The consequences of our current administration are going to be politically troublesome for quite some time because of the changes to the Supreme Court and some of the damage done internationally to our influence and reputation.
The fact that he seems to have been so easily bamboozled by the North Koreans and is cozying up to the Russians while turning away from our long term allies in the west could be extremely disruptive, possibly leading to potential warfare and destruction.
However, it would seem somewhat unthinkable that the world could go so off kilter, if it hadn't happened so many times before and the biggest danger is that the dontard creates a rallying cry for people like him, to stand up to him, in certain countries.
As dangerous as that may be, the worst damage is what might happen to all of us because of his horrible environmental problems.
It might not be clear what he is doing, but his America first policy contains a formula for disaster.
Consider that the developed countries, including us have been the primary polluters of the world since the Industrial Revolution, while many third world countries were mostly left behind.
Now we see those countries, demanding a better lifestyle for their citizens and in order to get there they will inevitably add to the pollution problems we have.
The Paris climate accords attempted to address this issue by allowing the undeveloped countries more leeway while asking the developed countries to work harder to reduce carbon emissions.
On the face of it, it appears to be a bit of an advantage to the third world countries, except of course they agreed to develop more environmentally friendly technology with the developed world's support.
Economically it does help them a bit, but environmentally it went a long way to addressing climate change.
The dontard ignoring climate change wants to continue letting America increase pollution and environmental damage.
If the third world countries respond by doing the same we will not address climate change but increase it dramatically.
These are consequences that are very difficult to reverse and the damage is going to hurt all of us.
It is after all, just one world.
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Friday, June 29, 2018
Long Range Consequences
There shouldn't be a lot of politics in the Supreme Court, its simply supposed to interpret the constitution and determine if it is being followed.
Clearly however it has approached that task differently over time and some of that is because of necessity.
The world of the founders was a very different place than America of today and a lot of issues are different in scope and impact.
Certainly if you consider something like the right to bear arms, its impossible to know how they would have felt about guns available today. What was an essential item for someone on the frontier and almost everyone was on or near the frontier, is now a modern weapon with significant killing potential. Further the need to hunt or protect against potential attacks is certainly different than it was in the 18th century.
The real problem is that over the years we have not updated the constitution often enough to keep it current.
Take the electoral college. The need for that is doubtful and as constituted it serves to create an undemocratic outcome.
However because it has tended to allow for results like we saw in 2016, it is defended by certain interests who are more interested in power than democracy.
It is unlikely that we would have a rewrite which would require majorities that are simply not going to happen and even amending it is a slow and painful process, as intended since the founders did not want it to be subjected to mobs and whims.
So the Supreme Court has to some extent filled in the gaps that should be the job of the people of this country and we can see from the decisions and dissents that many of these issues are simply not clear.
We now see another opening which could lead to a change in many of our current positions, or it might not.
For many it is a lesson in how voting and participating in elections is so very important.
It can have consequences for a long time.
Clearly however it has approached that task differently over time and some of that is because of necessity.
The world of the founders was a very different place than America of today and a lot of issues are different in scope and impact.
Certainly if you consider something like the right to bear arms, its impossible to know how they would have felt about guns available today. What was an essential item for someone on the frontier and almost everyone was on or near the frontier, is now a modern weapon with significant killing potential. Further the need to hunt or protect against potential attacks is certainly different than it was in the 18th century.
The real problem is that over the years we have not updated the constitution often enough to keep it current.
Take the electoral college. The need for that is doubtful and as constituted it serves to create an undemocratic outcome.
However because it has tended to allow for results like we saw in 2016, it is defended by certain interests who are more interested in power than democracy.
It is unlikely that we would have a rewrite which would require majorities that are simply not going to happen and even amending it is a slow and painful process, as intended since the founders did not want it to be subjected to mobs and whims.
So the Supreme Court has to some extent filled in the gaps that should be the job of the people of this country and we can see from the decisions and dissents that many of these issues are simply not clear.
We now see another opening which could lead to a change in many of our current positions, or it might not.
For many it is a lesson in how voting and participating in elections is so very important.
It can have consequences for a long time.
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Safety Net?
We've been seeing a sell off in the market the last couple of weeks as it becomes apparent that the dontard is actually pursuing trade policies that will hurt the economy.
Of course his immigration policies also are bad for the economy because right or wrong, undocumented immigrants make us more competitive in many areas.
I believe his team of so-called economic advisers argue that we need to replace the people coming here and working for very low wages with people getting public assistance. Economically it seems to make sense since you turn someone using taxes to someone paying taxes.
The issues with this are pretty clear, since that strategy attempts to make people who either can't work or won't work into workers.
The other problem is the people aren't where the jobs might be.
If you accept the premise, you have to transport a lot of single mothers to the migrant camps where our undocumented work all day harvesting crops.
Not likely, or even probably possible.
Creating useful opportunities for these folks with training could work to a certain extent, but the current positions of the dontard are shaped by radical proponents of the sink or swim scenario.
Cut off their aid and food stamps unless they can prove they are working and drug free.
The fact that there are no jobs to be had in many cases, at least ones they qualify for, or that the real victims in many cases will be the children, is simply "one of the breaks".
Instead of providing education and opportunities for our vulnerable poor, we can turn them into a permanent underclass with all the problems they already have, plus some more.
The saddest thing is that the abusers of the system will figure our how to keep abusing it while the neediest will suffer.
Those are "the breaks"/
Of course his immigration policies also are bad for the economy because right or wrong, undocumented immigrants make us more competitive in many areas.
I believe his team of so-called economic advisers argue that we need to replace the people coming here and working for very low wages with people getting public assistance. Economically it seems to make sense since you turn someone using taxes to someone paying taxes.
The issues with this are pretty clear, since that strategy attempts to make people who either can't work or won't work into workers.
The other problem is the people aren't where the jobs might be.
If you accept the premise, you have to transport a lot of single mothers to the migrant camps where our undocumented work all day harvesting crops.
Not likely, or even probably possible.
Creating useful opportunities for these folks with training could work to a certain extent, but the current positions of the dontard are shaped by radical proponents of the sink or swim scenario.
Cut off their aid and food stamps unless they can prove they are working and drug free.
The fact that there are no jobs to be had in many cases, at least ones they qualify for, or that the real victims in many cases will be the children, is simply "one of the breaks".
Instead of providing education and opportunities for our vulnerable poor, we can turn them into a permanent underclass with all the problems they already have, plus some more.
The saddest thing is that the abusers of the system will figure our how to keep abusing it while the neediest will suffer.
Those are "the breaks"/
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
The Center Cannot Hold
Yesterday's primaries as well as other recent ones have revealed the new reality in party politics, angry people sway them.
The difficulty facing both major parties is simply "who is in charge?"
They both evolved in a system where certain broad values were effectively shared and the differences were more related to how to achieve shared visions on what America was and what it should be.
"Establishment" people accepted as their premise that the great majority of American voters shared certain fundamental values related to the institutions of this country.
Racism and hatred were wrong, capitalism is good, a strong safety net is needed, etc. etc.
However, even if that is true, the apathy of the middle has led to a situation where angry people get out and vote in primaries, leading to more divisiveness in our politics.
It really started with some "conservative" causes such as abortion, gun control, taxation, where they took an all or nothing approach. Not being angry enough about those issues became a death wish in primaries where only those who had drunk the Kool-Aid got selected.
It reached a sort of fruition in the last presidential election where one of the most anti-establishment candidates was able to win an electoral college majority largely because the Democratic candidate was so establishment that she had little appeal to the progressives, despite her gender.
It also put a certain onus on the party itself which was viewed, correctly, as supporting the establishment candidate over the progressive one.
So now we are seeing establishment candidates losing in primaries in record numbers as the motivated voters are the angry progressives who realize they gave the election to the most non-progressive person possible.
Its clearly going to move the party and most likely the country further left as we go through the election cycle and ramp up for the next presidential one.
Unfortunately it will be most likely another congress unable to accomplish much, at least until a new center can be established.
Right now there is little if any of it left.
The difficulty facing both major parties is simply "who is in charge?"
They both evolved in a system where certain broad values were effectively shared and the differences were more related to how to achieve shared visions on what America was and what it should be.
"Establishment" people accepted as their premise that the great majority of American voters shared certain fundamental values related to the institutions of this country.
Racism and hatred were wrong, capitalism is good, a strong safety net is needed, etc. etc.
However, even if that is true, the apathy of the middle has led to a situation where angry people get out and vote in primaries, leading to more divisiveness in our politics.
It really started with some "conservative" causes such as abortion, gun control, taxation, where they took an all or nothing approach. Not being angry enough about those issues became a death wish in primaries where only those who had drunk the Kool-Aid got selected.
It reached a sort of fruition in the last presidential election where one of the most anti-establishment candidates was able to win an electoral college majority largely because the Democratic candidate was so establishment that she had little appeal to the progressives, despite her gender.
It also put a certain onus on the party itself which was viewed, correctly, as supporting the establishment candidate over the progressive one.
So now we are seeing establishment candidates losing in primaries in record numbers as the motivated voters are the angry progressives who realize they gave the election to the most non-progressive person possible.
Its clearly going to move the party and most likely the country further left as we go through the election cycle and ramp up for the next presidential one.
Unfortunately it will be most likely another congress unable to accomplish much, at least until a new center can be established.
Right now there is little if any of it left.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Future Markets
We live in a world that is in most respects much smaller than it was say a hundred years ago.
Of course it is effectively the same size but between physical and virtual movement we have become neighbors to people who live in what used to be remote locations.
This is a wonderful thing in almost all respects as we can break down barriers that separated us and led to conflicts, wars and economic distress.
This globalization however increases the level of competition for everybody.
Competition drives out the weak performers and allows the most efficient to survive, assuming of course that it is a fair competition.
In some cases of course, those who lose out are going to be unhappy.
The answer of course is to become more competitive but that can be difficult and instead we see a desire to restrict the competition.
However once the box has been opened it isn't easily closed as we see rising incomes in undeveloped countries making them the markets of the future.
America is a big market but it is not the only one and certainly not the fastest growing one.
Engaging in a trade war is going to block our industries from the big growth markets while increasing certain prices here.
The global market will survive with America playing a smaller role and America will survive, but the pain will be worse in America with future consequences as we lose markets to eager competitors.
We see Harley Davidson moving production to keep its European opportunities.
The past is gone but the future is coming, and we need our products capturing future opportunities if we want to create jobs and opportunities.
Tariffs don't work.
Of course it is effectively the same size but between physical and virtual movement we have become neighbors to people who live in what used to be remote locations.
This is a wonderful thing in almost all respects as we can break down barriers that separated us and led to conflicts, wars and economic distress.
This globalization however increases the level of competition for everybody.
Competition drives out the weak performers and allows the most efficient to survive, assuming of course that it is a fair competition.
In some cases of course, those who lose out are going to be unhappy.
The answer of course is to become more competitive but that can be difficult and instead we see a desire to restrict the competition.
However once the box has been opened it isn't easily closed as we see rising incomes in undeveloped countries making them the markets of the future.
America is a big market but it is not the only one and certainly not the fastest growing one.
Engaging in a trade war is going to block our industries from the big growth markets while increasing certain prices here.
The global market will survive with America playing a smaller role and America will survive, but the pain will be worse in America with future consequences as we lose markets to eager competitors.
We see Harley Davidson moving production to keep its European opportunities.
The past is gone but the future is coming, and we need our products capturing future opportunities if we want to create jobs and opportunities.
Tariffs don't work.
Monday, June 25, 2018
Economic Tipping Point?
Outside of the contentiousness we see everywhere, on the surface things are continuing to be okay.
We have had a fairly steady recovery from the 2009 financial crisis which has continued through the current administration.
Structurally there hasn't been much change as current policies haven't revived much manufacturing or mining and the areas improving are little changed.
There are of course economic forces at work that is using the power of the unseen hand to determine where work is best performed based on being most efficient.
Government involvement in this process is normally futile and almost always is ineffective.
We now see the dontard trying to influence the economy via tariffs.
The original group were apparently to appease a few of his friends who wanted to reduce competition to some businesses that faced foreign competition.
However, he apparently is unaware that other countries set their own policies and were going to react.
We see China targeting specific areas that will hurt many of his supporters and the same from the EU.
His response is typical, he escalates and we seem unable to get the congress, which is populated by proponents of free trade to do anything.
So we see the beginning of the most likely event to cause a recession.
There are other troubling signs, but the disruption that might be caused by trade wars is probably the most serious.
Recessions are unfortunately part of the business process as every few years excesses are adjusted and we see a reduction in growth.
We are certainly due. However, as much as the recovery was criticized for being too slow, that may be why we have avoided one so far. The excesses weren't created, or at least not to the extent they normally are.
The retaliatory tariffs will likely lead to reduce exports and increased domestic prices and it may be the tipping point.
Time will tell.
We have had a fairly steady recovery from the 2009 financial crisis which has continued through the current administration.
Structurally there hasn't been much change as current policies haven't revived much manufacturing or mining and the areas improving are little changed.
There are of course economic forces at work that is using the power of the unseen hand to determine where work is best performed based on being most efficient.
Government involvement in this process is normally futile and almost always is ineffective.
We now see the dontard trying to influence the economy via tariffs.
The original group were apparently to appease a few of his friends who wanted to reduce competition to some businesses that faced foreign competition.
However, he apparently is unaware that other countries set their own policies and were going to react.
We see China targeting specific areas that will hurt many of his supporters and the same from the EU.
His response is typical, he escalates and we seem unable to get the congress, which is populated by proponents of free trade to do anything.
So we see the beginning of the most likely event to cause a recession.
There are other troubling signs, but the disruption that might be caused by trade wars is probably the most serious.
Recessions are unfortunately part of the business process as every few years excesses are adjusted and we see a reduction in growth.
We are certainly due. However, as much as the recovery was criticized for being too slow, that may be why we have avoided one so far. The excesses weren't created, or at least not to the extent they normally are.
The retaliatory tariffs will likely lead to reduce exports and increased domestic prices and it may be the tipping point.
Time will tell.
Sunday, June 24, 2018
Land of Opportunity
One of the lures that America has always had to immigrants is that you can do better here then you can where you are.
America was the land of opportunity.
Its of course accepted that this was true and clearly for many millions of immigrants it did offer a better situation then starving because of a potato blight or being persecuted for religious beliefs.
Of course this varied by country and while we did have in many ways more opportunity here than a country with rigid social castes it wasn't like immigrants had won the golden ticket, they still faced tough conditions, bias and in some cases terrible living conditions and years of poverty.
However, we were a growing country and work was fairly plentiful so they were generally able to establish themselves and in fact build a better future for themselves and their families.
They contributed greatly to their new country and most would agree they added greatly to the fabric of this country.
Current immigrants are no different than their predecessors and to portray them as crime ridden hoards intent on destroying our way of life is just repeating things that were said about Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians and Cubans.
They are people looking for a better, safer life and they are needed here as we don't have enough willing workers to do many of the jobs they will fill.
There are issues with American workers who see less opportunity then there once was in our manufacturing sector, but the immigrants aren't displacing them, they were displaced by economic forces and automation.
To hear the dontard talk about immigrants is to hear the same old song and dance that has been said about previous immigrants, and it is just as wrong now as it was then.
America was the land of opportunity.
Its of course accepted that this was true and clearly for many millions of immigrants it did offer a better situation then starving because of a potato blight or being persecuted for religious beliefs.
Of course this varied by country and while we did have in many ways more opportunity here than a country with rigid social castes it wasn't like immigrants had won the golden ticket, they still faced tough conditions, bias and in some cases terrible living conditions and years of poverty.
However, we were a growing country and work was fairly plentiful so they were generally able to establish themselves and in fact build a better future for themselves and their families.
They contributed greatly to their new country and most would agree they added greatly to the fabric of this country.
Current immigrants are no different than their predecessors and to portray them as crime ridden hoards intent on destroying our way of life is just repeating things that were said about Irish, Italians, Poles, Russians and Cubans.
They are people looking for a better, safer life and they are needed here as we don't have enough willing workers to do many of the jobs they will fill.
There are issues with American workers who see less opportunity then there once was in our manufacturing sector, but the immigrants aren't displacing them, they were displaced by economic forces and automation.
To hear the dontard talk about immigrants is to hear the same old song and dance that has been said about previous immigrants, and it is just as wrong now as it was then.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Tariffs are just Taxes with a Different Name
When you impose a tariff on an imported article, its only paid if the item is, well, imported.
Its only going to get imported if it can be sold and assuming the seller doesn't intend to lose money, the sales price is going to include any tariff he has to pay.
This increase in price is therefore paid by whoever actually buys the item, and clearly that person in this scenario is an American resident, since the tariff only applies to items imported here.
You might say you can avoid the tariff by buying a domestic item, and that is true if a domestic item is available and assuming the price is competitive.
Of course the tariff does make it easier for the domestic supplier to compete, at least here, but it doesn't help them in other markets.
So you would still be paying more, but it would be an inefficiency charge, not a tariff.
Still its effectively a commerce tax taking money our of your pocket and putting it into an inefficient manufacturer.
I'm generally opposed to tariffs since they prevent the markets from being efficient but I do understand that they might have a place in domestic policy to encourage a particular sector or give it a chance to mature, temporarily.
Of course the tariffs being imposed now, in the name of national security, are simply designed to pander to certain business owners who can't compete on their own.
This is going to create a few jobs, but as the other nations retaliate and we lose sales and market share in markets such as China, we will lose far more jobs than we gain.
So will everyone else.
A real lose-lose strategy.
Its only going to get imported if it can be sold and assuming the seller doesn't intend to lose money, the sales price is going to include any tariff he has to pay.
This increase in price is therefore paid by whoever actually buys the item, and clearly that person in this scenario is an American resident, since the tariff only applies to items imported here.
You might say you can avoid the tariff by buying a domestic item, and that is true if a domestic item is available and assuming the price is competitive.
Of course the tariff does make it easier for the domestic supplier to compete, at least here, but it doesn't help them in other markets.
So you would still be paying more, but it would be an inefficiency charge, not a tariff.
Still its effectively a commerce tax taking money our of your pocket and putting it into an inefficient manufacturer.
I'm generally opposed to tariffs since they prevent the markets from being efficient but I do understand that they might have a place in domestic policy to encourage a particular sector or give it a chance to mature, temporarily.
Of course the tariffs being imposed now, in the name of national security, are simply designed to pander to certain business owners who can't compete on their own.
This is going to create a few jobs, but as the other nations retaliate and we lose sales and market share in markets such as China, we will lose far more jobs than we gain.
So will everyone else.
A real lose-lose strategy.
Friday, June 22, 2018
Do Nothing Congress
When one considers how vehement all the political arguments are, the real reason is that the people doing most of the arguing have fairly extreme views.
Take something like gun control.
Most Americans agree that some common sense controls should exist to prevent letting guns get into the hands of dangerous people. We know that from every poll out there.
But the argument gets framed by the extremists as all or nothing. One side argues that the Government is planning to take away everyone's guns. The other side paints gun owners as troubled individuals who may be compensating for other inadequacies.
Now neither of those views represent a majority but we allow those extreme position to frame the political argument because it is those groups that are most fervent.
Meanwhile we don't have sensible gun controls and unfortunately the next school massacre may only be delayed by the summer recess.
Now we have always had extremist views but they are more prevalent now because of what we did in the political parties. Not too long ago most candidates were selected by party insiders and the primaries were a way to simply endorse the right candidate.
This may sound undemocratic, but it was probably more democratic than the system we now have where so few vote in primaries that whoever has the most upset supporters can win.
You see candidates energize a relatively small group over a specific position and ride that to victory in a primary since the turnout is so low.
You see people win primaries that really are not close to representing the majority of the people in that party, but they are now the standard bearer.
It has led to more extreme candidates who get elected in safe districts and who are non-compromising in the issue they represent.
So nothing gets done.
Take something like gun control.
Most Americans agree that some common sense controls should exist to prevent letting guns get into the hands of dangerous people. We know that from every poll out there.
But the argument gets framed by the extremists as all or nothing. One side argues that the Government is planning to take away everyone's guns. The other side paints gun owners as troubled individuals who may be compensating for other inadequacies.
Now neither of those views represent a majority but we allow those extreme position to frame the political argument because it is those groups that are most fervent.
Meanwhile we don't have sensible gun controls and unfortunately the next school massacre may only be delayed by the summer recess.
Now we have always had extremist views but they are more prevalent now because of what we did in the political parties. Not too long ago most candidates were selected by party insiders and the primaries were a way to simply endorse the right candidate.
This may sound undemocratic, but it was probably more democratic than the system we now have where so few vote in primaries that whoever has the most upset supporters can win.
You see candidates energize a relatively small group over a specific position and ride that to victory in a primary since the turnout is so low.
You see people win primaries that really are not close to representing the majority of the people in that party, but they are now the standard bearer.
It has led to more extreme candidates who get elected in safe districts and who are non-compromising in the issue they represent.
So nothing gets done.
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Safety Net?
There is a view of America that restricts Government involvement to a small number of limited areas, like defense, foreign relations, interstate commerce and a small number of other areas enumerated in the Constitution.
They don't believe that the expansion of the Government into areas such as retirement, social assistance, education, housing, or health is appropriate and they would like to see it reversed.
Individual initiative with a merit based society where everyone on the whole does better because the people with talent are allowed to use those talents and grow the country.
It actually has a certain appeal, except what about those who don't have the skills are resources to enable them to compete?
To have winners you also have to have losers, and while there are many instances of people starting with next to nothing who manage to succeed greatly, those are still generally the exceptions.
In this view those who don't lead have to follow and they need to accept their lot.
Charity isn't the business of Government and it should stay out of it, leaving it to the churches and other organizations.
This will force everyone to work and take the Government out of the income redistribution business which destroys initiative and leads to socialism.
In this country socialism is a bad word, at least to many. It has gotten mixed up with communism in many minds but it isn't communism.
Socialism is simply the idea that the society as a group should share in the prosperity as opposed to individualism (a winner take all approach).
We are not a socialist country, but we do have some social welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Education Assistance, the Affordable Care Act and a few others that are in fact socialistic in nature since they are designed to benefit society as a whole.
Some feel that Social Security doesn't belong on this list, since we pay into it, but it does redistribute those contributions based on a formula and we don't just have an account we draw from.
The question is do we want to dismantle these programs and reduce taxes or continue to provide a safety net to those who need it?
Each of us has to decide.
They don't believe that the expansion of the Government into areas such as retirement, social assistance, education, housing, or health is appropriate and they would like to see it reversed.
Individual initiative with a merit based society where everyone on the whole does better because the people with talent are allowed to use those talents and grow the country.
It actually has a certain appeal, except what about those who don't have the skills are resources to enable them to compete?
To have winners you also have to have losers, and while there are many instances of people starting with next to nothing who manage to succeed greatly, those are still generally the exceptions.
In this view those who don't lead have to follow and they need to accept their lot.
Charity isn't the business of Government and it should stay out of it, leaving it to the churches and other organizations.
This will force everyone to work and take the Government out of the income redistribution business which destroys initiative and leads to socialism.
In this country socialism is a bad word, at least to many. It has gotten mixed up with communism in many minds but it isn't communism.
Socialism is simply the idea that the society as a group should share in the prosperity as opposed to individualism (a winner take all approach).
We are not a socialist country, but we do have some social welfare programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Food Stamps, Education Assistance, the Affordable Care Act and a few others that are in fact socialistic in nature since they are designed to benefit society as a whole.
Some feel that Social Security doesn't belong on this list, since we pay into it, but it does redistribute those contributions based on a formula and we don't just have an account we draw from.
The question is do we want to dismantle these programs and reduce taxes or continue to provide a safety net to those who need it?
Each of us has to decide.
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Immigration Reform
You didn't think things could get worse in Washington considering how disruptive it is, but then it does.
The policy of zero tolerance which results in Children being taken away from arrested parents is simply a terrible thing to do and its very hard to defend.
There is a fairly strong anti immigration mood in much of the country, but there isn't a pen up little children mood, at least not yet.
The anti immigration mood is fanned by the alt right and is really a form of racism or racial purity, defend America as a "white" country.
That goal is at the bottom of a lot of the sentiment, just like we see people defending the flag or what language we use when neither is under attack.
The typical American is non-existent and the image of a Mayberry RFD type of life is fine, but it was never really the norm.
It did exist but it wasn't the only existence. For many Americans the image of their ancestors is one of a struggling immigrant, braving the unknown and arriving in a new country with their family to start a new better life.
Many of them did brave the journey to the west to settle on farms, many stayed in the cities of the east to work in factories and workhouses.
Some came to this country to work on the railroads and helped complete our infrastructure.
Some of course were dragged here against their will and enslaved, after which they were discriminated against.
For most it worked out pretty well, if not for them, at least for their children and grandchildren.
This is a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants and it is shameful how we treat "illegal" immigrants.
We need immigrants and we need to have a way for people to come here legally.
Its in our blood after all.
The policy of zero tolerance which results in Children being taken away from arrested parents is simply a terrible thing to do and its very hard to defend.
There is a fairly strong anti immigration mood in much of the country, but there isn't a pen up little children mood, at least not yet.
The anti immigration mood is fanned by the alt right and is really a form of racism or racial purity, defend America as a "white" country.
That goal is at the bottom of a lot of the sentiment, just like we see people defending the flag or what language we use when neither is under attack.
The typical American is non-existent and the image of a Mayberry RFD type of life is fine, but it was never really the norm.
It did exist but it wasn't the only existence. For many Americans the image of their ancestors is one of a struggling immigrant, braving the unknown and arriving in a new country with their family to start a new better life.
Many of them did brave the journey to the west to settle on farms, many stayed in the cities of the east to work in factories and workhouses.
Some came to this country to work on the railroads and helped complete our infrastructure.
Some of course were dragged here against their will and enslaved, after which they were discriminated against.
For most it worked out pretty well, if not for them, at least for their children and grandchildren.
This is a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants and it is shameful how we treat "illegal" immigrants.
We need immigrants and we need to have a way for people to come here legally.
Its in our blood after all.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Unpreditable Future
Sometimes you don't realize how quickly things have changed
Many of the things we imagined haven't materialized, like flying cars or commercial space travel.
The changes that did happen are more pervasive and universal.
We sort of envisioned robots that would look like us serving us.
Instead we got devices that look like boxes that hear us and control more and more of the things around us.
Certainly a lot less intrusive.
With a few exceptions we tend to imagine things continuing like we are at a point of time, with certain substitutions.
Of course what happens is technology creates new ways that are not easily predicted.
It also eliminates the need for things we considered essential at one time, like pay phones.
We can spend more and more of our time without having to deal with other people.
You can go to school at home, work at home, shop at home and stream entertainment to your home.
We can have social interactions that involve no actual contact with people who may or may not exist.
Of course some things still require another person, but there are apps for that.
That's an expression everyone understands now that would have made no sense 25 years ago.
Like giving a teen age girl some change in case she needs to contact you makes no sense today.
Many of the things we imagined haven't materialized, like flying cars or commercial space travel.
The changes that did happen are more pervasive and universal.
We sort of envisioned robots that would look like us serving us.
Instead we got devices that look like boxes that hear us and control more and more of the things around us.
Certainly a lot less intrusive.
With a few exceptions we tend to imagine things continuing like we are at a point of time, with certain substitutions.
Of course what happens is technology creates new ways that are not easily predicted.
It also eliminates the need for things we considered essential at one time, like pay phones.
We can spend more and more of our time without having to deal with other people.
You can go to school at home, work at home, shop at home and stream entertainment to your home.
We can have social interactions that involve no actual contact with people who may or may not exist.
Of course some things still require another person, but there are apps for that.
That's an expression everyone understands now that would have made no sense 25 years ago.
Like giving a teen age girl some change in case she needs to contact you makes no sense today.
Monday, June 18, 2018
Twitter Opinions
I see a lot of articles and sometimes hear how people are reacting on Twitter. Twitter has become apparently the arbiter of things even things like who is guilty of abuse and who should be shamed.
This is sort of like deciding that letters to the editor should be used to determine public policy.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't express opinions on Twitter or anywhere else, but I don't see any reason to give them more influence than they deserve.
I don't know how many people contribute to these posts and while some are clever or funny, I just don't know if they reflect overall opinions or sway any significantly.
Still its become sort of an instant feedback forum that is picked up on by various media as an indicator of public opinion.
Speaking of which, we now see people attacked and sometimes convicted for offenses that may or not be anything at all.
There was recently a tweet by Samuel L. Jackson that could be interpreted as a number of Trump supporters giving him oral sex.
This was attacked as homophobic, but is it?
The acts that go on between consenting adults is their own business. They don't however have any type of monopoly on them.
If in fact you interpret that tweet to mean what some interpreted it, it would have in fact constituted an act of sexual harassment since they were effectively his employees required to perform that act to keep their jobs.
It has nothing to do with acts between consenting adults.
What if the implication was that they had to kiss his ass?
Would that be offensive to people?
This is sort of like deciding that letters to the editor should be used to determine public policy.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't express opinions on Twitter or anywhere else, but I don't see any reason to give them more influence than they deserve.
I don't know how many people contribute to these posts and while some are clever or funny, I just don't know if they reflect overall opinions or sway any significantly.
Still its become sort of an instant feedback forum that is picked up on by various media as an indicator of public opinion.
Speaking of which, we now see people attacked and sometimes convicted for offenses that may or not be anything at all.
There was recently a tweet by Samuel L. Jackson that could be interpreted as a number of Trump supporters giving him oral sex.
This was attacked as homophobic, but is it?
The acts that go on between consenting adults is their own business. They don't however have any type of monopoly on them.
If in fact you interpret that tweet to mean what some interpreted it, it would have in fact constituted an act of sexual harassment since they were effectively his employees required to perform that act to keep their jobs.
It has nothing to do with acts between consenting adults.
What if the implication was that they had to kiss his ass?
Would that be offensive to people?
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Father's Day
For many reasons fathers day doesn't get the same amount of attention as mother's day.
The main reason is that mothers give birth and are the primary care givers in general.
Father's accept this and we've learned to live with it.
We do often have better weather though.
Happy Father's Day to all the father's out there.
The main reason is that mothers give birth and are the primary care givers in general.
Father's accept this and we've learned to live with it.
We do often have better weather though.
Happy Father's Day to all the father's out there.
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Immigration Silliness
People who brake laws don't do it expecting to get caught. Of course they might realize it a possibility, but with a few exceptions, they assume they will get away with it.
One of those exceptions is people who cross our border without authorization who then turn themselves in.
The reason for this is that it is better than the alternative.
These are people who have no possibility to come here legally as they don't qualify under any of the criteria.
Not because of anything they have done wrong but simply because they the criteria requirements apply to specific categories which is pretty restrictive.
You can't just apply to come here and wait your turn, you must have a job, family or some humanitarian basis.
Since they have no legal path to immigration they take the only path available to them, one which puts them at some risk but also creates an opportunity.
So we arrest the adults and separate them from their children at which point we are housing and feeding all of them until whenever the cases get depositioned.
The cost for this, time in detention, care of the children, transport back to country of origin is all borne by the citizens of this country with the general result being, well cost.
Of course back before we had these immigration laws we used to screen arrivals and if they weren't infectious or a known danger, allow them simply to enter the country and help grow it.
Most of our ancestors came in via this sort of process and they worked hard raised families and had, well us.
Outside of prejudice against Mexicans or other central Americans, there is no reason we couldn't have a similar process today, except of course for the prejudice thing.
One of those exceptions is people who cross our border without authorization who then turn themselves in.
The reason for this is that it is better than the alternative.
These are people who have no possibility to come here legally as they don't qualify under any of the criteria.
Not because of anything they have done wrong but simply because they the criteria requirements apply to specific categories which is pretty restrictive.
You can't just apply to come here and wait your turn, you must have a job, family or some humanitarian basis.
Since they have no legal path to immigration they take the only path available to them, one which puts them at some risk but also creates an opportunity.
So we arrest the adults and separate them from their children at which point we are housing and feeding all of them until whenever the cases get depositioned.
The cost for this, time in detention, care of the children, transport back to country of origin is all borne by the citizens of this country with the general result being, well cost.
Of course back before we had these immigration laws we used to screen arrivals and if they weren't infectious or a known danger, allow them simply to enter the country and help grow it.
Most of our ancestors came in via this sort of process and they worked hard raised families and had, well us.
Outside of prejudice against Mexicans or other central Americans, there is no reason we couldn't have a similar process today, except of course for the prejudice thing.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Trade Wars
The impact of the tariffs that the dontard is announcing are clearly going to result in retaliations.
What does this mean?
Well it will mean that certain items get more expensive either because of the tariffs themselves are because item get produced domestically at higher cost.
More significantly, it is likely to result in less exports as commodities are targeted by China.
Since a tariff will artificially increase the cost of American commodities it will have no impact on our competitors, so sales will go elsewhere.
Commodities in general are pretty much the same no matter where you get them and are therefore extremely sensitive to market forces.
Manufactured products are a bit different, and while certain production can be ramped up, it not as easy to build factories or find skilled labor as it is to expand or decrease a crop like soybeans.
If you lose a significant market for your commodity you either lower price and absorb the tariff yourself or you reduce production since you can't sell your product.
None of this is good for the economy and certainly not for the reliably red states in the middle of the country.
The overall ripple effect of the trade wars is hard to forecast exactly, some say it is minor, some argue it will be significant, which all depends on reactions and escalations.
WE know our guy is a loose cannon, so I anticipate it getting worse.
He says we will win a trade war, but trade wars have no winners, just losers as everyone gets to pay more.
The real victims will be business owners, whether farmers or small manufacturers who become uncompetitive as prices here increase or overseas markets dry up.
Yes people in other countries will also suffer, not sure that will make our casualties feel better.
We'll see.
What does this mean?
Well it will mean that certain items get more expensive either because of the tariffs themselves are because item get produced domestically at higher cost.
More significantly, it is likely to result in less exports as commodities are targeted by China.
Since a tariff will artificially increase the cost of American commodities it will have no impact on our competitors, so sales will go elsewhere.
Commodities in general are pretty much the same no matter where you get them and are therefore extremely sensitive to market forces.
Manufactured products are a bit different, and while certain production can be ramped up, it not as easy to build factories or find skilled labor as it is to expand or decrease a crop like soybeans.
If you lose a significant market for your commodity you either lower price and absorb the tariff yourself or you reduce production since you can't sell your product.
None of this is good for the economy and certainly not for the reliably red states in the middle of the country.
The overall ripple effect of the trade wars is hard to forecast exactly, some say it is minor, some argue it will be significant, which all depends on reactions and escalations.
WE know our guy is a loose cannon, so I anticipate it getting worse.
He says we will win a trade war, but trade wars have no winners, just losers as everyone gets to pay more.
The real victims will be business owners, whether farmers or small manufacturers who become uncompetitive as prices here increase or overseas markets dry up.
Yes people in other countries will also suffer, not sure that will make our casualties feel better.
We'll see.
Thursday, June 14, 2018
Voting
Having the right and obligation to vote is central to being a citizen in this country. It is a basic right that we should all defend.
It shouldn't matter whether a group votes the same as you or not, they're right to vote is inextricably linked to your right to vote.
We have seen, since at least the end of the civil war, various attempts to suppress votes by certain populations.
It actually goes back to the founders who weren't in many ways as democratic as we tend to think they were.
We mask this suppression of the vote in any number of ways to pretend its OK and we heard recently that voter fraud was the reason for the extra requirements being created.
It wasn't and isn't, it simply partisan attempts to retain or obtain power.
Of course if you can't keep them from voting, you can make their votes count less through clever gerrymandering.
While gerrymandering is nothing new, modern technology has elevated it to an art form.
The question is why do so many Americans simply accept this?
Some might actually believe there is widespread voter fraud, even though there isn't, or don't realize that some requirements that seem easy to comply with, aren't for certain people for various reasons.
Of course some of it is simply racism or elitism, hoping the undesirables don't vote at all.
This isn't a problem that is going away easily and it needs to be fixed if we want the country to actually be a citizen of its people for its people, at least if that means, all its people.
It shouldn't matter whether a group votes the same as you or not, they're right to vote is inextricably linked to your right to vote.
We have seen, since at least the end of the civil war, various attempts to suppress votes by certain populations.
It actually goes back to the founders who weren't in many ways as democratic as we tend to think they were.
We mask this suppression of the vote in any number of ways to pretend its OK and we heard recently that voter fraud was the reason for the extra requirements being created.
It wasn't and isn't, it simply partisan attempts to retain or obtain power.
Of course if you can't keep them from voting, you can make their votes count less through clever gerrymandering.
While gerrymandering is nothing new, modern technology has elevated it to an art form.
The question is why do so many Americans simply accept this?
Some might actually believe there is widespread voter fraud, even though there isn't, or don't realize that some requirements that seem easy to comply with, aren't for certain people for various reasons.
Of course some of it is simply racism or elitism, hoping the undesirables don't vote at all.
This isn't a problem that is going away easily and it needs to be fixed if we want the country to actually be a citizen of its people for its people, at least if that means, all its people.
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Presidents
Ultimately, how any period in time is measured has a lot to do with things outside the control of the Government.
The few times its different is when the country faces a crisis or a major war.
Take the administration of a popular president like Dwight Eisenhower. Most people associate him much more with being the World War 2 general and while the country dealt with a lot of issues (all presidents do) I suspect most Americans couldn't name a significant accomplishment of his administration.
A president like John Kennedy is remembered by many more people because of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the fact that he was assassinated. The second is clearly not an accomplishment.
Presidents come and go and someone like President Obama will forever stand out as the first black president, which is unlikely to be forgotten, like the fact that Kennedy was our first Catholic President.
He might also be remembered for his health care bill which may have started our move towards health care for all. However the fate of that is still uncertain and it is still under attack.
You really can't judge the importance of a particular presidency before it is actually over and even then it might take some time. Of course some, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt were clearly important because of the events going on during their administration.
I didn't include Woodrow Wilson because I'm not sure most Americans would even know he was president during the first world war and besides that he didn't make much of a mark.
It remains to be seen how the current president is remembered in history, but the fact that he is in the media so much is not really a relevant factor.
Despite his ongoing propaganda about his historic achievements, as of this point nothing really stands out. He has met with the North Korean dictator, but whether that changes anything or is even important remains to be seen.
Nixon opened the door to China, a much more significant event and it is really mostly a footnote, he has Watergate as his main legacy.
History will decide what to remember, if anything at all when time has passed.
The few times its different is when the country faces a crisis or a major war.
Take the administration of a popular president like Dwight Eisenhower. Most people associate him much more with being the World War 2 general and while the country dealt with a lot of issues (all presidents do) I suspect most Americans couldn't name a significant accomplishment of his administration.
A president like John Kennedy is remembered by many more people because of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the fact that he was assassinated. The second is clearly not an accomplishment.
Presidents come and go and someone like President Obama will forever stand out as the first black president, which is unlikely to be forgotten, like the fact that Kennedy was our first Catholic President.
He might also be remembered for his health care bill which may have started our move towards health care for all. However the fate of that is still uncertain and it is still under attack.
You really can't judge the importance of a particular presidency before it is actually over and even then it might take some time. Of course some, like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt were clearly important because of the events going on during their administration.
I didn't include Woodrow Wilson because I'm not sure most Americans would even know he was president during the first world war and besides that he didn't make much of a mark.
It remains to be seen how the current president is remembered in history, but the fact that he is in the media so much is not really a relevant factor.
Despite his ongoing propaganda about his historic achievements, as of this point nothing really stands out. He has met with the North Korean dictator, but whether that changes anything or is even important remains to be seen.
Nixon opened the door to China, a much more significant event and it is really mostly a footnote, he has Watergate as his main legacy.
History will decide what to remember, if anything at all when time has passed.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
Historic Meetings
Reading the text of the joint statement issued after the meeting with North Korea you notice how it refers to the meeting as historic a few times.
Now by definition it was historic, it is now part of history, but when you read most historic documents they don't normally talk about how "historic" they are.
Besides this we see very little except we have agreed t stop joint war games with South Korea and the North will work towards denuclearization.
Interestingly, our dontard made a comment that it will be a long process, but once its started its basically over.
Odd how he didn't feel that way about the much more specific Iran agreement, which was the worst deal ever.
I think the difference is more related to the fact that his followers are much more anti-Muslim then anti-Korean.
This may lead to something and its better than lobbing missiles, but it was much better for the image of Kim, who got the war games to stop and has lots of propaganda with meeting the United States as his equal in a country where image is nearly as important as the oppressive force of the regime.
The dontard will also try to use it as propaganda but I just don't see it playing nearly as well.
His performance with our allies is the more historic event, really.
Now by definition it was historic, it is now part of history, but when you read most historic documents they don't normally talk about how "historic" they are.
Besides this we see very little except we have agreed t stop joint war games with South Korea and the North will work towards denuclearization.
Interestingly, our dontard made a comment that it will be a long process, but once its started its basically over.
Odd how he didn't feel that way about the much more specific Iran agreement, which was the worst deal ever.
I think the difference is more related to the fact that his followers are much more anti-Muslim then anti-Korean.
This may lead to something and its better than lobbing missiles, but it was much better for the image of Kim, who got the war games to stop and has lots of propaganda with meeting the United States as his equal in a country where image is nearly as important as the oppressive force of the regime.
The dontard will also try to use it as propaganda but I just don't see it playing nearly as well.
His performance with our allies is the more historic event, really.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Economic Isolation
There are some in this country who think the country is better off in isolation.
This was sometimes our official policy prior to World War 2 where we became aware of the global implications of such a policy.
To try to prevent another war of that magnitude we adopted a policy of alliances around the world to contain our perceived enemies, primarily the communist states.
While we did have some bloody regional conflicts, which didn't resolve anything but also didn't escalate into a world wide conflict.
The alliances slowly became as much economic as military, and as the countries ravaged by WW2 and undeveloped countries built up, our hegemony over trade began to slip.
As the most prosperous nation in the world, with the largest markets it was much easier for other countries to sell products to us then us to them. We had more money and more consumers.
Over the years we forged strong economic alliances in which world trade was expanded and while we saw some trade imbalances, the outcome was greater prosperity for all.
Not necessarily every person, economics doesn't work like that.
Its ultimately a great leveler, moving work to those who have the lowest cost and making the markets very competitive.
In a truly free trade system, the adjustments could be very painful as industries were overcome by international competition, so countries did adopt certain protective tariffs.
Still, we had a general system where trade among us and our allies moved relatively freely.
In any such system, all sides have to comply with the rules and we have set up systems which are supposed to determine that the rules are followed.
In all of this, we served as the example of a free people espousing principles and following them.
No more.
We are now the nation that wants to manipulate the rules so that the economic forces at work are changed in our favor.
Its the end of an era as we once again start to espouse isolationism.
It has never ended well in the past.
This was sometimes our official policy prior to World War 2 where we became aware of the global implications of such a policy.
To try to prevent another war of that magnitude we adopted a policy of alliances around the world to contain our perceived enemies, primarily the communist states.
While we did have some bloody regional conflicts, which didn't resolve anything but also didn't escalate into a world wide conflict.
The alliances slowly became as much economic as military, and as the countries ravaged by WW2 and undeveloped countries built up, our hegemony over trade began to slip.
As the most prosperous nation in the world, with the largest markets it was much easier for other countries to sell products to us then us to them. We had more money and more consumers.
Over the years we forged strong economic alliances in which world trade was expanded and while we saw some trade imbalances, the outcome was greater prosperity for all.
Not necessarily every person, economics doesn't work like that.
Its ultimately a great leveler, moving work to those who have the lowest cost and making the markets very competitive.
In a truly free trade system, the adjustments could be very painful as industries were overcome by international competition, so countries did adopt certain protective tariffs.
Still, we had a general system where trade among us and our allies moved relatively freely.
In any such system, all sides have to comply with the rules and we have set up systems which are supposed to determine that the rules are followed.
In all of this, we served as the example of a free people espousing principles and following them.
No more.
We are now the nation that wants to manipulate the rules so that the economic forces at work are changed in our favor.
Its the end of an era as we once again start to espouse isolationism.
It has never ended well in the past.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Spending Priorities
Watching the dontard at the G7 gives some clear signs that American leadership in most spheres is on the decline.
Unfortunately, instead of using this to help the country by reducing the amount we spend on defending other countries he is trying to increase defense spending because it is popular with some of his supporters.
I'm not advocating for a weak defense, just a smarter one that protects our country and focuses on where we need to focus.
One of the things to understand about defense spending is that it is in many ways a type of stimulus to some companies, which gets great support in congress because it creates jobs in their districts.
We build state of the art weapons that are unlikely to be used in an actual conflict.
We have military all over the globe including Korea, the middle east, Europe and Africa, to contain our enemies.
This spawns a defense industry which has been raking in record profits with no end in sight.
Instead of simply spending billions on weapons we probably don't need we should evaluate the actual threats to this country and our allies and decide on an affordable plan.
I disagree with a lot of what the dontard says and does, but it is time that our allies picked up more of the cost of defending themselves instead of us. They are able to provide all their citizens with health care while we pay for weapons and men to protect them.
We need to focus our funds where they help the citizens of this country while staying strong.
We have technology now that can provide protection while reducing the risk to our people with drones and other technology.
We have to get smart about where the money we borrow gets spent.
Unfortunately, instead of using this to help the country by reducing the amount we spend on defending other countries he is trying to increase defense spending because it is popular with some of his supporters.
I'm not advocating for a weak defense, just a smarter one that protects our country and focuses on where we need to focus.
One of the things to understand about defense spending is that it is in many ways a type of stimulus to some companies, which gets great support in congress because it creates jobs in their districts.
We build state of the art weapons that are unlikely to be used in an actual conflict.
We have military all over the globe including Korea, the middle east, Europe and Africa, to contain our enemies.
This spawns a defense industry which has been raking in record profits with no end in sight.
Instead of simply spending billions on weapons we probably don't need we should evaluate the actual threats to this country and our allies and decide on an affordable plan.
I disagree with a lot of what the dontard says and does, but it is time that our allies picked up more of the cost of defending themselves instead of us. They are able to provide all their citizens with health care while we pay for weapons and men to protect them.
We need to focus our funds where they help the citizens of this country while staying strong.
We have technology now that can provide protection while reducing the risk to our people with drones and other technology.
We have to get smart about where the money we borrow gets spent.
Saturday, June 9, 2018
Pre-Existing Conditions
By this time, most of the country has accepted that the Affordable Care Act added some good things to health care.
Not allowing insurers to charge more for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents coverage until 26, expanding health coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans.
Despite this and even having no replacement plan, the dontard and his cohorts continue to attack it.
The elimination of the personal mandate and certain subsidies to health insurers only served to increase some premiums and since most premiums get subsidized increase the cost to the Government and therefore us.
They have reduced the sign up periods and advertising for the plans being offered.
Despite some dour predictions, we see more states incorporating the Medicaid expansion and the public still trying to get health insurance.
Now the administration has decided to stop defending the benefits of the plan in court as certain states continue to attack it.
The legal arguments are pretty weak, they argue that with the individual mandate tax advantage gone the other provisions such as pre-existing conditions are now unconstitutional.
The administration has decided not to defend the act, so it is now states attacking and other states defending.
The opposition to the law is based mostly on a philosophical opposition to Government health care and a general dislike of some rich people paying taxes.
All Americans have benefited from these provisions and no politician would try to eliminate them, except of course the dontard, who has a twisted sense of reality.
He opposes the act because it was passed under his predecessor.
That's enough to try to strip these benefits from all of us.
Not allowing insurers to charge more for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents coverage until 26, expanding health coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans.
Despite this and even having no replacement plan, the dontard and his cohorts continue to attack it.
The elimination of the personal mandate and certain subsidies to health insurers only served to increase some premiums and since most premiums get subsidized increase the cost to the Government and therefore us.
They have reduced the sign up periods and advertising for the plans being offered.
Despite some dour predictions, we see more states incorporating the Medicaid expansion and the public still trying to get health insurance.
Now the administration has decided to stop defending the benefits of the plan in court as certain states continue to attack it.
The legal arguments are pretty weak, they argue that with the individual mandate tax advantage gone the other provisions such as pre-existing conditions are now unconstitutional.
The administration has decided not to defend the act, so it is now states attacking and other states defending.
The opposition to the law is based mostly on a philosophical opposition to Government health care and a general dislike of some rich people paying taxes.
All Americans have benefited from these provisions and no politician would try to eliminate them, except of course the dontard, who has a twisted sense of reality.
He opposes the act because it was passed under his predecessor.
That's enough to try to strip these benefits from all of us.
Friday, June 8, 2018
Choice?
One of the things almost all American agree on is that out Government is broken to at least some degree.
The fact that we get to elect the people running it doesn't seem to matter.
Elections for congress generally result in most incumbents getting re-elected if they run.
A lot of this has to do with name recognition.
Many American pay so little attention to who their representative is and who is running that if they vote and see a familiar name, they vote for it.
They probably know if he is a republican or democrat, but can they tell you about his/her voting record?
Odds are against it, although they may have gotten election campaign materials in the mail that talked about it.
We get the Government we do because most of the time we try to ignore it.
We don't like what we see on the news about its dysfunction, but we're not willing to take the time to fix it by electing better representatives.
Part of the problem is that the candidates we get to choose from are so often a choice between bad and worse.
Vote for the name you recognize is the easiest way to select.
With all the negative ads, its clearly a lose-lose proposition.
The fact that we get to elect the people running it doesn't seem to matter.
Elections for congress generally result in most incumbents getting re-elected if they run.
A lot of this has to do with name recognition.
Many American pay so little attention to who their representative is and who is running that if they vote and see a familiar name, they vote for it.
They probably know if he is a republican or democrat, but can they tell you about his/her voting record?
Odds are against it, although they may have gotten election campaign materials in the mail that talked about it.
We get the Government we do because most of the time we try to ignore it.
We don't like what we see on the news about its dysfunction, but we're not willing to take the time to fix it by electing better representatives.
Part of the problem is that the candidates we get to choose from are so often a choice between bad and worse.
Vote for the name you recognize is the easiest way to select.
With all the negative ads, its clearly a lose-lose proposition.
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Debt, it will eventually bite us.
Its one of the things that we accept but don't like, taxes.
Running on a platform that promises to reduce taxes is almost always better than using common sense and saying you might have to raise taxes.
Taxes are too high is the most common comment people make about them but what should we cut is the general problem.
So we cut taxes and increase spending, which is after all a recipe for ultimate disaster.
The real question should be what do we want and how are we paying for it?
The Government is unable to meet its annual obligations and has to borrow every year just to keep running.
To fix this you need either more income or less expenses or a mixture of both.
You might argue that we should eliminate waste, fraud and become more efficient, and we should, but that is not solving the budget problem.
We are also not solving it by ignoring the big ticket items and reducing small (at least by Government standards) programs.
This is complicated by the sacred cows we have, the untouchables, so to speak.
I don't want to ignore growth, since growth reduces certain expenditures and increases taxes without increasing the tax rate. However we are not going to see enough growth to fix our problem, and eventually, our problem is going to have a negative impact on growth.
We keep kicking this problem down the road, supported by low interest rates and general confidence that we will pay our loans.
Both of those facts can change fairly quickly and with potentially disastrous results.
We either address the issue of where to spend our income or we face significant economic disruption, sooner or later.
Running on a platform that promises to reduce taxes is almost always better than using common sense and saying you might have to raise taxes.
Taxes are too high is the most common comment people make about them but what should we cut is the general problem.
So we cut taxes and increase spending, which is after all a recipe for ultimate disaster.
The real question should be what do we want and how are we paying for it?
The Government is unable to meet its annual obligations and has to borrow every year just to keep running.
To fix this you need either more income or less expenses or a mixture of both.
You might argue that we should eliminate waste, fraud and become more efficient, and we should, but that is not solving the budget problem.
We are also not solving it by ignoring the big ticket items and reducing small (at least by Government standards) programs.
This is complicated by the sacred cows we have, the untouchables, so to speak.
I don't want to ignore growth, since growth reduces certain expenditures and increases taxes without increasing the tax rate. However we are not going to see enough growth to fix our problem, and eventually, our problem is going to have a negative impact on growth.
We keep kicking this problem down the road, supported by low interest rates and general confidence that we will pay our loans.
Both of those facts can change fairly quickly and with potentially disastrous results.
We either address the issue of where to spend our income or we face significant economic disruption, sooner or later.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Economic Thoughts
The last financial crisis was primarily brought about because a debt house of cards fell apart.
Home ownership was considered a way to raise people into the middle class since the statistics showed that people who owned homes were generally increasing wealth faster than those who didn't.
The house of cards required homes to go up in value continuously so that the money lent recklessly would be safe because equity in the homes increased.
This actually worked for a while and because home lending was considered safe, despite the weakness of the loans, the money was repackaged into bonds with triple A ratings.
The whole scheme requires that the money you use to lend gets replaced as you sell the mortgage notes to get more money to lend.
It just required a little impetus to tumble down, as home prices stopped rising, money stopped flowing and mortgage payments stopped being paid.
Once money got tight the consequences were felt worldwide as we had an aptly named financial crisis as wealth disappeared and banks were in jeopardy.
We climbed out of that after a lot of pain and stayed out of it by injecting money into the system which acted like a stimulus replacing the money from the discredited junk mortgage market.
Its a treatment, but not a real cure. A real cure would require the economy to grow without any Government stimulus.
It seemed to be going that way but then we elected the dontard who presided over a massive stimulus of a tax package that put money into the hands of wealthy individuals and businesses.
In addition the congress delivered a massive spending plan that also puts money into the economy.
Its money we don't actually have, so we have to borrow it.
The federal debt is the new house of cards and unless we get the deficit under control it wouldn't take much to see it collapse.
Maybe a trade war?
Home ownership was considered a way to raise people into the middle class since the statistics showed that people who owned homes were generally increasing wealth faster than those who didn't.
The house of cards required homes to go up in value continuously so that the money lent recklessly would be safe because equity in the homes increased.
This actually worked for a while and because home lending was considered safe, despite the weakness of the loans, the money was repackaged into bonds with triple A ratings.
The whole scheme requires that the money you use to lend gets replaced as you sell the mortgage notes to get more money to lend.
It just required a little impetus to tumble down, as home prices stopped rising, money stopped flowing and mortgage payments stopped being paid.
Once money got tight the consequences were felt worldwide as we had an aptly named financial crisis as wealth disappeared and banks were in jeopardy.
We climbed out of that after a lot of pain and stayed out of it by injecting money into the system which acted like a stimulus replacing the money from the discredited junk mortgage market.
Its a treatment, but not a real cure. A real cure would require the economy to grow without any Government stimulus.
It seemed to be going that way but then we elected the dontard who presided over a massive stimulus of a tax package that put money into the hands of wealthy individuals and businesses.
In addition the congress delivered a massive spending plan that also puts money into the economy.
Its money we don't actually have, so we have to borrow it.
The federal debt is the new house of cards and unless we get the deficit under control it wouldn't take much to see it collapse.
Maybe a trade war?
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Policies?
One way to look at some of the actions of the dontard is to say he is standing up to his enemies and holding to certain principles.
I suppose that is the way his supporters look at it as he fights with more and more people, both domestically and internationally over his stands on things like trade, pardons, collusion, lying, immigration, gun control and abortion.
Of course that is the most favorable light you can put on it.
The one that seems to ring truer is that he is acting like a toddler who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
His decision to disinvite the Super Bowl Champion Eagles because some of the team wouldn't attend is just like the kid who wants to take his ball and go home if he isn't picked first.
Now his apparent belief that owners or anyone else can force citizens to do things they don't agree with is typical of his disregard for the rights we have in this country.
Of course a few people missing from the group would be no big deal except it would have been played up in the press, probably more than it should be. Still the big toddler can't accept any criticism and rather than recognize the team's achievements he made it about himself and his odd beliefs.
He is also finding national leaders from other countries starting to disagree with him. His "friend" Macron apparently told him how he disliked his decision on tariffs. What did he expect?
Many of the allies are working with Iran to salvage the nuclear deal and circumvent American sanctions, imposed despite Iran's compliance with the agreement.
This provides some wonderful opportunities for China and Russia to increase influence and ties with the rest of the world. Where it ends is anyone's guess.
The historic summit with North Korea has done more to legitimize that regime already than any action by any administration since the Korean War. It is already a major success for them, not matter what the outcome is.
Lets be clear, North Korea was never a real threat to this country even if somehow they could deliver a warhead that we didn't intercept. We would have annihilated them in an instant. The program did accomplish world recognition and their elevation to a player on the world stage.
Was probably worth every penny to them.
I suppose that is the way his supporters look at it as he fights with more and more people, both domestically and internationally over his stands on things like trade, pardons, collusion, lying, immigration, gun control and abortion.
Of course that is the most favorable light you can put on it.
The one that seems to ring truer is that he is acting like a toddler who throws tantrums when he doesn't get his way.
His decision to disinvite the Super Bowl Champion Eagles because some of the team wouldn't attend is just like the kid who wants to take his ball and go home if he isn't picked first.
Now his apparent belief that owners or anyone else can force citizens to do things they don't agree with is typical of his disregard for the rights we have in this country.
Of course a few people missing from the group would be no big deal except it would have been played up in the press, probably more than it should be. Still the big toddler can't accept any criticism and rather than recognize the team's achievements he made it about himself and his odd beliefs.
He is also finding national leaders from other countries starting to disagree with him. His "friend" Macron apparently told him how he disliked his decision on tariffs. What did he expect?
Many of the allies are working with Iran to salvage the nuclear deal and circumvent American sanctions, imposed despite Iran's compliance with the agreement.
This provides some wonderful opportunities for China and Russia to increase influence and ties with the rest of the world. Where it ends is anyone's guess.
The historic summit with North Korea has done more to legitimize that regime already than any action by any administration since the Korean War. It is already a major success for them, not matter what the outcome is.
Lets be clear, North Korea was never a real threat to this country even if somehow they could deliver a warhead that we didn't intercept. We would have annihilated them in an instant. The program did accomplish world recognition and their elevation to a player on the world stage.
Was probably worth every penny to them.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Who's the Patriot?
Consider a person who did everything they could to avoid serving their country.
Is this person in fact patriotic?
If the reason he can't serve is in fact a moral one, he very well might be, but when the only visible motive would be cowardice, not so much.
So the dontard who avoided the draft pretends to be patriotic.
His general contempt for those who served and suffered has also been displayed a number of times.
Yet he likes to rant about showing respect to symbols that his actions already disrespected.
He has criticized real American heroes who served and were killed or who served and were captured.
Yet he rails against people who risk their careers to make a point about an injustice that happens to their community.
You may or may not agree with their cause, they certainly have the right to draw attention to it.
Football teams play in public spaces with public attendance.
While you can impose contractual obligations on employees, I'm not aware that you can change the terms of employment without mutual agreement.
They could simply stop playing the anthem, it is only fairly recently that they started playing it.
Making the players stand, or assume any other position while it is playing though is probably a step too far.
Is this person in fact patriotic?
If the reason he can't serve is in fact a moral one, he very well might be, but when the only visible motive would be cowardice, not so much.
So the dontard who avoided the draft pretends to be patriotic.
His general contempt for those who served and suffered has also been displayed a number of times.
Yet he likes to rant about showing respect to symbols that his actions already disrespected.
He has criticized real American heroes who served and were killed or who served and were captured.
Yet he rails against people who risk their careers to make a point about an injustice that happens to their community.
You may or may not agree with their cause, they certainly have the right to draw attention to it.
Football teams play in public spaces with public attendance.
While you can impose contractual obligations on employees, I'm not aware that you can change the terms of employment without mutual agreement.
They could simply stop playing the anthem, it is only fairly recently that they started playing it.
Making the players stand, or assume any other position while it is playing though is probably a step too far.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Drain the Swamp?
It seems like the swampiest stuff in Washington now a days is the politics being used to repay campaign donors.
Disguised as efforts to save non competitive industries we all get to pay more so that the campaign supporters get theirs.
Of course the tax bill itself was pretty swampy considering the money paid to the wealthy will have to be repaid with interest by future American workers.
Now we are seeing increased prices for Steel and Aluminum which will lead to other price increases as countries retaliate.
Of course as American exports gets reduced due to this, we may see cheaper prices for domestic crops, hurting our farmers.
Now we are mandating that utilities buy energy from coal and nuclear facilities that is non-competitive and not needed.
The interaction between this administration and some of the coal mine owners is well documented.
The claims it is for National Security are meaningless when you are talking about two domestic sources.
Using natural gas or renewable doesn't expose us to any foreign threat.
Just the domestic one.
Growing the swamp!
What else would you expect?
Disguised as efforts to save non competitive industries we all get to pay more so that the campaign supporters get theirs.
Of course the tax bill itself was pretty swampy considering the money paid to the wealthy will have to be repaid with interest by future American workers.
Now we are seeing increased prices for Steel and Aluminum which will lead to other price increases as countries retaliate.
Of course as American exports gets reduced due to this, we may see cheaper prices for domestic crops, hurting our farmers.
Now we are mandating that utilities buy energy from coal and nuclear facilities that is non-competitive and not needed.
The interaction between this administration and some of the coal mine owners is well documented.
The claims it is for National Security are meaningless when you are talking about two domestic sources.
Using natural gas or renewable doesn't expose us to any foreign threat.
Just the domestic one.
Growing the swamp!
What else would you expect?
Saturday, June 2, 2018
Spin
In the early 70s when we were still trying to get out of the Vietnam war the Nixon campaign started talking about the silent majority.
Sure the people who stay home, are patriotic, go to work every day and believe in American values aren't on your TV screen rioting, protesting or looting but they really represented the great number of Americans as opposed to those getting all the coverage.
Nixon was elected twice, to a large extent by these very people because similar to out current president he promised to restore the America these people cherished.
Of course he was forced to resign once the true level of his paranoia and illegal behavior became evident, but its likely true that he lost the election in 1960 because of some dirty politics in Chicago and while in retrospect Watergate was totally unnecessary, he didn't want to leave it to chance.
The point is that at all times in this country we have a significant majority of people who want things to be "normal".
They would like America to be the way they remember it, safe, prosperous, and a bit boring.
They aren't opposed to progress as long as the progress isn't actually disruptive.
Take the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
First the media and republicans were able to rebrand it as Obamacare and present it as an expensive give away that was going to cost these folks more money for less benefits with uncertain results.
The democrats lost the public affairs contest almost immediately and did little to overcome the bad press. As it turns out, there were a lot of things about it these people liked, but the incessant bad press cost a lot of elections and grief.
Similarly, we see the issue of immigration clearly being presented in negative ways which are generally untrue or at least not representative of the real situation.
A theme has been established about how the liberal elite are trying to socialize this country and take away the America these people love.
Its not true, but its the story that is out there, and it needs to be countered.
The things hurting their way of life are corporate decisions to reduce the cost of production and automation. They think its immigration and gay marriage.
Talk about spin.
Sure the people who stay home, are patriotic, go to work every day and believe in American values aren't on your TV screen rioting, protesting or looting but they really represented the great number of Americans as opposed to those getting all the coverage.
Nixon was elected twice, to a large extent by these very people because similar to out current president he promised to restore the America these people cherished.
Of course he was forced to resign once the true level of his paranoia and illegal behavior became evident, but its likely true that he lost the election in 1960 because of some dirty politics in Chicago and while in retrospect Watergate was totally unnecessary, he didn't want to leave it to chance.
The point is that at all times in this country we have a significant majority of people who want things to be "normal".
They would like America to be the way they remember it, safe, prosperous, and a bit boring.
They aren't opposed to progress as long as the progress isn't actually disruptive.
Take the problems with the Affordable Care Act.
First the media and republicans were able to rebrand it as Obamacare and present it as an expensive give away that was going to cost these folks more money for less benefits with uncertain results.
The democrats lost the public affairs contest almost immediately and did little to overcome the bad press. As it turns out, there were a lot of things about it these people liked, but the incessant bad press cost a lot of elections and grief.
Similarly, we see the issue of immigration clearly being presented in negative ways which are generally untrue or at least not representative of the real situation.
A theme has been established about how the liberal elite are trying to socialize this country and take away the America these people love.
Its not true, but its the story that is out there, and it needs to be countered.
The things hurting their way of life are corporate decisions to reduce the cost of production and automation. They think its immigration and gay marriage.
Talk about spin.
Friday, June 1, 2018
Form vs Substance
The fundamental question facing Americans is what do they want?
In our age with statistical sampling and other tools you would think it was pretty clear, but while the country generally holds fairly progressive views, those views aren't fully aligned with those who vote.
We also have the issue of apathy and ignorance.
The people who vote in this country are overall older, whiter and more conservative than the population as a whole.
Not necessarily smarter.
I hear a lot about the failings of the modern educational system, and sometimes it becomes quite evident when you see "Man on the Street" interviews.
I hesitate to assume these interviews are fully representative of the public as a whole, but when you see surveys where a majority of people hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act, it makes you wonder.
We have a society and population that has become attuned to the form more than the substance of issues.
Look at the issue surrounding the second amendment.
I have never heard a real proposal that would seize everybody's guns, but to many, thanks to the propaganda of the gun lobby, that's the issue they think exists.
Similarly, we see the Republicans brand themselves as supporters of the working class, when all evidence indicates they really represent the wealthy class. Yet many working class Americans, concerned that the wealthy might pay slightly higher taxes fight socialism.
We also react without much sense to arguments about our weak defense when we clearly are able to obliterate any opponent and our need for conventional weapons is far outweighed by our need for counter terrorism.
How can we get rid of the apathy and ignorance?
Its not a shared goal, Many talk about voter turnout while trying to make sure only their supporters actually turn out.
Mob rule has been a concern of the elite in this country since its founding and certain institutions, like the Electoral College were designed to prevent it.
Suppress voting, convince the ignorant to vote against their own interests, and make elections about money and personality instead of issues.
Its sort of working.
In our age with statistical sampling and other tools you would think it was pretty clear, but while the country generally holds fairly progressive views, those views aren't fully aligned with those who vote.
We also have the issue of apathy and ignorance.
The people who vote in this country are overall older, whiter and more conservative than the population as a whole.
Not necessarily smarter.
I hear a lot about the failings of the modern educational system, and sometimes it becomes quite evident when you see "Man on the Street" interviews.
I hesitate to assume these interviews are fully representative of the public as a whole, but when you see surveys where a majority of people hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act, it makes you wonder.
We have a society and population that has become attuned to the form more than the substance of issues.
Look at the issue surrounding the second amendment.
I have never heard a real proposal that would seize everybody's guns, but to many, thanks to the propaganda of the gun lobby, that's the issue they think exists.
Similarly, we see the Republicans brand themselves as supporters of the working class, when all evidence indicates they really represent the wealthy class. Yet many working class Americans, concerned that the wealthy might pay slightly higher taxes fight socialism.
We also react without much sense to arguments about our weak defense when we clearly are able to obliterate any opponent and our need for conventional weapons is far outweighed by our need for counter terrorism.
How can we get rid of the apathy and ignorance?
Its not a shared goal, Many talk about voter turnout while trying to make sure only their supporters actually turn out.
Mob rule has been a concern of the elite in this country since its founding and certain institutions, like the Electoral College were designed to prevent it.
Suppress voting, convince the ignorant to vote against their own interests, and make elections about money and personality instead of issues.
Its sort of working.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)