the world through a distorted filter that convinces him of things that are not true, at least not anymore.
For example, there was a time when there was a tremendous demand for coal and mining more of it would have reduced prices and created jobs.
Not now.
Open up protected areas for additional oil capacity to eliminate our dependence of foreign oil.
We have moved on largely to natural gas and renewable enough that this is at best minimal impact.
Reduce taxes on manufacturers and all those jobs will come back.
Its cheaper and better quality to use automation and robots.
The list goes on and on and is based on his perusal of various TV shows and commercials with no real research or logic.
I'm pretty sure his bologna has a first name and a last name and all his trains are run on time by choo-choo Charlie.
I doubt he looks for the union label since he thinks unions were bad, but he might hum the tune to himself now and again.
He does it so frequently and with such conviction that it doesn't seem like he even knows he is lying.
For example he claims that after 9-11 he saw radical Islamic terrorists celebrating on a rooftop in New Jersey when no such footage exists. The most logical sequence to me is that he conflated two different events. He seems convinced that this happened.
So technically, if your fantasies become your reality, you aren't actually lying, you are simply wrong.
I think that's the bigger danger, he sees the world through a distorted filter that convinces him of things that are not true, at least not anymore.
For example, there was a time when there was a tremendous demand for coal and mining more of it would have reduced prices and created jobs.
Not now.
Open up protected areas for additional oil capacity to eliminate our dependence of foreign oil.
We have moved on largely to natural gas and renewable enough that this is at best minimal impact.
Reduce taxes on manufacturers and all those jobs will come back.
Its cheaper and better quality to use automation and robots.
The list goes on and on and is based on his perusal of various TV shows and commercials with no real research or logic.
I'm pretty sure his bologna has a first name and a last name and all his trains are run on time by choo-choo Charlie.
I doubt he looks for the union label since he thinks unions were bad, but he might hum the tune to himself now and again.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Its A Blizzard!
I may have already known this and just forgot, but in addition to heavy snow and high winds, for it to be a blizzard visibility has to be less than 3/4 of a mile apparently. I usually don't want to see anything that far away anyways but good to know.
Watching a blizzard through a bay window isn't bad.
We have a bomb cyclone going on and I see a list of closed schools scroll by. At some point, if any are actually open they should just show us that one.
During these storms they always say stay off the roads if you don't need to drive. Seems like pretty good advice at any time.
Watching the dotard take credit for things he had nothing to do with makes me want to blame the blizzard on him, seems only fair.
Don't imagine a lot is going to get done on the East Coast today. Business as usual in the nations capitol.
If you are in the blizzard area, stay safe and warm. If you aren't, well still, stay safe and warm.
Watching a blizzard through a bay window isn't bad.
We have a bomb cyclone going on and I see a list of closed schools scroll by. At some point, if any are actually open they should just show us that one.
During these storms they always say stay off the roads if you don't need to drive. Seems like pretty good advice at any time.
Watching the dotard take credit for things he had nothing to do with makes me want to blame the blizzard on him, seems only fair.
Don't imagine a lot is going to get done on the East Coast today. Business as usual in the nations capitol.
If you are in the blizzard area, stay safe and warm. If you aren't, well still, stay safe and warm.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Tragedy in Witchita
Imagine you are at home with your family just living your normal life when outside there's a bunch of flashing lights and obvious police activity.
You go to your door to see what is happening and unexpectedly find out the police are focused on your house and start shouting orders at you.
You would certainly be confused and surprised at this point as a bunch of armed people in police uniforms are telling you to do something.
Maybe you hear them but think it is clearly a case of mistaken identity so you reach for your ID.
Now you are dead.
It turns out that someone called in a false SWAT call and even worse used a phony address they had been given by an online gamer who they had a dispute with ($1 or $2 bet).
Of course the person making the call is guilty but you have to wonder how a trained group of police officers could roll up on a residential household, see no evidence of violence and just shoot a citizen who was unarmed and unthreatening because in that moment he failed to instantly obey shouted instructions?
I've heard of suicide by cop where someone decides to confront a cop but this is murder by cop.
Its likely that somehow the murderous police officer who shot an unarmed man, answering his door will be exonerated since his story that this person made a potentially threatening move to his belt is considered justification.
I just don't understand how a squad of heavily armed police, surrounding a residence would feel the need to fire without actually seeing a weapon?
I really just don't understand it and something needs to happen.
You go to your door to see what is happening and unexpectedly find out the police are focused on your house and start shouting orders at you.
You would certainly be confused and surprised at this point as a bunch of armed people in police uniforms are telling you to do something.
Maybe you hear them but think it is clearly a case of mistaken identity so you reach for your ID.
Now you are dead.
It turns out that someone called in a false SWAT call and even worse used a phony address they had been given by an online gamer who they had a dispute with ($1 or $2 bet).
Of course the person making the call is guilty but you have to wonder how a trained group of police officers could roll up on a residential household, see no evidence of violence and just shoot a citizen who was unarmed and unthreatening because in that moment he failed to instantly obey shouted instructions?
I've heard of suicide by cop where someone decides to confront a cop but this is murder by cop.
Its likely that somehow the murderous police officer who shot an unarmed man, answering his door will be exonerated since his story that this person made a potentially threatening move to his belt is considered justification.
I just don't understand how a squad of heavily armed police, surrounding a residence would feel the need to fire without actually seeing a weapon?
I really just don't understand it and something needs to happen.
Tuesday, January 2, 2018
2018 Mid Terms
Now that its 2018 the question becomes how do we elect people to promote progressive causes.
There are a million pundits out there who will talk about what needs to be done, but the first step is to make sure the country realizes that progressives are just as American as can be.
Most of the causes I'm talking about are actually supported by a majority of Americans, as evidenced
by the recent generic ballot.
Generic Ballot
This may seem surprising until you think a bit about what Americans thought they were voting for in the last election.
Despite the evidence all around them, certain media outlets had convinced them that the Government was a runaway train that was going to take away their guns, force co-ed bathrooms, send jobs overseas, and allow millions of immigrants to become citizens who entered illegally among other nefarious things.
Of course the exaggerations (lies) also included unfounded allegations about the Democratic candidate.
Finally, the election had a certain predicted inevitable outcome that turned out to be wrong, possibly because of that very prediction. People who favored the Democrats felt they could stay home and it wouldn't matter, and those who wanted to register a protest had a candidate to vote for, one that had no real chance to win.
Meanwhile on most issues, the people felt that maybe we should slow down a bit but in general they are very much in favor of fair treatment for all, affordable health care, environmental awareness and global peace.
Regulation of Wall Street was extremely popular it was a reason progressives didn't fully support the democratic candidate.
So when the impossible happened most Americans felt that the system would control the wild card elected but surprise, it didn't.
In fact, he lied and exaggerated even more turning his popular vote loss into a perceived mandate.
There is an old adage, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
Like a dog who catches a car, the only choice they have now is to pee on it and move on.
There are a million pundits out there who will talk about what needs to be done, but the first step is to make sure the country realizes that progressives are just as American as can be.
Most of the causes I'm talking about are actually supported by a majority of Americans, as evidenced
by the recent generic ballot.
Generic Ballot
This may seem surprising until you think a bit about what Americans thought they were voting for in the last election.
Despite the evidence all around them, certain media outlets had convinced them that the Government was a runaway train that was going to take away their guns, force co-ed bathrooms, send jobs overseas, and allow millions of immigrants to become citizens who entered illegally among other nefarious things.
Of course the exaggerations (lies) also included unfounded allegations about the Democratic candidate.
Finally, the election had a certain predicted inevitable outcome that turned out to be wrong, possibly because of that very prediction. People who favored the Democrats felt they could stay home and it wouldn't matter, and those who wanted to register a protest had a candidate to vote for, one that had no real chance to win.
Meanwhile on most issues, the people felt that maybe we should slow down a bit but in general they are very much in favor of fair treatment for all, affordable health care, environmental awareness and global peace.
Regulation of Wall Street was extremely popular it was a reason progressives didn't fully support the democratic candidate.
So when the impossible happened most Americans felt that the system would control the wild card elected but surprise, it didn't.
In fact, he lied and exaggerated even more turning his popular vote loss into a perceived mandate.
There is an old adage, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
Like a dog who catches a car, the only choice they have now is to pee on it and move on.
Monday, January 1, 2018
Happy New Year
Its now 2018 and when I was young I think everyone expected flying cars and space colonies by now.
We really need to step up our game.
There are of course some pretty marvelous things, we managed to achieve the Dick Tracy wrist radio/telephone but not as popular as it could be.
Instead people like to wear devices that show them how far they walked, which wasn't an issue when I was young, everybody seemed to walk a lot.
Interestingly, most people were thinner and you would think healthier, but life expectancy has gone up.
Not sure what that means, except improvements in medical technology.
Considering everything, I could sit by the Christmas tree, sipping a beverage, watching the model trains, listening to music and easily think it was any year of my life.
Yeah I could text on my phone, have instantaneous access to a lot of useful and useless information, and buy and watch pretty much any movie I wanted on a color flat screen.
I opted for the Honeymooners marathon in black and white.
Seem more appropriate somehow.
Happy New Year's everybody, make it a good one.
We really need to step up our game.
There are of course some pretty marvelous things, we managed to achieve the Dick Tracy wrist radio/telephone but not as popular as it could be.
Instead people like to wear devices that show them how far they walked, which wasn't an issue when I was young, everybody seemed to walk a lot.
Interestingly, most people were thinner and you would think healthier, but life expectancy has gone up.
Not sure what that means, except improvements in medical technology.
Considering everything, I could sit by the Christmas tree, sipping a beverage, watching the model trains, listening to music and easily think it was any year of my life.
Yeah I could text on my phone, have instantaneous access to a lot of useful and useless information, and buy and watch pretty much any movie I wanted on a color flat screen.
I opted for the Honeymooners marathon in black and white.
Seem more appropriate somehow.
Happy New Year's everybody, make it a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)