New Years eve it's generally a time to celebrate the end of the old year and associated problems and the start of n New one with expectations of a new start.
A new start holds unlimited promise and we often greet one with resolutions of things we plan to change. One of those things is frequently associated with the amount of celebrating done the night before.
A lot of us plan things like losing weight, or finding a new job going back to school or any number of things to improve ourselves.
Less frequently people resolve to improve society by doing more charitable work or helping others in various ways. Experience shows us that these good intentions often don't last very long.
One wonders if the people in charge engage in any retrospection? The ability to admit mistakes is something that conflicts with egos and we currently at least one ego running rampant. Report after report demonstrates that three is very little in the way of introspection and that his belief in his own infallibility is detrimental to good government and management.
We see part of the government shut down, immigration issues escalating, interest rates increasing, trade issues, foreign policy changes that are impulsive and dangerous, failure to address environmental issues, and attacks on many of our institutions.
It would be nice if for the new year we started formulating forward looking policies instead of wishful thoughts about recreating a past that is better in retrospect than in reality.
The post war era was generally good for certain portions of the population, but we still had many underlying problems in this country, some of which like discrimination still exist.
We dominated most of the free world because most of our industrialized allies had been devastated in the second world war which we escaped because of our geography. In the 60s we would start to see this dominance erode as competition increased.
We faced the possibility of almost instant nuclear extinction, a threat that seems to have receded, although it is still there.
Going back in time isn't possible and in all honesty it isn't desirable
.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Sunday, December 30, 2018
Fringe Candidates
Watching the blame game over who is responsible for the current impasse over the wall is typical of the way politics is played this year.
There is plenty of room for disagreements over what the best policy should be on issues but we now have moved to an all or nothing nothing strategy.
Politics have changed in this country as the fringes have undue influence. A relatively small but dedicated group of supporters can exert tremendous influence in setting policy because they can control the primaries.
This is why you see the current incumbent cater to a small segment of the population. This strategy worked the last time as he amassed enough delegates to become the nominee which led to many voters voting for him because he was the candidate of their party despite his many flaws.
The strategy depends on who the opponent is in the general election. Last time he lucked out as his opponent was a person hated by many republicans and attacked by their PR machine and congressional committees.
A good candidate is key but the primaries give fringe candidates the same edge as the fringe from the other party.
The end result may very well be that we have two candidates representing the extremes while the majority in the middle ends up voting by party and the winner doesn't really represent them.
There is plenty of room for disagreements over what the best policy should be on issues but we now have moved to an all or nothing nothing strategy.
Politics have changed in this country as the fringes have undue influence. A relatively small but dedicated group of supporters can exert tremendous influence in setting policy because they can control the primaries.
This is why you see the current incumbent cater to a small segment of the population. This strategy worked the last time as he amassed enough delegates to become the nominee which led to many voters voting for him because he was the candidate of their party despite his many flaws.
The strategy depends on who the opponent is in the general election. Last time he lucked out as his opponent was a person hated by many republicans and attacked by their PR machine and congressional committees.
A good candidate is key but the primaries give fringe candidates the same edge as the fringe from the other party.
The end result may very well be that we have two candidates representing the extremes while the majority in the middle ends up voting by party and the winner doesn't really represent them.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Year That Was?
As the year winds down many people take time to reflect on the events and consider ways to avoid the same mistakes.
The year was pretty eventful but not much really happened.
There is so much turmoil in Washington it seems like things are happening, but that's a mirage.
One issue that gets a lot of attention is the immigration issue.
Our country used to welcome immigrants fleeing tyranny, poverty and oppression but now we view them as a threat.
At least some of us do.
All the data shows that immigrants are a net benefit to the country no matter how they got here. Our determination to hunt down and deport long term residents who have demonstrated good behavior is simply wrong.
We have seen a trade war ramp up as tariffs on China led to retaliation. Tariffs on general are a tax on the economy and lead to inefficiencies. They may have some benefit to protect young industries but using them to protect mature industries is fighting a losing battle.
We did see a blue wave in the mid terms as control of the House went to the Democrats. Very little got done with one party in charge, prospects for progress are slim.
They did manage to shut down much of the government over border wall funding. It's a ridiculous thing to shut down over but it is now a game of chicken. Who is going to blink first is unclear.
Trade deals with our neighbors, very much like the ones we already had are negotiated.
The recent announcements about removing troops from Syria and claims about the defeat of ISIS have led to turmoil and some resignations.
Economy has done ok, but some troubling signs are showing up. Trade, housing interest rates stick market volatility all point to a slowdown.
The coming year will tell.
The year was pretty eventful but not much really happened.
There is so much turmoil in Washington it seems like things are happening, but that's a mirage.
One issue that gets a lot of attention is the immigration issue.
Our country used to welcome immigrants fleeing tyranny, poverty and oppression but now we view them as a threat.
At least some of us do.
All the data shows that immigrants are a net benefit to the country no matter how they got here. Our determination to hunt down and deport long term residents who have demonstrated good behavior is simply wrong.
We have seen a trade war ramp up as tariffs on China led to retaliation. Tariffs on general are a tax on the economy and lead to inefficiencies. They may have some benefit to protect young industries but using them to protect mature industries is fighting a losing battle.
We did see a blue wave in the mid terms as control of the House went to the Democrats. Very little got done with one party in charge, prospects for progress are slim.
They did manage to shut down much of the government over border wall funding. It's a ridiculous thing to shut down over but it is now a game of chicken. Who is going to blink first is unclear.
Trade deals with our neighbors, very much like the ones we already had are negotiated.
The recent announcements about removing troops from Syria and claims about the defeat of ISIS have led to turmoil and some resignations.
Economy has done ok, but some troubling signs are showing up. Trade, housing interest rates stick market volatility all point to a slowdown.
The coming year will tell.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Make Things Better
Its pretty easy to ignore things that don't impact you directly.
For example during a war you know there are people enduring difficult and dangerous conditions risking their lives but you hardly think about them, at least most of us, if you are closely involved.
Its just human nature, life goes on and more mundane matters become our focus.
At any time there is a long list of things going on that creates appalling conditions for people, from wars, to famine, to political upheaval, gang violence.
Some places, like much of the Middle East, have constant turmoil, at lest in parts, they just continues.
Others, like many natural disasters flare up and eventually get fixed.
Take the Puerto Rican hurricane, the last I heard many were still suffering, although I just don't hear much about it anymore. I would like to think all the issues are fixed, but I have my doubts.
We also have the issues concerning immigration and immigrants that doesn't seem to have a resolution.
In fact, we seem to be making it worse, at least for many of them who are looking for asylum.
We also have ongoing gun violence which tends to be ignored unless we have a mass shooting.
To those who lose their lives and their survivors, it is an ongoing problem. One that could impact any of us without warning. Yet we tend to treat it like a non-threat.
Perhaps this is simply an evolutionary response to our world. We all were potential victims of predation for much of our time on this planet. If we couldn't move on from close escapes or seeing a member of the tribe eaten, we wouldn't have survived.
Still, it would really be nice if we could start making lives better, rather than worse.
For example during a war you know there are people enduring difficult and dangerous conditions risking their lives but you hardly think about them, at least most of us, if you are closely involved.
Its just human nature, life goes on and more mundane matters become our focus.
At any time there is a long list of things going on that creates appalling conditions for people, from wars, to famine, to political upheaval, gang violence.
Some places, like much of the Middle East, have constant turmoil, at lest in parts, they just continues.
Others, like many natural disasters flare up and eventually get fixed.
Take the Puerto Rican hurricane, the last I heard many were still suffering, although I just don't hear much about it anymore. I would like to think all the issues are fixed, but I have my doubts.
We also have the issues concerning immigration and immigrants that doesn't seem to have a resolution.
In fact, we seem to be making it worse, at least for many of them who are looking for asylum.
We also have ongoing gun violence which tends to be ignored unless we have a mass shooting.
To those who lose their lives and their survivors, it is an ongoing problem. One that could impact any of us without warning. Yet we tend to treat it like a non-threat.
Perhaps this is simply an evolutionary response to our world. We all were potential victims of predation for much of our time on this planet. If we couldn't move on from close escapes or seeing a member of the tribe eaten, we wouldn't have survived.
Still, it would really be nice if we could start making lives better, rather than worse.
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Better Candidates?
If the Government were a business, we would be selling its stock.
You have a management in turmoil, parts of it shut down, policies that seem influenced by certain media instead of analysis and an erratic and irrational CEO.
You can't short it, although I guess you can short everything else, i.e. the big sell off.
The problems are not insurmountable, yet, but they aren't getting better.
The next two years will mostly be preparation for the next elections, as the desire to compromise is going to be seen as weak by the voters who control the primaries now.
It seems pretty clear to me that as we made the primaries more open we lost control of the process.
The we I am referring to is the great majority of Americans who disagree over a few issues by really agree on most.
Unfortunately one of the things they tend to agree on is that voting in the primaries is inconvenient.
We therefore turn over the candidate selection process to the angry people on both sides.
The angry people are the ones who show up and vote in the primaries.
The candidates selected often don't reflect the mainstream views of their party, but the mainstream members are faces with a difficult choice.
It gets easier when both sides select extremists.
Until we fix the candidate selection process, it will just get worse.
It will become more and more partisan, not less.
We need to find a way to make the primaries truly representative and not easily controlled by a determined angry minority.
If 100% of a party voted, we would really have much more representative candidates.
You have a management in turmoil, parts of it shut down, policies that seem influenced by certain media instead of analysis and an erratic and irrational CEO.
You can't short it, although I guess you can short everything else, i.e. the big sell off.
The problems are not insurmountable, yet, but they aren't getting better.
The next two years will mostly be preparation for the next elections, as the desire to compromise is going to be seen as weak by the voters who control the primaries now.
It seems pretty clear to me that as we made the primaries more open we lost control of the process.
The we I am referring to is the great majority of Americans who disagree over a few issues by really agree on most.
Unfortunately one of the things they tend to agree on is that voting in the primaries is inconvenient.
We therefore turn over the candidate selection process to the angry people on both sides.
The angry people are the ones who show up and vote in the primaries.
The candidates selected often don't reflect the mainstream views of their party, but the mainstream members are faces with a difficult choice.
It gets easier when both sides select extremists.
Until we fix the candidate selection process, it will just get worse.
It will become more and more partisan, not less.
We need to find a way to make the primaries truly representative and not easily controlled by a determined angry minority.
If 100% of a party voted, we would really have much more representative candidates.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Achievement
I have to admit that when I read articles about certain people, they sometimes have views so alien to mine that I really don't understand how they can feel that way.
I hear some people talk about our last President as if he was ruining the country. I guess the theme is that he was passing too many regulations, being too concerned about the environment, promoting equality and opposed to gun violence.
I gather he was also too soft on immigration, although he deported record numbers of undocumented aliens.
Some thought he was weak on foreign policy and defense.
These attacks are all originated or at least repeated by the rabid fox network and that gives them some legs.
Certainly they criticized everything he did as a matter of principle since he was both a Democrat and a Liberal.
He was also partially African American.
That last factor was not brought up publicly but was always the thing implied.
The fact that he was an American success story, rising to the highest office in the land with not much of a head start in life.
In comparison to the current occupant he displayed dignity and respect for the office and passed a historic health care law that has been under attack ever since.
It remains to be seen how the current administration ends up.
It seems to be heading downhill now.
I hear some people talk about our last President as if he was ruining the country. I guess the theme is that he was passing too many regulations, being too concerned about the environment, promoting equality and opposed to gun violence.
I gather he was also too soft on immigration, although he deported record numbers of undocumented aliens.
Some thought he was weak on foreign policy and defense.
These attacks are all originated or at least repeated by the rabid fox network and that gives them some legs.
Certainly they criticized everything he did as a matter of principle since he was both a Democrat and a Liberal.
He was also partially African American.
That last factor was not brought up publicly but was always the thing implied.
The fact that he was an American success story, rising to the highest office in the land with not much of a head start in life.
In comparison to the current occupant he displayed dignity and respect for the office and passed a historic health care law that has been under attack ever since.
It remains to be seen how the current administration ends up.
It seems to be heading downhill now.
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Merry Christmas
Hope everyone has a very Merry Christmas and that as we move into the new year we can adopt actual policies that will move the country forward, and not backward.
We really do have a lot more in common than it would seem, but we seem to be living in a world where misinformation and personal bias plays too big a part.
Ego is the enemy of progress, and progress is not an all or nothing thing.
Politics is difficult but you either represent the country or you represent a faction.
The country should come first.
Merry Christmas again!
We really do have a lot more in common than it would seem, but we seem to be living in a world where misinformation and personal bias plays too big a part.
Ego is the enemy of progress, and progress is not an all or nothing thing.
Politics is difficult but you either represent the country or you represent a faction.
The country should come first.
Merry Christmas again!
Monday, December 24, 2018
Stock Losses
Watching the stock market fall recently is a bit troubling.
Its not surprising since we have a lot of uncertainty in Washington now and that doesn't bode well for business prospects.
To a large extent stocks are more predictive than reactive, so the current sell off represents fear that the economy is headed to a recession.
It might be, we have the trade wars, the divided Government, the deficit, interest rate increases, but generally the economic picture isn't much different than it has been.
However just the chance of a recession will create selling and once it starts it can build on itself for awhile until either it is confirmed or it isn't.
If we were to actually enter a recession, it might be a stimulus to the market as the future would look better than the present.
One of the issues with large sell offs is that many baby boomers are in or near retirement age, and probably without much thought count on the increases in the stock markets we have seen before this year.
To see the amount in their 401k decrease is unsettling and most no longer have the safety of a defined company pension anymore.
If the loss causes you to move your money into something safe, remember you are only right if the sell off continues. It might but it also can easily reverse itself.
You can lock in losses just like you can lock in profits.
The latter is a much better option. Sell high, buy low, if you can.
Its not surprising since we have a lot of uncertainty in Washington now and that doesn't bode well for business prospects.
To a large extent stocks are more predictive than reactive, so the current sell off represents fear that the economy is headed to a recession.
It might be, we have the trade wars, the divided Government, the deficit, interest rate increases, but generally the economic picture isn't much different than it has been.
However just the chance of a recession will create selling and once it starts it can build on itself for awhile until either it is confirmed or it isn't.
If we were to actually enter a recession, it might be a stimulus to the market as the future would look better than the present.
One of the issues with large sell offs is that many baby boomers are in or near retirement age, and probably without much thought count on the increases in the stock markets we have seen before this year.
To see the amount in their 401k decrease is unsettling and most no longer have the safety of a defined company pension anymore.
If the loss causes you to move your money into something safe, remember you are only right if the sell off continues. It might but it also can easily reverse itself.
You can lock in losses just like you can lock in profits.
The latter is a much better option. Sell high, buy low, if you can.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Keep America Free!
The mess this country is in has been effectively orchestrated by people who either want to destroy us or who are so interested in profits that they don't care about the consequences.
We have people on popular "news" channels that spread disinformation and lies because it gets ratings.
We have foreign entities flooding us with misinformation to influence our elections and opinions.
We see attacks on our "mainstream" news organizations to sow distrust.
Items that we once recognized as absurd have now become part of the mainstream.
A significant number of us believe that the country is controlled by secret groups that for some reason are interested in destroying American values.
It might just be public opinion.
As Bob Dylan famously said, the "Times they are a-Changing" so if you believe everyone should revert back to some mythical time where everyone worshiped the same, looked the same, acted the same and oppressed the same, it isn't gonna happen.
The one thing that America represents is Freedom, and you can be free to believe what you want, but so is everyone else.
Sometimes Freedom is hard, and so many have sacrificed so much for it we need to carry that burden.
Freedom is the principle that this nation was founded on and its still our primary right.
For everyone to be free everyone has to respect the rights of others, even those who disagree with them.
Freedom for others doesn't diminish ours, it enhances it.
Lets keep America Free!
We have people on popular "news" channels that spread disinformation and lies because it gets ratings.
We have foreign entities flooding us with misinformation to influence our elections and opinions.
We see attacks on our "mainstream" news organizations to sow distrust.
Items that we once recognized as absurd have now become part of the mainstream.
A significant number of us believe that the country is controlled by secret groups that for some reason are interested in destroying American values.
It might just be public opinion.
As Bob Dylan famously said, the "Times they are a-Changing" so if you believe everyone should revert back to some mythical time where everyone worshiped the same, looked the same, acted the same and oppressed the same, it isn't gonna happen.
The one thing that America represents is Freedom, and you can be free to believe what you want, but so is everyone else.
Sometimes Freedom is hard, and so many have sacrificed so much for it we need to carry that burden.
Freedom is the principle that this nation was founded on and its still our primary right.
For everyone to be free everyone has to respect the rights of others, even those who disagree with them.
Freedom for others doesn't diminish ours, it enhances it.
Lets keep America Free!
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Wall Made of Coal?
The weekend before Christmas is the last chance to get preparations done for the holiday.
Growing up in New York it usually meant a trip into Manhattan, maybe to Radio City (when it showed movies) with the smell of chestnuts and pretzels in the air, busy shoppers everywhere, and old jack frost nipping at your nose.
I remember a few trips to the Santa at Macy's who we knew was the real one based on the movie.
It was a magical time with a feeling of joy and wonder for the young people and maybe not as carefree for the older folks, but still they strived to make it a wonderful time for their families.
We knew the story about scrooge, but even he got the Christmas spirit at the end.
I'm sure it was very similar everywhere,
This year of course we have our very own scrooge putting coal in everyone's stocking, or at least trying to.
Lets make one thing clear, the wall does not mean border security.
A few poor immigrants crossing the border illegally is not much of a threat to this country.
Plus, a wall won't stop them.
This rhetoric about how illegal immigration is hurting this country is simply that, rhetoric.
It impacts almost no one in any significant way.
It certainly isn't worth shutting down the Government for Christmas.
It will create a lot of uncertainty for those Government workers who have nothing to do with the issue.
Its not going to get him a wall and most of us don't want to spend money on it.
Its probably self destructive for him and his party, but it is causing human anguish and suffering too.
He needs to grow up and realize you don't always get what you want.
Growing up in New York it usually meant a trip into Manhattan, maybe to Radio City (when it showed movies) with the smell of chestnuts and pretzels in the air, busy shoppers everywhere, and old jack frost nipping at your nose.
I remember a few trips to the Santa at Macy's who we knew was the real one based on the movie.
It was a magical time with a feeling of joy and wonder for the young people and maybe not as carefree for the older folks, but still they strived to make it a wonderful time for their families.
We knew the story about scrooge, but even he got the Christmas spirit at the end.
I'm sure it was very similar everywhere,
This year of course we have our very own scrooge putting coal in everyone's stocking, or at least trying to.
Lets make one thing clear, the wall does not mean border security.
A few poor immigrants crossing the border illegally is not much of a threat to this country.
Plus, a wall won't stop them.
This rhetoric about how illegal immigration is hurting this country is simply that, rhetoric.
It impacts almost no one in any significant way.
It certainly isn't worth shutting down the Government for Christmas.
It will create a lot of uncertainty for those Government workers who have nothing to do with the issue.
Its not going to get him a wall and most of us don't want to spend money on it.
Its probably self destructive for him and his party, but it is causing human anguish and suffering too.
He needs to grow up and realize you don't always get what you want.
Friday, December 21, 2018
Shutdown and Walls
If you are in charge of the Government and can't keep it open you are obviously bad at your job.
Shutting down part of the Government over a wall that we don't need is mean and silly at the same time.
It will impact the employees during Christmas and while they will almost certainty get paid, it isn't a good thing. Also services will be closed that many Americans use.
You may be one of the few people who think building a wall on the border is important, but most of us don't and to spend a bunch of money on something that won't accomplish anything is simply silly.
To frame it as something we need for border security is pretty absurd.
It is unlikely to accomplish anything and will be very expensive to build, patrol and maintain with little likelihood it will impact border security.
We have had a fair number of people cross our southern border without authorization. This is not desirable but in all honesty it hasn't had much of a negative impact on us.
To think a stationary wall will solve the problem is ridiculous.
You hear a lot of rhetoric about how you aren't a country if you don't control your borders?
Who made up that definition?
We had countries back when border security wasn't something you even considered.
Still, we do need to have some control and the effective way to do that is something that can be debated by experts and an affordable, effective solution can be devised.
Its not a wall.
Shutting down part of the Government over a wall that we don't need is mean and silly at the same time.
It will impact the employees during Christmas and while they will almost certainty get paid, it isn't a good thing. Also services will be closed that many Americans use.
You may be one of the few people who think building a wall on the border is important, but most of us don't and to spend a bunch of money on something that won't accomplish anything is simply silly.
To frame it as something we need for border security is pretty absurd.
It is unlikely to accomplish anything and will be very expensive to build, patrol and maintain with little likelihood it will impact border security.
We have had a fair number of people cross our southern border without authorization. This is not desirable but in all honesty it hasn't had much of a negative impact on us.
To think a stationary wall will solve the problem is ridiculous.
You hear a lot of rhetoric about how you aren't a country if you don't control your borders?
Who made up that definition?
We had countries back when border security wasn't something you even considered.
Still, we do need to have some control and the effective way to do that is something that can be debated by experts and an affordable, effective solution can be devised.
Its not a wall.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Puppet?
Sometimes you look at the news and have a "WTF" moment.
The dontard has decided to pull all our troops out of Syria because ISIS is defeated.
Now no one else agrees it is defeated and it should be noted that ISIS was simply the latest easy target for battling terrorism.
It also seems inconsistent to say they have been planting terrorists in the Central American caravan if they have in fact been defeated.
It does give the Russians unrestricted access to a critical location in the Middle East where they can further pursue policies which most agree are detrimental to this country and Israel.
It also gives Iran a boost and possibly a way to undercut any sanctions the dontard imposes on them.
Our presence in Syria has never been huge but it was at least symbolic. Its goals were never really achieved although we did participate to some extent in dislodging ISIS from certain territory.
It would be nice if we actually had a coherent strategy for the middle east that made sense instead of whatever it is we are doing.
It hasn't worked, unless its aim was to enhance Russian and Iranian influence.
Maybe it was, we know the dictator of Russia may be pulling the strings.
The dontard has decided to pull all our troops out of Syria because ISIS is defeated.
Now no one else agrees it is defeated and it should be noted that ISIS was simply the latest easy target for battling terrorism.
It also seems inconsistent to say they have been planting terrorists in the Central American caravan if they have in fact been defeated.
It does give the Russians unrestricted access to a critical location in the Middle East where they can further pursue policies which most agree are detrimental to this country and Israel.
It also gives Iran a boost and possibly a way to undercut any sanctions the dontard imposes on them.
Our presence in Syria has never been huge but it was at least symbolic. Its goals were never really achieved although we did participate to some extent in dislodging ISIS from certain territory.
It would be nice if we actually had a coherent strategy for the middle east that made sense instead of whatever it is we are doing.
It hasn't worked, unless its aim was to enhance Russian and Iranian influence.
Maybe it was, we know the dictator of Russia may be pulling the strings.
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Hows the Economy
How strong is the economy?
There are some numbers that look good, such as unemployment but there are also some troubling signs.
It certainly isn't the best economy ever, we don't actually see a major expansion in employment, we see increases at the edges.
If you consider the stock market as a predictor, it is likely that 2019 is going to be a problem year as interest rates, tariffs and political uncertainty cause disruptions.
As always the economy will be better in some places and not so good in others.
Very little improvement has taken place in our hard hit rust belt, as the promises of reviving manufacturing and coal were really empty ones in the first place.
Coal is simply no longer the fuel of choice and manufacturing just needs a lot less workers now, even if you re-open a plant.
Automation and cheap foreign sources haven't gone away.
We are not making enough progress, especially in the heartland to develop new industries like solar and renewable.
Both coasts are doing well because of tech and service industries, but where brawn in the norm, not so much.
Automated brawn is just cheaper.
Economy is still mixed but not terrible. It is likely to get much worse soon.
We need more trade, not less.
There are some numbers that look good, such as unemployment but there are also some troubling signs.
It certainly isn't the best economy ever, we don't actually see a major expansion in employment, we see increases at the edges.
If you consider the stock market as a predictor, it is likely that 2019 is going to be a problem year as interest rates, tariffs and political uncertainty cause disruptions.
As always the economy will be better in some places and not so good in others.
Very little improvement has taken place in our hard hit rust belt, as the promises of reviving manufacturing and coal were really empty ones in the first place.
Coal is simply no longer the fuel of choice and manufacturing just needs a lot less workers now, even if you re-open a plant.
Automation and cheap foreign sources haven't gone away.
We are not making enough progress, especially in the heartland to develop new industries like solar and renewable.
Both coasts are doing well because of tech and service industries, but where brawn in the norm, not so much.
Automated brawn is just cheaper.
Economy is still mixed but not terrible. It is likely to get much worse soon.
We need more trade, not less.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Wall or no Wall?
It seems like the dontard realizes that his chances of getting his wall built are quickly disappearing and in spite he will shut down some of the Government.
Most Americans just don't care about the wall but his core supporters do so he is playing to his base.
Not good for his party or his chances in 2020 but he gets a big cheer when he mentions the wall at rallies.
I can't envision any money being allocated to his wall, but anything is possible in the world of politics.
Generally the democrats will want to reopen the Government so they made need to agree to something that saves some face for the dontard.
Not what he wants, but if they give him any type of bone, he will turn it into a gigantic skeleton.
Border security is something we need but how much do we need?
People have crossed our southern border fairly regularly for years with no detrimental impact to the country.
The issue is more of a media issue mixed with some racism.
Do some of the people who cross the border do bad things when they get here?
Of course, a small percentage, it is people after all.
They tend to be hard working families trying to build a better, safer life.
Have they taken good paying jobs?
Not really, they tend to do the jobs most Americans don't want to do.
They tend to be a bit browner and speak Spanish, and that has contributed to why they are attacked.
Certainly we don't need a wall that won't even be effective to deal with what is primarily a non-problem.
Yes we have many undocumented immigrants in this country. They have the most risk, not the rest of us.
Most Americans just don't care about the wall but his core supporters do so he is playing to his base.
Not good for his party or his chances in 2020 but he gets a big cheer when he mentions the wall at rallies.
I can't envision any money being allocated to his wall, but anything is possible in the world of politics.
Generally the democrats will want to reopen the Government so they made need to agree to something that saves some face for the dontard.
Not what he wants, but if they give him any type of bone, he will turn it into a gigantic skeleton.
Border security is something we need but how much do we need?
People have crossed our southern border fairly regularly for years with no detrimental impact to the country.
The issue is more of a media issue mixed with some racism.
Do some of the people who cross the border do bad things when they get here?
Of course, a small percentage, it is people after all.
They tend to be hard working families trying to build a better, safer life.
Have they taken good paying jobs?
Not really, they tend to do the jobs most Americans don't want to do.
They tend to be a bit browner and speak Spanish, and that has contributed to why they are attacked.
Certainly we don't need a wall that won't even be effective to deal with what is primarily a non-problem.
Yes we have many undocumented immigrants in this country. They have the most risk, not the rest of us.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Lies, Lies, Lies
We have come to accept as normal the fact that the president lies a lot.
The following link takes you to an article that includes poll results about false statements and the level of belief
Fact Checker
Most don't believe them.
So he lies, we know he lies, but he just keeps lying.
Its so unprecedented in our democracy that it is like something out of the book 1984, except in that book the lies were actually believed.
Its hard t believe that he isn't aware of this, although he might not be, he seems to be one of the few to believe himself.
In some cases the lies are not even very meaningful.
Sometimes contradictory. Is the wall being built or have Democrats stopped him?
In fact, its so bad that when he says something accurate, a lot don't believe him either.
That is the exception to the norm though.
Republicans, at least many of them, no longer value honesty in politicians.
Democrats and Independents still do.
Shows how principles are easily changed.
Sad really.
The following link takes you to an article that includes poll results about false statements and the level of belief
Fact Checker
Most don't believe them.
So he lies, we know he lies, but he just keeps lying.
Its so unprecedented in our democracy that it is like something out of the book 1984, except in that book the lies were actually believed.
Its hard t believe that he isn't aware of this, although he might not be, he seems to be one of the few to believe himself.
In some cases the lies are not even very meaningful.
Sometimes contradictory. Is the wall being built or have Democrats stopped him?
In fact, its so bad that when he says something accurate, a lot don't believe him either.
That is the exception to the norm though.
Republicans, at least many of them, no longer value honesty in politicians.
Democrats and Independents still do.
Shows how principles are easily changed.
Sad really.
Sunday, December 16, 2018
Life Choices
It might sound trite but the saying "today is the first day of the rest of your life" is actually some of the best advice there is.
Whatever has happened in the past, whatever has gotten you to your current situation, it isn't the future, the future is determined by what you do starting now.
The only realistic approach to most things is to do the next thing in the best way possible.
Suppose you are a homeless alcoholic or drug user. Clearly that is a lot of baggage and you can't suddenly become a home owning middle class person. What you can do is the best thing out of the options you face. Its probably not to scrounge for the next bottle or steal to get the next hit.
This would be a desperate sort of situation and the options may be limited, but one of those options has to be better than the others, although it can be hard to decide.
Unfortunately you can't go back and do the past differently, and that is a problem for many of us who thing of things we could have done differently. However, past mistakes don't fix themselves, you have to avoid making future ones.
Not wanting to admit to a past mistake can force you to keep making it over and over again.
Suppose you are in an abusive relationship but are keeping it a secret for pride or to protect the children.
Its going to stay abusive if nothing changes.
To think that you will get a different result if you keep doing the same thing is, well, insane or at least delusional.
No one has your answers except you. You can determine your future and make it a better one, but you have to do it.
Sometimes the choice is obvious, sometimes it isn't and everyone makes mistakes.
Just keep choosing the next best thing.
Whatever has happened in the past, whatever has gotten you to your current situation, it isn't the future, the future is determined by what you do starting now.
The only realistic approach to most things is to do the next thing in the best way possible.
Suppose you are a homeless alcoholic or drug user. Clearly that is a lot of baggage and you can't suddenly become a home owning middle class person. What you can do is the best thing out of the options you face. Its probably not to scrounge for the next bottle or steal to get the next hit.
This would be a desperate sort of situation and the options may be limited, but one of those options has to be better than the others, although it can be hard to decide.
Unfortunately you can't go back and do the past differently, and that is a problem for many of us who thing of things we could have done differently. However, past mistakes don't fix themselves, you have to avoid making future ones.
Not wanting to admit to a past mistake can force you to keep making it over and over again.
Suppose you are in an abusive relationship but are keeping it a secret for pride or to protect the children.
Its going to stay abusive if nothing changes.
To think that you will get a different result if you keep doing the same thing is, well, insane or at least delusional.
No one has your answers except you. You can determine your future and make it a better one, but you have to do it.
Sometimes the choice is obvious, sometimes it isn't and everyone makes mistakes.
Just keep choosing the next best thing.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Bipartisan Solution?
On pretty shaky grounds a judge in Texas has ruled that the Tax law of 2017 made the affordable care act of 2010 unconstitutional because it eliminated the penalty for the individual mandate.
What will happen with this is anybody's guess and the logic is very tenuous, but in this country if you find the right judge you can get almost any nonsense.
Now that we see more conservative judges being appointed we may have reason to think this might be upheld, although it is certainly not certain and the law will remain in effect until it winds its way through all the appeals.
It would of course be ideal to simply pass a new law that includes all the things we like but the problem with that is, some conservatives view any interference in the health marketplace as a type of socialism.
Certainly the affordable care act wasn't perfect but it greatly increased coverage, has covered pre-existing conditions and has allowed dependents to stay on coverage longer.
It also mandates that certain preventive services be offered at no additional cost in order to increase the overall health of Americans.
If of course you simply believe that he Government has no role to play here, the good things it does becomes irrelevant.
That is not the view of the great majority of Americans and its time our representatives actually represented us.
This will take a number of years to get to the Supreme Court, its ultimate destination and in two years the American people will have the opportunity to make their voices heard on how they feel.
Its time to have a bipartisan solution.
Unfortunately the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
What will happen with this is anybody's guess and the logic is very tenuous, but in this country if you find the right judge you can get almost any nonsense.
Now that we see more conservative judges being appointed we may have reason to think this might be upheld, although it is certainly not certain and the law will remain in effect until it winds its way through all the appeals.
It would of course be ideal to simply pass a new law that includes all the things we like but the problem with that is, some conservatives view any interference in the health marketplace as a type of socialism.
Certainly the affordable care act wasn't perfect but it greatly increased coverage, has covered pre-existing conditions and has allowed dependents to stay on coverage longer.
It also mandates that certain preventive services be offered at no additional cost in order to increase the overall health of Americans.
If of course you simply believe that he Government has no role to play here, the good things it does becomes irrelevant.
That is not the view of the great majority of Americans and its time our representatives actually represented us.
This will take a number of years to get to the Supreme Court, its ultimate destination and in two years the American people will have the opportunity to make their voices heard on how they feel.
Its time to have a bipartisan solution.
Unfortunately the odds of that happening are pretty slim.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Political Correctness
You hear a lot of complaints about political correctness and some are justified and others are not.
Political correctness is an odd thing, it is primarily imposed by institutions and society.
The rules are sort of strange and things become "not" politically correct through a sort of consensus, by I guess people who worry about those sort of things.
There are all sorts of words that were considered at one time descriptive but which are now considered offensive to some or many, its sort of hard to tell.
Certainly, calling someone by a term that they find offensive is not acceptable, but I sometimes wonder if they really feel that way or if they were told to feel that way.
Take a term like Redskin which back in my day was the equivalent of Pale Face. I don't know if these terms originated in real life or if the movies created them, but I didn't realize either was derogatory, although now, some maintain Redskin is.
Outside of referring to a football team and maybe when I used to play as a kid, I don't think I ever used that term, but I didn't think it was an insult.
I certainly wouldn't be offended by being called a Paleface, unless of course I just came back from a beach vacation.
You should of course call people what they want to be called, that being polite, and I support polite correct.
However, when a beloved Christmas song about a man and a women flirting is attacked as being a rape song, I have to draw the line. Seduction and flirting isn't rape, lets not decide they are.
The song implies a possible outcome that wouldn't be innocent, but both parties seemed equally guilty.
Let's not get crazy.
Political correctness is an odd thing, it is primarily imposed by institutions and society.
The rules are sort of strange and things become "not" politically correct through a sort of consensus, by I guess people who worry about those sort of things.
There are all sorts of words that were considered at one time descriptive but which are now considered offensive to some or many, its sort of hard to tell.
Certainly, calling someone by a term that they find offensive is not acceptable, but I sometimes wonder if they really feel that way or if they were told to feel that way.
Take a term like Redskin which back in my day was the equivalent of Pale Face. I don't know if these terms originated in real life or if the movies created them, but I didn't realize either was derogatory, although now, some maintain Redskin is.
Outside of referring to a football team and maybe when I used to play as a kid, I don't think I ever used that term, but I didn't think it was an insult.
I certainly wouldn't be offended by being called a Paleface, unless of course I just came back from a beach vacation.
You should of course call people what they want to be called, that being polite, and I support polite correct.
However, when a beloved Christmas song about a man and a women flirting is attacked as being a rape song, I have to draw the line. Seduction and flirting isn't rape, lets not decide they are.
The song implies a possible outcome that wouldn't be innocent, but both parties seemed equally guilty.
Let's not get crazy.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Conspiracy
People who form or create a conspiracy to commit a crime are breaking the law.
You don't actually have to be the person who breaks the law, by being part of the conspiracy you share in the guilt.
We now know that the dontard's lawyer did in fact break the law, pled guilty and has been sentenced to prison time.
We also know he identified his co-conspirators and one of them happens to now be President of this country.
Further, the National Enquirer has entered into, in exchange for immunity, an agreement to cooperate with the Federal Prosecutors.
They were heavily involved in the conspiracy and have a lot of additional information on our current President who had close ties with their owner/editors. (They have always been the very definition of Fake News, which might explain a lot).
These cases are actually related to violations of campaign finance laws and not the collusion with Russia.
That is also looking like a clear case of conspiracy, although the primary crime seems to have been the perjuries, so we would need proof he was encouraging those perjuries (does anyone doubt that?)
There are likely other crimes involved, its a complicated web of lies and deceit with the intent to cover up many ethical violations.
We have passed a milestone with the latest plea deal, more shoes are about to drop.
You don't actually have to be the person who breaks the law, by being part of the conspiracy you share in the guilt.
We now know that the dontard's lawyer did in fact break the law, pled guilty and has been sentenced to prison time.
We also know he identified his co-conspirators and one of them happens to now be President of this country.
Further, the National Enquirer has entered into, in exchange for immunity, an agreement to cooperate with the Federal Prosecutors.
They were heavily involved in the conspiracy and have a lot of additional information on our current President who had close ties with their owner/editors. (They have always been the very definition of Fake News, which might explain a lot).
These cases are actually related to violations of campaign finance laws and not the collusion with Russia.
That is also looking like a clear case of conspiracy, although the primary crime seems to have been the perjuries, so we would need proof he was encouraging those perjuries (does anyone doubt that?)
There are likely other crimes involved, its a complicated web of lies and deceit with the intent to cover up many ethical violations.
We have passed a milestone with the latest plea deal, more shoes are about to drop.
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
Border Security
Border security is something that we obviously need to be somewhat concerned about but with two coastlines and thousands of miles of actual borders it is never going to be 100% guarded, it would be both unaffordable and technologically and personnel nearly impossible.
The concern currently is the number of illegal immigrants coming across our Southern Border, because the comprise the majority.
They certainly don't comprise the greatest threat, at least not in any real sense of that word.
They do however create something of cultural threat, speaking a different language, influencing certain programming, and generally being a different type of American, than our European roots.
Of course, they also have European roots, but for various reasons, those roots were Spanish and ours don't include Spanish roots, since they would have obviously emigrated to the Spanish speaking countries.
The people coming here, and they have been coming here for a very long time, come for better economic or because we are generally a safer country than some of our southern neighbors.
Current claims to the contrary they do not consist of gang members and/or terrorists, at least not to any great extent. Terrorists might tag along but they have many other means and the idea that they would first travel to a Latin country to then try to enter this country illegally is both convoluted and a bit silly. If they aren't already a known terrorist, they could probably just get a tourist visa and come here.
The current argument concerns whether we need a hugely expensive border wall to reduce illegal immigration along our southern border. If the reason to do this has to do with keeping out terrorists or gang members, it is extremely silly and almost certainly useless.
I've never seen an analysis that would indicate a wall along the southern border would accomplish anything. We already have created barriers in the areas with the easiest overland access only to have them bypassed or tunneled under. Will a multi-billion dollar wall stop some immigration, certainly, but so would many other more effective measures.
It is a project that would take many years to complete, cost many billions of dollars, and require significant maintenance and manning to accomplish very little.
Its not the way to get effective border security.
The concern currently is the number of illegal immigrants coming across our Southern Border, because the comprise the majority.
They certainly don't comprise the greatest threat, at least not in any real sense of that word.
They do however create something of cultural threat, speaking a different language, influencing certain programming, and generally being a different type of American, than our European roots.
Of course, they also have European roots, but for various reasons, those roots were Spanish and ours don't include Spanish roots, since they would have obviously emigrated to the Spanish speaking countries.
The people coming here, and they have been coming here for a very long time, come for better economic or because we are generally a safer country than some of our southern neighbors.
Current claims to the contrary they do not consist of gang members and/or terrorists, at least not to any great extent. Terrorists might tag along but they have many other means and the idea that they would first travel to a Latin country to then try to enter this country illegally is both convoluted and a bit silly. If they aren't already a known terrorist, they could probably just get a tourist visa and come here.
The current argument concerns whether we need a hugely expensive border wall to reduce illegal immigration along our southern border. If the reason to do this has to do with keeping out terrorists or gang members, it is extremely silly and almost certainly useless.
I've never seen an analysis that would indicate a wall along the southern border would accomplish anything. We already have created barriers in the areas with the easiest overland access only to have them bypassed or tunneled under. Will a multi-billion dollar wall stop some immigration, certainly, but so would many other more effective measures.
It is a project that would take many years to complete, cost many billions of dollars, and require significant maintenance and manning to accomplish very little.
Its not the way to get effective border security.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Deal with the Devil
So we now have some pretty clear allegations that the dontard directed payments that probably violated campaign finance laws.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
He actually doesn't deny it, just argues they were private, not campaign related, which is why they are a violation.
He also admits he continued to deal with his business attempts to do work in China, because, if he had lost the election he still had a business to run.
These are pretty incriminating in a number of ways and at this point there is no doubt about them.
He accuses others of violating the campaign finance laws and they only got a fine, so why would he be treated differently?
Think its more about the attempt to deceive involved here.
He was never a very open candidate, we never saw his tax returns or got detailed policy proposals, yet he still managed to squeak out an electoral college victory due to what is well described as a series of unfortunate events.
Unfortunate for the country.
Still, not sure any of this is enough to impeach him and I think the focus for the next two years should be on all the harm he is doing to progressive issues in this country.
He is always going to appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are focused on certain issues that he espouses, including nationalism, guns, abortion, and immigration.
They are in other words willing to make a deal with the devil.
A majority of us, hopefully, aren't.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Safety Net?
One of the great appeals of capitalism is the ability of anyone to aspire to and possibly accumulate great riches.
Of course only a few actually do but in general they are admired and serve as exemplars of what can happen if you have the right combination of skill and luck.
Clearly not everyone does, but the opportunity creates hope and enthusiasm that leads to new ideas, businesses and other enterprises which breeds a healthy progression in society.
We have example after example of rags to riches stories and some of our very largest corporations were started by young people working on an idea that worked.
People often talk about the American Dream but I believe the real American Dream is to become incredibly rich, or at least rich enough to not worry about mundane things like making a mortgage or rent payment.
The downside is the income inequality that is created between winners and losers.
The system creates many more losers, people struggling to get by and make ends meet than winners.
This has been true throughout history.
One difference today is that we generally believe that anyone can succeed in America, while in many societies wealth and success were tied into a caste system for the fortunate few. Most of those societies have been replaced by either an American style capitalism or a European style socialism.
Europe of course has its elites, but it has also taken efforts to assure every citizen has basic things like health care, education and pensions guaranteed by the state.
It does require more taxation and more state involvement but generally it goes a long ways toward eliminating the very poor.
We refer to this concept as the safety net in America but its clearly a pretty low net in comparison to most European countries.
Right now we can't even afford what we have.
Of course only a few actually do but in general they are admired and serve as exemplars of what can happen if you have the right combination of skill and luck.
Clearly not everyone does, but the opportunity creates hope and enthusiasm that leads to new ideas, businesses and other enterprises which breeds a healthy progression in society.
We have example after example of rags to riches stories and some of our very largest corporations were started by young people working on an idea that worked.
People often talk about the American Dream but I believe the real American Dream is to become incredibly rich, or at least rich enough to not worry about mundane things like making a mortgage or rent payment.
The downside is the income inequality that is created between winners and losers.
The system creates many more losers, people struggling to get by and make ends meet than winners.
This has been true throughout history.
One difference today is that we generally believe that anyone can succeed in America, while in many societies wealth and success were tied into a caste system for the fortunate few. Most of those societies have been replaced by either an American style capitalism or a European style socialism.
Europe of course has its elites, but it has also taken efforts to assure every citizen has basic things like health care, education and pensions guaranteed by the state.
It does require more taxation and more state involvement but generally it goes a long ways toward eliminating the very poor.
We refer to this concept as the safety net in America but its clearly a pretty low net in comparison to most European countries.
Right now we can't even afford what we have.
Sunday, December 9, 2018
The Great Scammers
More and more evidence of the fundamental fact that Republicans have become a party that caters to certain voters, mostly white, generally male without college degrees and definitely ethnocentric.
Pretty much the same type of audience that is targeted by various groups such as white nationalists and the Klan, and which, at least for a short time and based on the electoral college can win the Presidency, if all falls out right.
However it is at best a tenuous majority so part of their strategy is to make that vote count extra and suppress by any means possible the votes of everyone else, at least where it matters.
This was a successful strategy in many cases as they were able to get control of many State governments and then gerrymander the congressional districts, pass restrictive voter rules and do everything they could to maintain power.
Sadly they don't use that power to help that group, they use it to help their rich donors and business owners who theoretically will create jobs for this group like they used to have.
They aren't, at least not to any great degree.
To be fair, the group we are talking about ere generally the primary builders of much of this country, not the people alive today so much as their ancestors. In return they were able to live in a prosperous country with good jobs and good benefits.
It may not be a completely accurate picture, but companies and workers, especially as unions got strong, formed a sort of partnership. However, the workers represented a cost and s businesses became less patriarchal and more businesslike, that cost was viewed as a problem that needed to be reduced.
This led to the movement of work to non-union states and eventually to other countries, as well as outsourcing and automation. The good paying low skill jobs effectively disappeared and with them went the union benefits.
The people doing this were the business owners, or more correctly corporate boards that became dominated by people with MBAs and no ties to the communities they operated in, outside of some needed public relations.
The blame for this, is it requires blame is purely on the decision makers in the business, but the blame was deflected fairly successfully to unions, liberals, immigrants, trade deals and the establishment in Washington who catered to the politically correct.
None of that was or is true, it was a matter of economics, not politics and most of the policies blamed were in fact inspired by those same businesses that used the Republican party to get them done.
The success of these policies hinged on what is best called deflection, you lost your manufacturing job, look at all those people crossing the border. They, by the way weren't getting those jobs either.
What about those people disrespecting the flag, or trying to take your guns or making you be politically correct. None of that had anything to do with the economy, and weren't generally even true.
It was and is one of the biggest cons ever and the fact that it worked as long as it has is a tribute to the dedicated scammers who pulled it off.
Pity though.
Pretty much the same type of audience that is targeted by various groups such as white nationalists and the Klan, and which, at least for a short time and based on the electoral college can win the Presidency, if all falls out right.
However it is at best a tenuous majority so part of their strategy is to make that vote count extra and suppress by any means possible the votes of everyone else, at least where it matters.
This was a successful strategy in many cases as they were able to get control of many State governments and then gerrymander the congressional districts, pass restrictive voter rules and do everything they could to maintain power.
Sadly they don't use that power to help that group, they use it to help their rich donors and business owners who theoretically will create jobs for this group like they used to have.
They aren't, at least not to any great degree.
To be fair, the group we are talking about ere generally the primary builders of much of this country, not the people alive today so much as their ancestors. In return they were able to live in a prosperous country with good jobs and good benefits.
It may not be a completely accurate picture, but companies and workers, especially as unions got strong, formed a sort of partnership. However, the workers represented a cost and s businesses became less patriarchal and more businesslike, that cost was viewed as a problem that needed to be reduced.
This led to the movement of work to non-union states and eventually to other countries, as well as outsourcing and automation. The good paying low skill jobs effectively disappeared and with them went the union benefits.
The people doing this were the business owners, or more correctly corporate boards that became dominated by people with MBAs and no ties to the communities they operated in, outside of some needed public relations.
The blame for this, is it requires blame is purely on the decision makers in the business, but the blame was deflected fairly successfully to unions, liberals, immigrants, trade deals and the establishment in Washington who catered to the politically correct.
None of that was or is true, it was a matter of economics, not politics and most of the policies blamed were in fact inspired by those same businesses that used the Republican party to get them done.
The success of these policies hinged on what is best called deflection, you lost your manufacturing job, look at all those people crossing the border. They, by the way weren't getting those jobs either.
What about those people disrespecting the flag, or trying to take your guns or making you be politically correct. None of that had anything to do with the economy, and weren't generally even true.
It was and is one of the biggest cons ever and the fact that it worked as long as it has is a tribute to the dedicated scammers who pulled it off.
Pity though.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
National Taxation
Many people in the United States think we are overtaxed. By pretty much any measure we aren't. In 2015 our tax as a percent of GDP was 26% well below the average of 34% for other developed countries.
Tax by Country
I'm sure taxes are complained about everywhere, and there is no political capital to be gained by proposing to raise them, however, if growth and reduced spending aren't going to eliminate the deficit, the only thing left to do is to raise taxes.
However, besides the political consequences there will also be economic ones. The Government doesn't collect taxes or borrow money to sit on it, it is used for many purposes all of which, except interest on the national debt, end up increasing our GDP.
Whether the money is used to pay for a fighter plane, a federal salary, a social security check or food stamps it enters the economy and circulates.
Since the deficit is so high, we are borrowing over a trillion dollars in 2018 which is stimulating the economy.
Its not much different with people who take out loans or credit card debt to buy things today with the promise of paying the loan back in the future.
So were we to stop borrowing for current costs and instead increase taxes, we would see that amount disappear from the economy, not because of the taxes, that money would be spent, but because we wouldn't have that loan stimulus every year.
I want to make sure it is clear that eliminating the deficit would not eliminate the National Debt. It would take many years of surplus income to do that.
The increase would be in the order of an extra 25% based on 2019 projections where revenue is projected at $3.42 trillion while expenses are estimated at $4.41 trillion. No one is proposing raising taxes that much, in fact, you see very little action related to this issue.
In the best case scenario we see spending go down and tax receipts go up because of economic growth. In a much more troubling scenario we see spending go up and revenue go down because of a recession.
If nothing is done about the debt, at some point we won't be able to borrow enough to fund it and that will lead to any of a number of bad scenarios, such as runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, recession, devaluation of the American dollar.
None of it is good.
Tax by Country
I'm sure taxes are complained about everywhere, and there is no political capital to be gained by proposing to raise them, however, if growth and reduced spending aren't going to eliminate the deficit, the only thing left to do is to raise taxes.
However, besides the political consequences there will also be economic ones. The Government doesn't collect taxes or borrow money to sit on it, it is used for many purposes all of which, except interest on the national debt, end up increasing our GDP.
Whether the money is used to pay for a fighter plane, a federal salary, a social security check or food stamps it enters the economy and circulates.
Since the deficit is so high, we are borrowing over a trillion dollars in 2018 which is stimulating the economy.
Its not much different with people who take out loans or credit card debt to buy things today with the promise of paying the loan back in the future.
So were we to stop borrowing for current costs and instead increase taxes, we would see that amount disappear from the economy, not because of the taxes, that money would be spent, but because we wouldn't have that loan stimulus every year.
I want to make sure it is clear that eliminating the deficit would not eliminate the National Debt. It would take many years of surplus income to do that.
The increase would be in the order of an extra 25% based on 2019 projections where revenue is projected at $3.42 trillion while expenses are estimated at $4.41 trillion. No one is proposing raising taxes that much, in fact, you see very little action related to this issue.
In the best case scenario we see spending go down and tax receipts go up because of economic growth. In a much more troubling scenario we see spending go up and revenue go down because of a recession.
If nothing is done about the debt, at some point we won't be able to borrow enough to fund it and that will lead to any of a number of bad scenarios, such as runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, recession, devaluation of the American dollar.
None of it is good.
Friday, December 7, 2018
National Spending
If you want to reduce or reverse the deficit the concept is simple, income has to exceed spending.
Enough economic growth could do both those things, but as discussed yesterday the likelihood of that happening is next to nothing, based on current economic conditions. If it was to happen it would be great, but it isn't happening.
So why not just reduce spending enough to eliminate the deficit? It would work if it was possible, but Government spending isn't a bunch of wild and reckless extravagance. Most of it is tied into three areas, Defense, Entitlements or Debt service.
I include both Social Security and Medicare under entitlements although for some reason people don't want to, equating entitlements to "give-aways". Since we contribute to those programs we have earned them, and we have meaning we are entitled to them.
To get enough reduction to meaningfully impact the deficit you need to consider the big contributors. Of course the other areas need to be efficient but the numbers, even at zero don't work, and those programs are not about to be zeroed out any tie soon.
Interest on the National Debt is a large expenditure and it is growing as the debt increases and as interest rates climb. This is not optional spending and the only way to reduce it would be to reduce the debt and/or the interest rates. Interest rates have been at historic lows and they are starting to rise. There is little we can do about this area without addressing the other areas.
Entitlement spending is the favorite area to cut except for the fact that the programs included are extremely popular with the public. Some changes to social security and Medicare are probably needed,, but any change is going to face stiff opposition. Other entitlement programs include popular things as well and while there is a general belief that we are giving away billions of dollars to people who don't deserve it, each program has survived multiple years of unfriendly scrutiny by hostile congressmen, so while some waste and abuse will exist, the programs themselves are not overly generous handouts.
Of course there is a factor that has led to some of the waste and abuse as we have reduced the federal workforce who would be charged with enforcement. There is no desire to greatly increase that workforce so enforcement is reliant upon less and less cops on the beat.
Without a significant change to popular programs that would reduce spending significantly, there is simply no way entitlement programs can be reduced enough to eliminate the deficit. In fact the deficit is over a trillion dollars and spending reductions are never going to fix that, although they could contribute.
The last significant area is national defense which is, to some extent, a sacred cow. Expenditures here are increasing as we see little interest in balancing the spending against our budget situation. There is certainly some opportunities for reduction here, but people serving in our military should not be hurt. Defense programs are a double edged sword, since because they are American based they are economic boons for the areas where weapons are manufactured and they create jobs. Reducing our overseas commitments is possible but delicate and not probably in the best interests of our national defense.
Spending, although a popular area to attack is simply not going to eliminate the deficit without sacrifices we aren't willing to accept. In fact we have large spending needs related to infrastructure and border security that will increase spending as well as increases in the areas mentioned above.
That leaves only income as a possible solution.
Enough economic growth could do both those things, but as discussed yesterday the likelihood of that happening is next to nothing, based on current economic conditions. If it was to happen it would be great, but it isn't happening.
So why not just reduce spending enough to eliminate the deficit? It would work if it was possible, but Government spending isn't a bunch of wild and reckless extravagance. Most of it is tied into three areas, Defense, Entitlements or Debt service.
I include both Social Security and Medicare under entitlements although for some reason people don't want to, equating entitlements to "give-aways". Since we contribute to those programs we have earned them, and we have meaning we are entitled to them.
To get enough reduction to meaningfully impact the deficit you need to consider the big contributors. Of course the other areas need to be efficient but the numbers, even at zero don't work, and those programs are not about to be zeroed out any tie soon.
Interest on the National Debt is a large expenditure and it is growing as the debt increases and as interest rates climb. This is not optional spending and the only way to reduce it would be to reduce the debt and/or the interest rates. Interest rates have been at historic lows and they are starting to rise. There is little we can do about this area without addressing the other areas.
Entitlement spending is the favorite area to cut except for the fact that the programs included are extremely popular with the public. Some changes to social security and Medicare are probably needed,, but any change is going to face stiff opposition. Other entitlement programs include popular things as well and while there is a general belief that we are giving away billions of dollars to people who don't deserve it, each program has survived multiple years of unfriendly scrutiny by hostile congressmen, so while some waste and abuse will exist, the programs themselves are not overly generous handouts.
Of course there is a factor that has led to some of the waste and abuse as we have reduced the federal workforce who would be charged with enforcement. There is no desire to greatly increase that workforce so enforcement is reliant upon less and less cops on the beat.
Without a significant change to popular programs that would reduce spending significantly, there is simply no way entitlement programs can be reduced enough to eliminate the deficit. In fact the deficit is over a trillion dollars and spending reductions are never going to fix that, although they could contribute.
The last significant area is national defense which is, to some extent, a sacred cow. Expenditures here are increasing as we see little interest in balancing the spending against our budget situation. There is certainly some opportunities for reduction here, but people serving in our military should not be hurt. Defense programs are a double edged sword, since because they are American based they are economic boons for the areas where weapons are manufactured and they create jobs. Reducing our overseas commitments is possible but delicate and not probably in the best interests of our national defense.
Spending, although a popular area to attack is simply not going to eliminate the deficit without sacrifices we aren't willing to accept. In fact we have large spending needs related to infrastructure and border security that will increase spending as well as increases in the areas mentioned above.
That leaves only income as a possible solution.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
National Debt
How serious is our National Debt problem?
Well, it is very serious or maybe it isn't.
It is certainly at historic amounts and is consuming more and more of our annual budgets every year just to service it.
However as long as people, and countries, are willing to lend us money by buying our bonds and notes, we can move along quite nicely.
Until we can't.
If you consider the current period a bit of a grace period to get our act together, we have to somehow turn our annual deficit into an annual surplus, if we want to reduce the debt.
There is no current scenario where that is going to happen without either an incredible increase in growth, a dramatic reduction in spending or a significant increase in taxes.
Growth would of course be the best scenario as it helps to reduce some entitlement spending and increase taxes as more taxable income is generated.
This was the scenario at the beginning of the second Bush administration and we almost immediately reduced taxes and increased spending.
Per Capita real GDP rose 23% during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency and we went from deficit to surplus. In the 20 years since, it has increase by 21% and we have slid back into deficits.
Yes we had the Internet bubble and the financial crisis, but we would need to return to the growth of the 90s for a prolonged period to get back to surplus. The chance of that happening seems slim to zero, but maybe something will change.
So spending and taxes would have t be addressed, and I'll discuss those next.
Well, it is very serious or maybe it isn't.
It is certainly at historic amounts and is consuming more and more of our annual budgets every year just to service it.
However as long as people, and countries, are willing to lend us money by buying our bonds and notes, we can move along quite nicely.
Until we can't.
If you consider the current period a bit of a grace period to get our act together, we have to somehow turn our annual deficit into an annual surplus, if we want to reduce the debt.
There is no current scenario where that is going to happen without either an incredible increase in growth, a dramatic reduction in spending or a significant increase in taxes.
Growth would of course be the best scenario as it helps to reduce some entitlement spending and increase taxes as more taxable income is generated.
This was the scenario at the beginning of the second Bush administration and we almost immediately reduced taxes and increased spending.
Per Capita real GDP rose 23% during the 8 years of the Clinton Presidency and we went from deficit to surplus. In the 20 years since, it has increase by 21% and we have slid back into deficits.
Yes we had the Internet bubble and the financial crisis, but we would need to return to the growth of the 90s for a prolonged period to get back to surplus. The chance of that happening seems slim to zero, but maybe something will change.
So spending and taxes would have t be addressed, and I'll discuss those next.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Medicare For All Costs
There have been a number of articles recently and some misguided statements by proponents on both sides about the cost and implementation of "Medicare for All" or publicly provided health insurance.
It would be expensive, but mathematically it wouldn't require new money, just a switch form privately funded to publicly funded.
How that would happen is the real problem, if in fact we even see it proposed seriously as opposed to a talking point by certain politicians.
To be clear, the cost of health care reflects the cost of health services being provided. Currently most is provided under private insurance plans which are obtained in any number of ways.
Ultimately this cost might rise if more people get covered or it might decrease if the preventive care leads to earlier detection and less late intervention.
That's a matter that can be argued but, the switch from private to public funding wouldn't have a particular impact on overall costs, although of course the cost would show up as a Government expense.
As a reference point the United States has the highest per capita health care costs of any country although Switzerland is close, per the World Health depending of how you value the currencies.
The cost has been going up but it is going up partly because of inflation but also partly because new
and improved technology has been introduced.
By most measures health outcomes do not correspond to the high cost, not that they are bad, but in many measures we are relatively average. Of course because of our profit model, we attract some of the very best specialists in every discipline if, in fact, you can afford them.
The point is unless we are increasing this per capita cost, the total cost will not go up. It's only a matter of how we pay for it.
It would be expensive, but mathematically it wouldn't require new money, just a switch form privately funded to publicly funded.
How that would happen is the real problem, if in fact we even see it proposed seriously as opposed to a talking point by certain politicians.
To be clear, the cost of health care reflects the cost of health services being provided. Currently most is provided under private insurance plans which are obtained in any number of ways.
Ultimately this cost might rise if more people get covered or it might decrease if the preventive care leads to earlier detection and less late intervention.
That's a matter that can be argued but, the switch from private to public funding wouldn't have a particular impact on overall costs, although of course the cost would show up as a Government expense.
As a reference point the United States has the highest per capita health care costs of any country although Switzerland is close, per the World Health depending of how you value the currencies.
The cost has been going up but it is going up partly because of inflation but also partly because new
and improved technology has been introduced.
By most measures health outcomes do not correspond to the high cost, not that they are bad, but in many measures we are relatively average. Of course because of our profit model, we attract some of the very best specialists in every discipline if, in fact, you can afford them.
The point is unless we are increasing this per capita cost, the total cost will not go up. It's only a matter of how we pay for it.
Monday, December 3, 2018
Trade Deals?
So how are the trade negotiations going?
So far not so good but we now have some progress from the G-20. It looks like NAFTA is going to be updated a bit and we have a bit of a truce with China.
Which the dontard has declared as a victory although we're no better off then we were when the whole thing started.
says
Maybe that's about all we can expect from this group. Well at least from their leader.
Even his account of what was agreed to seems questionable as the official account issued by his own administration.
Did they agree to reduce tariffs or just agree not to raise them for a few months?
No doubt everything the dontard says is probably wrong, he doesn't pay attentions and generally doesn't grasp any of the details.
Hopefully some of the people involved actually know how to add and write legal agreements.
It will have to get through congress before anything actually happens.
Even this little bit of progress or no progress is encouraging to the business community who thinks this administration is their friends but head of it is pretty unpredictable, and not in a good way.
Not all the surprises are pleasant ones.
So far not so good but we now have some progress from the G-20. It looks like NAFTA is going to be updated a bit and we have a bit of a truce with China.
Which the dontard has declared as a victory although we're no better off then we were when the whole thing started.
says
Maybe that's about all we can expect from this group. Well at least from their leader.
Even his account of what was agreed to seems questionable as the official account issued by his own administration.
Did they agree to reduce tariffs or just agree not to raise them for a few months?
No doubt everything the dontard says is probably wrong, he doesn't pay attentions and generally doesn't grasp any of the details.
Hopefully some of the people involved actually know how to add and write legal agreements.
It will have to get through congress before anything actually happens.
Even this little bit of progress or no progress is encouraging to the business community who thinks this administration is their friends but head of it is pretty unpredictable, and not in a good way.
Not all the surprises are pleasant ones.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Health Care, Still Under Attack
You may or may not have noticed that this is the time to enroll in a health plan under the Affordable Care Act if you are eligible.
There is virtually no outreach going on for the Federal Exchange if you live in one of the states without their own exchange.
The current administration was unable to repeal it and instead is doing everything it can to destroy it by other means.
Attempts to repeal it outright are probably over, at least for the next two years if not forever, but attempts to undercut it continue.
As predicted with more experience and with a more stable outlook, premiums have generally stabilized and more providers are joining in since they see opportunities to make profits.
Current attempts to destabilize it include the introduction of low cost do little plans designed to appeal to low risk customers. If you can get them out of the plans, it will increase costs.
However for many of those, the full coverage plans in the exchange end up being more affordable when you get the income based subsidy that's part of the act.
Now the administration is trying to allow states to apply those subsidies to non qualifying plans outside of the exchanges.
This is of doubtful legality since the coverages and the subsidies are both pretty clearly spelled out, but when you predict it will collapse and try to undermine it without success, well try harder.
Most Americans have come to, if not love, at least accept the plan and most love some of its best provisions like covering pre-existing conditions or allowing dependents to stay covered longer.
We are now going to see some attempts at expanding it even further as many progressives are pushing the concept of Medicare for All.
It will be interesting to watch.
There is virtually no outreach going on for the Federal Exchange if you live in one of the states without their own exchange.
The current administration was unable to repeal it and instead is doing everything it can to destroy it by other means.
Attempts to repeal it outright are probably over, at least for the next two years if not forever, but attempts to undercut it continue.
As predicted with more experience and with a more stable outlook, premiums have generally stabilized and more providers are joining in since they see opportunities to make profits.
Current attempts to destabilize it include the introduction of low cost do little plans designed to appeal to low risk customers. If you can get them out of the plans, it will increase costs.
However for many of those, the full coverage plans in the exchange end up being more affordable when you get the income based subsidy that's part of the act.
Now the administration is trying to allow states to apply those subsidies to non qualifying plans outside of the exchanges.
This is of doubtful legality since the coverages and the subsidies are both pretty clearly spelled out, but when you predict it will collapse and try to undermine it without success, well try harder.
Most Americans have come to, if not love, at least accept the plan and most love some of its best provisions like covering pre-existing conditions or allowing dependents to stay covered longer.
We are now going to see some attempts at expanding it even further as many progressives are pushing the concept of Medicare for All.
It will be interesting to watch.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Goodbye President Bush
During his life I generally didn't agree with his policies but I'll say I always respected him.
He served this country well in the Military, Government Service and in the executive office and afterward he acted with good will and honesty.
There are going to be many tributes to him published but I just want to say he characterized the period in this country where people could disagree without the acrimony and disharmony we see today.
I didn't of course disagree with all of his policies, many of them were clearly bipartisan and in the interests of the country as a whole.
It seems like after him, the country fell under a type of acrimony that we had been somewhat immune to previously and a lot of that is related to the creation of the Murdoch media empire in this country and the sensationalism that used to get revenue.
Its a history that needs to be written how the greed of one man and new technology spread "fake" news into the mainstream.
Of course we went through a period of yellow journalism once before.
How this period will resolve itself remains to be seen, but that is a bit off point.
This president never stooped to the behavior we now take for granted. He was part of the generation we often refer to as the greatest one, and he took his responsibilities seriously and served honorably.
Goodbye
He served this country well in the Military, Government Service and in the executive office and afterward he acted with good will and honesty.
There are going to be many tributes to him published but I just want to say he characterized the period in this country where people could disagree without the acrimony and disharmony we see today.
I didn't of course disagree with all of his policies, many of them were clearly bipartisan and in the interests of the country as a whole.
It seems like after him, the country fell under a type of acrimony that we had been somewhat immune to previously and a lot of that is related to the creation of the Murdoch media empire in this country and the sensationalism that used to get revenue.
Its a history that needs to be written how the greed of one man and new technology spread "fake" news into the mainstream.
Of course we went through a period of yellow journalism once before.
How this period will resolve itself remains to be seen, but that is a bit off point.
This president never stooped to the behavior we now take for granted. He was part of the generation we often refer to as the greatest one, and he took his responsibilities seriously and served honorably.
Goodbye
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)