Making promises is easy, delivering on those promises can be hard.
Politicians make promises, its what they do to quote a current commercial. Being able to deliver is quite another thing. This is true for all politicians and while you clearly want to elect the one that promises the things you want as opposed to one who promises things you don't want, its also important to understand if they are real or empty promises.
In politics two things are required to deliver on a promise in this country. The desire and power to do it. One of the things that has led to the current distrust of Government are all the promises made by candidates that they couldn't deliver on, mostly because they didn't have the power, but sometimes they didn't have the desire either.
It is an infrequent event when one party has enough support in both houses of Congress to make fundamental changes One such scenario was after the election of 2008 when the Democrats were able to pass the Affordable Care Act. An act that is attacked so very much but which has done so much good.
But that is a rare event since the senate rules require a majority of 60 to push through legislation. Few remember that because we lost a senate sear the only way to pass the Affordable Care Act in the Senate was to accept the latest House version without revisions since the Democrats had only 59 votes. A few known issues had to be left in.
However, making promises you can't keep is a time honored political tradition and one that shows no sign of ending. Media coverage really tends to fail here since they repeat the promises without the proper analysis. To the extent the promises simply represent goals to be pursued that's fine, but certain people actually believe these promises. When the promises aren't delivered its because the Government is corrupt or untrustworthy.
I don't know if its always been this way. It seems to me that we used to understand that campaign promises were goals and not guaranteed. I think a lot of us still do understand that but sadly, it seems that when I talk to people, or see what they post on social media, they buy in to the idea that politicians are corrupt and untrustworthy. Of course some are, but the vast majority on both sides aren't. Maybe its the fact that everything is now instantaneous. Further, we live in an age where irresponsible reporting is rampant. Look at how much media was spent on where Obama was born when it wasn't even really an issue. Partisan politics is actually tame compared to the partisan media we now have, but that is another topic.
I wish we could see more facts and less empty promises in our elections, but I'd also like to win the lottery.
Saturday, August 6, 2016
Friday, August 5, 2016
The American Way
Many of us grew up watching a TV show where the superhero stood for Truth, Justice and the American way. What was of course left undefined was what is the American way.
I was probably naive but it didn't seem like there was much disagreement that it represented the values om the books and movies we had, values like work hard, give everyone a fair shake, stand up for the little guy, do your part and support the country. However if I had to pick one work that I equate with the American way its would be winners.
This was the era after the great depression and World War 2 where the President was the General who had led us to victory and we had a clear enemy in communism. We had won every war (Korea was sort of ignored as a police action) and we were the best in pretty much everything, thanks in large part to the fact that most of our competitors had been devastated by the war.
Yes this was the America of winners that I and many of my compatriots grew up with, even if there were racial and economic problems beneath the surface that were getting ready to erupt. It was an era where we faced nuclear elimination constantly but pretty much ignored it except when there was a crisis. We had all those new suburban houses, everyone had a car, everyone had a job and life was as good as it gets, although of course it wasn't except on TV shows.
If you were to ask most of the Trump supporters this is when America was great and what they think he will bring back. Its an empty promise since the world is a very different place and we have so much history since then, Vietnam, imported products, terrorism, computers and technology and the diversification of America, both socially and by nationality.
By almost any objective standard the world is better than it was back then. More people have been lifted out of poverty, more countries are democracies, we have instant information at our fingertips and we have developed technologies that allow us to provide food (the green revolution) for everybody. However as I pointed out this has not included the people who lived a privileged existence when American products dominated the world and good paying, union jobs were widely available.
There is no going back to that, no matter what vague promises are made. You can't put humpty dumpty together again, time to enjoy the omelette.
I was probably naive but it didn't seem like there was much disagreement that it represented the values om the books and movies we had, values like work hard, give everyone a fair shake, stand up for the little guy, do your part and support the country. However if I had to pick one work that I equate with the American way its would be winners.
This was the era after the great depression and World War 2 where the President was the General who had led us to victory and we had a clear enemy in communism. We had won every war (Korea was sort of ignored as a police action) and we were the best in pretty much everything, thanks in large part to the fact that most of our competitors had been devastated by the war.
Yes this was the America of winners that I and many of my compatriots grew up with, even if there were racial and economic problems beneath the surface that were getting ready to erupt. It was an era where we faced nuclear elimination constantly but pretty much ignored it except when there was a crisis. We had all those new suburban houses, everyone had a car, everyone had a job and life was as good as it gets, although of course it wasn't except on TV shows.
If you were to ask most of the Trump supporters this is when America was great and what they think he will bring back. Its an empty promise since the world is a very different place and we have so much history since then, Vietnam, imported products, terrorism, computers and technology and the diversification of America, both socially and by nationality.
By almost any objective standard the world is better than it was back then. More people have been lifted out of poverty, more countries are democracies, we have instant information at our fingertips and we have developed technologies that allow us to provide food (the green revolution) for everybody. However as I pointed out this has not included the people who lived a privileged existence when American products dominated the world and good paying, union jobs were widely available.
There is no going back to that, no matter what vague promises are made. You can't put humpty dumpty together again, time to enjoy the omelette.
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Fairness
If you have been reading these, thanks, but today I want to continue more or less where I left off yesterday.
Jobs that used to be available to "working class" Americans have been disappearing. To a certain extent this is because they have moved overseas as economic reality forces the management to reduce production costs. Those who want to bring those jobs back and restore America to what it once was could only achieve that by effectively taxing consumers with increased costs and giving that money to the working class, or hidden welfare. This wouldn't be the only example of this, we subsidize farmers and prop up food prices and of course we already provide tax breaks to many industries to promote jobs.
Whether these policies are good or bad is probably a whole different discussion. The topic today is fairness and the fact that capitalists have made the most from this movement of jobs is viewed as unfair by many who want them to bring the jobs back. To do this they demand the Government intervene even while decrying big Government. They argue this movement of jobs has been unfair to them, since they did what they were told they needed to do, finish high school, serve in the military, work hard, raise a family, and find themselves on the short end of the stick. Of course they also defend rugged individualism while failing to be those rugged individuals themselves, failing to prepare themselves for this future.
I would also like to point out that the loss of jobs is also related to improved technology, not just movement. Even had all the manufacturing stayed in this country there would be less jobs and those jobs would require a higher skill level. It is fairly common that companies have trouble filling the jobs they do have because the available applicants lack the right skills.
Once again viewed as unfair by many. There may actually be a point to be made there since the productivity gains primarily benefited the owners and managers and not the displaced workers. Its a bit ironic that the only organizations likely to argue for workers sharing in these gains are unions which have become less and less popular since they are viewed as causing job loses by driving up costs. This leaves the working class more unrepresented and resentful because, well, it just isn't fair.
Capitalism by its nature is fair but cruel. Similar to nature, the strong survive and the weak perish. While it might be unfair to get a head start because your parents were successful, its in the long run simply a predictable outcome. If we want to level the playing field we have to adopt policies that are social in nature, like free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc. Everyone accepts the idea that we provide public education through high school which at one time was enough, but were not ready to do the same for college. This of course requires Government intervention and we have a large group of people convinced that Government intervention is always a bad thing. Of course the people who benefit from that happen to be the people who already have the money and don't want to share it.
You have to give them credit for the scam. Big Government has made us move your jobs overseas by signing trade deals. Therefore big Government is bad and look they give things to undeserving people and make deserving people pay taxes. Reduce Government interference, let us run our businesses and everything will get better. PT Barnum would be proud.
Jobs that used to be available to "working class" Americans have been disappearing. To a certain extent this is because they have moved overseas as economic reality forces the management to reduce production costs. Those who want to bring those jobs back and restore America to what it once was could only achieve that by effectively taxing consumers with increased costs and giving that money to the working class, or hidden welfare. This wouldn't be the only example of this, we subsidize farmers and prop up food prices and of course we already provide tax breaks to many industries to promote jobs.
Whether these policies are good or bad is probably a whole different discussion. The topic today is fairness and the fact that capitalists have made the most from this movement of jobs is viewed as unfair by many who want them to bring the jobs back. To do this they demand the Government intervene even while decrying big Government. They argue this movement of jobs has been unfair to them, since they did what they were told they needed to do, finish high school, serve in the military, work hard, raise a family, and find themselves on the short end of the stick. Of course they also defend rugged individualism while failing to be those rugged individuals themselves, failing to prepare themselves for this future.
I would also like to point out that the loss of jobs is also related to improved technology, not just movement. Even had all the manufacturing stayed in this country there would be less jobs and those jobs would require a higher skill level. It is fairly common that companies have trouble filling the jobs they do have because the available applicants lack the right skills.
Once again viewed as unfair by many. There may actually be a point to be made there since the productivity gains primarily benefited the owners and managers and not the displaced workers. Its a bit ironic that the only organizations likely to argue for workers sharing in these gains are unions which have become less and less popular since they are viewed as causing job loses by driving up costs. This leaves the working class more unrepresented and resentful because, well, it just isn't fair.
Capitalism by its nature is fair but cruel. Similar to nature, the strong survive and the weak perish. While it might be unfair to get a head start because your parents were successful, its in the long run simply a predictable outcome. If we want to level the playing field we have to adopt policies that are social in nature, like free education, health care, unemployment insurance, etc. etc. Everyone accepts the idea that we provide public education through high school which at one time was enough, but were not ready to do the same for college. This of course requires Government intervention and we have a large group of people convinced that Government intervention is always a bad thing. Of course the people who benefit from that happen to be the people who already have the money and don't want to share it.
You have to give them credit for the scam. Big Government has made us move your jobs overseas by signing trade deals. Therefore big Government is bad and look they give things to undeserving people and make deserving people pay taxes. Reduce Government interference, let us run our businesses and everything will get better. PT Barnum would be proud.
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
Direction
All politics are local is a pretty famous truism. The logic behind this is that voters are always aware of things that actually impact them and are, like most humans, pretty sure their experience is the most valid experience. So as I discussed the other day, you may have a single issue that you believe has to be fixed above all else (abortion, jobs, taxes, housing) because it has a direct impact on you (physically or emotionally). To the extent the electorate is experiencing the same things they will tend to vote the same. So in a farm district issues important to farmers will often dominate and since those districts tend to be church going, god fearing districts they even agree for the most part on social issues. Since the people who grow up in those districts with contrary life styles or beliefs are likely to move away it is self perpetuating. Similarly in a urban center with diverse populations, life styles, opportunities and beliefs, we are likely to have a completely different outcome in an election. You can predict the majority of congressional districts pretty reliably, at least when it comes to national elections.
Now I have found that most Americans except the general idea that America has shared values. However, what they think those shared values are is somewhat different, if not at the top level then in the way to achieve it. For example, look at National Defense. You can support it by wanting to be involved globally combating threats in the places they originate while trying to internationalize the concepts in our constitution or you can say keep our troops and money home, build a defense that no one will ever try to attack and let the rest of the world take care of itself. Both of those positions support a strong defense with probably the only common ground being a strong military.
Issue after issue follows the same pattern, a strong economy, education, immigration, health care, etc. etc. There is no way to really prove what works better, although there are plenty of examples, they are either inconclusive or they weren't implemented fully. Take international trade agreements. They are supposed to improve the overall world economy thereby lifting each nations economy in the process. However, while that may be true it does it by making the global economy more efficient. So if it is more efficient to do manual labor (manufacturing) in a foreign country while providing complex services here, it leads to many displaced workers who have antiquated skill sets. Yes goods get cheaper overall and maybe the total number of jobs is the same or better but the nature of those jobs is different and the impacted individuals are the victims.
This is not the first time we've had an experience like this, and it will work itself out over time, but a displaced factory worker who is making half of what he/she used to and who sees the products they used to make with a made in someplace else label on them feels betrayed. They worked hard, made good products and the company they worked for was profitable, so what happened?
Well what happened is the management of the company needed to stay competitive and to stay competitive they had to relocate production. As famously said in well known movies, it's just business.
Of course this seems like something that can be reversed, if things could just go back to the way they were.
More to follow.
Now I have found that most Americans except the general idea that America has shared values. However, what they think those shared values are is somewhat different, if not at the top level then in the way to achieve it. For example, look at National Defense. You can support it by wanting to be involved globally combating threats in the places they originate while trying to internationalize the concepts in our constitution or you can say keep our troops and money home, build a defense that no one will ever try to attack and let the rest of the world take care of itself. Both of those positions support a strong defense with probably the only common ground being a strong military.
Issue after issue follows the same pattern, a strong economy, education, immigration, health care, etc. etc. There is no way to really prove what works better, although there are plenty of examples, they are either inconclusive or they weren't implemented fully. Take international trade agreements. They are supposed to improve the overall world economy thereby lifting each nations economy in the process. However, while that may be true it does it by making the global economy more efficient. So if it is more efficient to do manual labor (manufacturing) in a foreign country while providing complex services here, it leads to many displaced workers who have antiquated skill sets. Yes goods get cheaper overall and maybe the total number of jobs is the same or better but the nature of those jobs is different and the impacted individuals are the victims.
This is not the first time we've had an experience like this, and it will work itself out over time, but a displaced factory worker who is making half of what he/she used to and who sees the products they used to make with a made in someplace else label on them feels betrayed. They worked hard, made good products and the company they worked for was profitable, so what happened?
Well what happened is the management of the company needed to stay competitive and to stay competitive they had to relocate production. As famously said in well known movies, it's just business.
Of course this seems like something that can be reversed, if things could just go back to the way they were.
More to follow.
Tuesday, August 2, 2016
More Meandering
Yesterday I was discussing how the parties have become more and more polarized as they respond to the fringe elements in their base. This is because so many Americans don't vote, either in the regular election or even more so in the primaries. The candidates who argued that the system was rigged were correct in a certain way, but it is really rigged in the favor of fringe candidates.
Number of people who voted in the primaries is being reported as 9% of all voting age Americans. This number could actually be representative if it was actually a valid sample of all voters. However it isn't, the ones who vote the most are those with a cause who want to express their point of view. If you are fairly content with things with a busy life, voting is a chore that you decide isn't worth it, especially in primaries.
The only way to fix this would be to make voting easier and rewarding. Unfortunately, having more people vote is not in the self interest of many of our elected officials who got elected by one or more of these fringe elements, especially at the local and state level. Consider the math. If you are in a state or district that always votes for one party you simply have to win that party's primary to get elected. So few people vote in primaries that you need to appeal to one or two fringe groups who will get out and vote for you. This path to success has been followed by many who have to maintain support by catering to the base that supported them and by keeping voting levels low.
In the Republican primaries none of the mainstream candidates lasted very long. Remember that Ted Cruz is by no means mainstream, he got elected by the tea party and evangelical fringe groups. Donald Trump is clearly not mainstream, and in fact has upset the party because he has created a whole new fringe group, angry people.
Are most Americans angry? I don't think so, but some are very angry as they lost high paying jobs in manufacturing or mining. They see an America that is becoming more inclusive which they view as curtailing their prior privileged position (it doesn't). They voted for prior candidates who made promises they couldn't keep even if they meant them and they feel betrayed.
How big is this group? I really don't know but its sizable and when energized can dominate primaries where so few people actually vote. Its not just Republicans, the angry Democrats have different issues, student debt, worthless college degrees, banks that are too big to fail but they are also angry. They made an impact and had the Sanders campaign got organized earlier we could be faced with a Trump vs Sanders general election.
As it is we have Trump vs Clinton. Republicans have always vilified the Clintons mainly because they keep losing to them. Of course they also vilify Obama but by now that's a bit meaningless.
If we want to fix the election process we have to make voting in primaries and regular elections easier and more inclusive. Unfortunately I don't see any real effort in that direction.
More to come.
Jim
Number of people who voted in the primaries is being reported as 9% of all voting age Americans. This number could actually be representative if it was actually a valid sample of all voters. However it isn't, the ones who vote the most are those with a cause who want to express their point of view. If you are fairly content with things with a busy life, voting is a chore that you decide isn't worth it, especially in primaries.
The only way to fix this would be to make voting easier and rewarding. Unfortunately, having more people vote is not in the self interest of many of our elected officials who got elected by one or more of these fringe elements, especially at the local and state level. Consider the math. If you are in a state or district that always votes for one party you simply have to win that party's primary to get elected. So few people vote in primaries that you need to appeal to one or two fringe groups who will get out and vote for you. This path to success has been followed by many who have to maintain support by catering to the base that supported them and by keeping voting levels low.
In the Republican primaries none of the mainstream candidates lasted very long. Remember that Ted Cruz is by no means mainstream, he got elected by the tea party and evangelical fringe groups. Donald Trump is clearly not mainstream, and in fact has upset the party because he has created a whole new fringe group, angry people.
Are most Americans angry? I don't think so, but some are very angry as they lost high paying jobs in manufacturing or mining. They see an America that is becoming more inclusive which they view as curtailing their prior privileged position (it doesn't). They voted for prior candidates who made promises they couldn't keep even if they meant them and they feel betrayed.
How big is this group? I really don't know but its sizable and when energized can dominate primaries where so few people actually vote. Its not just Republicans, the angry Democrats have different issues, student debt, worthless college degrees, banks that are too big to fail but they are also angry. They made an impact and had the Sanders campaign got organized earlier we could be faced with a Trump vs Sanders general election.
As it is we have Trump vs Clinton. Republicans have always vilified the Clintons mainly because they keep losing to them. Of course they also vilify Obama but by now that's a bit meaningless.
If we want to fix the election process we have to make voting in primaries and regular elections easier and more inclusive. Unfortunately I don't see any real effort in that direction.
More to come.
Jim
Monday, August 1, 2016
August thoughts
Well the first part of the general election has started and its obviously too early normally to predict but its pretty clear that the majority of Americans will come to the conclusion that the Republican candidate is way over the line on almost everything and while he is certainly entertaining, hes no President and leader of the free world. While of course odd things do happen this isn't really worth much discussion.
What is worth discussion is why he has so many backers. In fact, we seem to have developed a fragmented society and while the Republicans have captured the main group of people who feel America is doing badly (it isn't based on any factual data you look at) they are not limited to just the right.
I think this is worthy of some exploration just to flesh it out.
The first thing that I should note is that there were always single issue voters, voters who felt so strongly about a particular issue that they would support whoever was on their side, not matter what else they espoused. The biggest of these issues involve things like abortions, guns, gay rights, discrimination. Israel is one of these issues but there isn't a notable difference on either side.
So someone who is anti-abortion and who considers it murders will support a candidate even if all their other policies are not what they want. Of course they would prefer an anti-abortion candidate who also has other positions they support, but faced with a choice between two candidates they will vote for the one that is anti-abortion since they feel so strongly about it. Everything else can wait until they fix that one big issue.
So this has developed into the respective bases of the two major parties although it also to some extent maintains certain third parties. While not everybody is fanatical in this group, picking a party because it is pro life or pro gun or pro (fill in the blank) probably means that any candidate you nominate will get up to 30% of the nation's votes, on both sides. You can't normally persuade these voters to change sides without alienating your own base.
It is also clear that issues within each party can be at conflict with each other. You have your Tea Party Republicans and your Occupy Wall Street Democrats that oppose what were major party platforms related to business and the economy. They have both moved their respective parties away from the middle and made compromise almost impossible. The bottom line though is that while they have tremendous influence in primaries they become a liability during general elections where the independent middle gets to decide. So candidates have to appeal to those voters effectively betraying the fanatics who do in fact feel betrayed. Of course democracy means the will of the many outweighs the will of the few and what is perceived as betrayal is simply the way the process has to work. Is it rigged? Well rigged by the nature of democracy where the winner gets the most votes.
I'll continue this meandering train of thought later in the week,
What is worth discussion is why he has so many backers. In fact, we seem to have developed a fragmented society and while the Republicans have captured the main group of people who feel America is doing badly (it isn't based on any factual data you look at) they are not limited to just the right.
I think this is worthy of some exploration just to flesh it out.
The first thing that I should note is that there were always single issue voters, voters who felt so strongly about a particular issue that they would support whoever was on their side, not matter what else they espoused. The biggest of these issues involve things like abortions, guns, gay rights, discrimination. Israel is one of these issues but there isn't a notable difference on either side.
So someone who is anti-abortion and who considers it murders will support a candidate even if all their other policies are not what they want. Of course they would prefer an anti-abortion candidate who also has other positions they support, but faced with a choice between two candidates they will vote for the one that is anti-abortion since they feel so strongly about it. Everything else can wait until they fix that one big issue.
So this has developed into the respective bases of the two major parties although it also to some extent maintains certain third parties. While not everybody is fanatical in this group, picking a party because it is pro life or pro gun or pro (fill in the blank) probably means that any candidate you nominate will get up to 30% of the nation's votes, on both sides. You can't normally persuade these voters to change sides without alienating your own base.
It is also clear that issues within each party can be at conflict with each other. You have your Tea Party Republicans and your Occupy Wall Street Democrats that oppose what were major party platforms related to business and the economy. They have both moved their respective parties away from the middle and made compromise almost impossible. The bottom line though is that while they have tremendous influence in primaries they become a liability during general elections where the independent middle gets to decide. So candidates have to appeal to those voters effectively betraying the fanatics who do in fact feel betrayed. Of course democracy means the will of the many outweighs the will of the few and what is perceived as betrayal is simply the way the process has to work. Is it rigged? Well rigged by the nature of democracy where the winner gets the most votes.
I'll continue this meandering train of thought later in the week,
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Quick update
Got busy and haven't posted in quite a while but think its about time.
Not many followers read this and obviously there's been nothing to read. But just in case let me start with a quick update.
Last day at DCMA was July 1st and I may or may not do some consulting now but time to cut back on the full time work.
Looks like we are finally selling the Pratt Street house and its about time.
Deciding what to do with the Condo in Virginia use, rent or sell. Still up in the air.
Have a lot of work to do here in Lindenhurst do to my being away so much, but the weather has been too hot to do much outside.
Everyone is healthy mostly, and that's really all that matters.
This election is in full swing now and for pure entertainment value it will be hard to beat the primary season. Unfortunately, elections have turned into circuses in this country and we need to do something about that. Americans need to pay attention to the issues and stop rewarding negative campaigns and sensationalist claims.
If you know me at all it shouldn't be a surprise hat I support the Democratic candidate, who might have some flaws (who doesn't) but is clearly so much better qualified. I find it hard to believe it will even be competitive when the smoke clears.
Yankees are still in contention, but starting to look like they are preparing for the future by trading the great relievers they have. The bullpen was so strong it may be the best way to get great prospects.
Two months to go they need production from the aging stars to have any chance at all to squeak in.
Haven't been to a game in a few years but may go to one before this season ends.
That's enough for now.
Jim
Not many followers read this and obviously there's been nothing to read. But just in case let me start with a quick update.
Last day at DCMA was July 1st and I may or may not do some consulting now but time to cut back on the full time work.
Looks like we are finally selling the Pratt Street house and its about time.
Deciding what to do with the Condo in Virginia use, rent or sell. Still up in the air.
Have a lot of work to do here in Lindenhurst do to my being away so much, but the weather has been too hot to do much outside.
Everyone is healthy mostly, and that's really all that matters.
This election is in full swing now and for pure entertainment value it will be hard to beat the primary season. Unfortunately, elections have turned into circuses in this country and we need to do something about that. Americans need to pay attention to the issues and stop rewarding negative campaigns and sensationalist claims.
If you know me at all it shouldn't be a surprise hat I support the Democratic candidate, who might have some flaws (who doesn't) but is clearly so much better qualified. I find it hard to believe it will even be competitive when the smoke clears.
Yankees are still in contention, but starting to look like they are preparing for the future by trading the great relievers they have. The bullpen was so strong it may be the best way to get great prospects.
Two months to go they need production from the aging stars to have any chance at all to squeak in.
Haven't been to a game in a few years but may go to one before this season ends.
That's enough for now.
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)