I have been pondering what I could say about Donald Trump's speech on foreign policy. On the surface to anyone who hasn't thought about foreign policy as something that needs a coherent core, many things he said sounded reasonable. But then again, his whole instinct is insulting and demeaning people. Foreign policy is the art of getting people, whom you have little to no power over, to do things that you want them to; with whatever persuasive arguments you have to show what you want is in their best interest.
And as an individual from the Hoover Institution (a conservative think tank) pointed out, Trump was promising to make nice with Putin while arguing and insulting our friends in NATO and our southern neighbor, Mexico. And lest you think the Wall is going to be a productive infrastructure project, I will point out that the criminal elements already favor digging tunnels under what is already there and using submarines to get the really high priced contraband around whatever impediments we try to put into place.
My mental logjam was broken by reading today's insightful columns covering old ground. Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman discuss the fact that a substantial set of white voters are angry at what they perceive as the government not working for them. On the Democratic side that comes out in the form of populism and support for things that stick it to the wealthy and help the poor/young. On the Republican side, that comes out in a dislike for anything to do with the GOP establishment that promised Supply Side Economics would benefit everyone and wants to dismantle the safety net that helps people when they reach retirement age.
Paul Krugman analyzes why Clinton could successfully manage this anger. His theory is that Democratic leaders have sufficiently delivered on their promises and the base is sufficiently satisfied with their leadership to support them. GOP leaders, instead have focuses on anger and shutting down the government and not offering solutions to issues that their supporters, like the Democratic's supporters, are having to deal with in their everyday lives. When globalization has been causing your community problems for 30 years, you perceive a problem with political process. And that is why they are supporting Trump, even though he is also a supporter of tax cuts for the rich. What Trump doesn't support is paying for those tax cuts by cutting services to the people. I don't know how he will balance the budget? Perhaps he plans to get China to give the U.S.A. foreign aid to pay for it all.
David Brooks acknowledges that he doesn't have an answer to problems that he probably doesn't completely understand because he lives in the high income bubble. But he recognizes that the anger driving this election needs to be understood and policies developed to address it. I am sure that Brooks as a card carrying Republican wants balanced policies that do not disrupt things that are working broadly for the benefit of society. I would have to agree with that. In his mind, there are places in the U.S. where balanced policies have worked to address the problems and they need to be studied so ideas on how to spread them broadly across the landscape can be discussed.
I would start with health insurance. Paul Ryan wants to help fix the main problem with Obamacare which is that the cost of health insurance for all is being driven up by insuring those with pre-existing conditions. If the 5% or 10% of the population with pre-exisitng conditions had access to high risk pools subsidized by someone unidentified (why not put them into Medicare?), then the other 90% to 95% could enjoy the cost of health insurance for the relatively healthy. Of course, he still needs to address the working poor who cannot afford health insurance without assistance even if the cost does come down.
It seems to be there are many points that can generate they type of anger we see in this election cycle. That is David Brooks desire to identify them and see what can be done to address them. It is his belief that if people can have hope restored to their psychology they will be more rational and less radical voters.
I have long recognized that rural areas have been suffering economically for a long time. What is interesting in this long primary cycle, is that is where Bernie Sanders and Trump/Cruz run up their largest voting percentages. The U.S. rural areas are fired up with anger with no good solutions for their most fervent desires.
Link to Brook's column
Link to Kurgman column
Friday, April 29, 2016
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
I Didn't Realize How "Wrong" I Was on Globalization
Long time readers know I have recognized that U.S. Factory workers have suffered economically from globalization. What I didn't realize until a New York Times article this morning was how much it was influencing the outcomes for this primary election season.
I have been focused on Trump's birtherism against President Obama and all his other crude remarks towards various peoples. But it is really his anti-trade agreement stance that is fueling many of his supporters who are angry at the GOP establishment for not doing anything to protect their jobs.
This mistrust of trade agreements is also fueling some support for Bernie Sanders, including one Verizon workers (currently on strike) who says if Bernie isn't a candidate in November, he will probably vote for Trump. Now I can make a case that free trade has no effect on that Verizon workers employment prospects. His industry is a purely domestic one that is being buffeted by changes in technology, and he benefits from the lower cost of goods that globalization brings.
And overall, trade and globalization provide the revenues and profit margins that allow many companies to pay their workers very well. But the benefits of trade are spread across the whole population in a diffuse manner while the costs are concentrated in the lives of workers who lose their jobs.
Where I have been really really wrong is in my belief that people who have been sucking up their disappointment with what has happened to their livelihood without disrupting the overall trend would continue to do so, and allow time to equalize wages, at which point jobs will migrate back to the U.S. when it makes competitive sense for that to occur. And it is happening in some ways already.
But what Trump and Sanders have tapped into is that exact disappointment and there may be a sufficient numbers of votes for that concentrated issue that Congress will feel compelled to do something that I believe would be very dangerous to the overall health of the global economy.
And what is most interesting to me is that when the North lost these jobs to the South, the focus was on the roll of Unions in the North and the weakness of Unions in the South with costs being lower in the South. Now these Southern workers have lost their jobs and they are angry about it. And those workers in the North who are left are angry about it.
My tendency based upon my education in economics is to let the market and time force adjustment on capital and labor so that we have an efficient market economy. But individual people don't have the luxury of time as too much time just ends up with them being dead. And now they are rising up!
Will the people based in the global economy be able to protect the global economy? We shall see over the next 7 months. And it is no wonder the conservative blogosphere is so silent on this, this problem is not a point on the partisan spectrum so it is out of their framework. It is a bipartisan problem in need of a bipartisan solution.
I think the solution is some movement minimum wage increases (with different urban and rural levels) and infrastructure spending. With unemployment at 5%, you wouldn't need to export the 11 mm immigrants, you would need them to fill jobs. One benefit of that would be the Fed could raise interest rates and savers could return to the bond market with their investment capital.
Link to NYT article that motivated this blog
I have been focused on Trump's birtherism against President Obama and all his other crude remarks towards various peoples. But it is really his anti-trade agreement stance that is fueling many of his supporters who are angry at the GOP establishment for not doing anything to protect their jobs.
This mistrust of trade agreements is also fueling some support for Bernie Sanders, including one Verizon workers (currently on strike) who says if Bernie isn't a candidate in November, he will probably vote for Trump. Now I can make a case that free trade has no effect on that Verizon workers employment prospects. His industry is a purely domestic one that is being buffeted by changes in technology, and he benefits from the lower cost of goods that globalization brings.
And overall, trade and globalization provide the revenues and profit margins that allow many companies to pay their workers very well. But the benefits of trade are spread across the whole population in a diffuse manner while the costs are concentrated in the lives of workers who lose their jobs.
Where I have been really really wrong is in my belief that people who have been sucking up their disappointment with what has happened to their livelihood without disrupting the overall trend would continue to do so, and allow time to equalize wages, at which point jobs will migrate back to the U.S. when it makes competitive sense for that to occur. And it is happening in some ways already.
But what Trump and Sanders have tapped into is that exact disappointment and there may be a sufficient numbers of votes for that concentrated issue that Congress will feel compelled to do something that I believe would be very dangerous to the overall health of the global economy.
And what is most interesting to me is that when the North lost these jobs to the South, the focus was on the roll of Unions in the North and the weakness of Unions in the South with costs being lower in the South. Now these Southern workers have lost their jobs and they are angry about it. And those workers in the North who are left are angry about it.
My tendency based upon my education in economics is to let the market and time force adjustment on capital and labor so that we have an efficient market economy. But individual people don't have the luxury of time as too much time just ends up with them being dead. And now they are rising up!
Will the people based in the global economy be able to protect the global economy? We shall see over the next 7 months. And it is no wonder the conservative blogosphere is so silent on this, this problem is not a point on the partisan spectrum so it is out of their framework. It is a bipartisan problem in need of a bipartisan solution.
I think the solution is some movement minimum wage increases (with different urban and rural levels) and infrastructure spending. With unemployment at 5%, you wouldn't need to export the 11 mm immigrants, you would need them to fill jobs. One benefit of that would be the Fed could raise interest rates and savers could return to the bond market with their investment capital.
Link to NYT article that motivated this blog
Monday, April 25, 2016
Conservative Blogosphere Illustrates Why Trumpies Have Abandoned the GOP Establishment
I have been waiting for my friend RedStateVT to enlighten me on how conservatives are going to respond to the desires of the Trump supporters for health insurance that works for them, protecting Social Security and Medicare and doing something besides cutting taxes to support economic growth.
Instead, all he can do is write about how liberals want more income redistribution. I don't deny that Bernie Sanders, his Senator, whom I know he has never voted for (nor did I) is running his campaign to do that, but Hilary's moderate supporters understand there are limits to income redistribution and just want a government that funds itself to meet its promised obligations while creating and maintaining a well regulated playing field.
That in essence is what the Trumpies want too and what Donald Trump is promising them, although in his case, he would also destroy international trade to get his way.
But in any case, I would have thought the conservative blogosphere would be looking for conservative solutions that address people's problems. Like affordable health insurance. Health insurance was a mess before Obamacare, which was designed by the Heritage Foundation (a GOP think tank) as a way to expand the number of insured while keeping the private sector involved. But instead, the conservative blogosphere is just criticizing Bernie supporters for wanting a free college education and more income redistribution. Where is the critical introspection for dealing with the fact that Ted Cruz and all the other establishment conservatives have been rejected by a majority of the voting GOP.
Conservatives have been so busy criticizing everything Obama, they forgot they needed to have ideas that the voting population can believe in. And now that they are losing, they are blaming the voters for wanting a government that works and seeing liberal instincts in that. Every GOP President since Eisenhower, except maybe Bush II, believed in making government work for the people who vote them into office.
The conservative blogosphere does not acknowledge that as a lesson of this primary season.
Instead, all he can do is write about how liberals want more income redistribution. I don't deny that Bernie Sanders, his Senator, whom I know he has never voted for (nor did I) is running his campaign to do that, but Hilary's moderate supporters understand there are limits to income redistribution and just want a government that funds itself to meet its promised obligations while creating and maintaining a well regulated playing field.
That in essence is what the Trumpies want too and what Donald Trump is promising them, although in his case, he would also destroy international trade to get his way.
But in any case, I would have thought the conservative blogosphere would be looking for conservative solutions that address people's problems. Like affordable health insurance. Health insurance was a mess before Obamacare, which was designed by the Heritage Foundation (a GOP think tank) as a way to expand the number of insured while keeping the private sector involved. But instead, the conservative blogosphere is just criticizing Bernie supporters for wanting a free college education and more income redistribution. Where is the critical introspection for dealing with the fact that Ted Cruz and all the other establishment conservatives have been rejected by a majority of the voting GOP.
Conservatives have been so busy criticizing everything Obama, they forgot they needed to have ideas that the voting population can believe in. And now that they are losing, they are blaming the voters for wanting a government that works and seeing liberal instincts in that. Every GOP President since Eisenhower, except maybe Bush II, believed in making government work for the people who vote them into office.
The conservative blogosphere does not acknowledge that as a lesson of this primary season.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Character Flaws vs Personality Flaws
Donald Trump's political machine is making a case to the RNC that his issues are personality flaws that can be fixed while Hillary's problems are character flaws that cannot be fixed. I will come back to my view of Hillary's problems, but I fail to see the distinction that Trump's people are making.
What is the desire to uproot the lives of 11 million people? What is the desire to carpet bomb innocent people just so you can kill some terrorists? What is the desire to torture people to get them to lie to you? What is the desire to use shell companies to protect your wealth from your risky decisions that don't work out? What is the desire to tear up our constitution and discriminate based upon religion? What is the desire to denigrate people who don't agree with you? While some of those may be based upon personality they are representative of character also. Personality and character cannot be separated. So Trump's flaws are not fixable in the words of his own political machine.
Hillary's problems are two fold: (i) she has been on the national political scene for 24 years already and the only person in modern times who can claim such longevity is Richard Nixon and people were certainly tired of him; and (ii) like all administrative politicians, Hillary has made some decisions that were not the best, so her decision making is open to criticism. That is why I supported Martin O'Malley initially.
But I can also make the case that for a woman to be nominated and win the Presidency she needs a surplus of experience to convince people that she can be voted for. and Hillary has a surplus of experience.
What is the desire to uproot the lives of 11 million people? What is the desire to carpet bomb innocent people just so you can kill some terrorists? What is the desire to torture people to get them to lie to you? What is the desire to use shell companies to protect your wealth from your risky decisions that don't work out? What is the desire to tear up our constitution and discriminate based upon religion? What is the desire to denigrate people who don't agree with you? While some of those may be based upon personality they are representative of character also. Personality and character cannot be separated. So Trump's flaws are not fixable in the words of his own political machine.
Hillary's problems are two fold: (i) she has been on the national political scene for 24 years already and the only person in modern times who can claim such longevity is Richard Nixon and people were certainly tired of him; and (ii) like all administrative politicians, Hillary has made some decisions that were not the best, so her decision making is open to criticism. That is why I supported Martin O'Malley initially.
But I can also make the case that for a woman to be nominated and win the Presidency she needs a surplus of experience to convince people that she can be voted for. and Hillary has a surplus of experience.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Post NY Primary Musings
I don't think there is a perfect way to construct a primary electorate. Both Frank Bruni and Bernie Sanders think independent voters should be allowed to pick a party on election day and vote in a primary. A radical thought within me in response to that is why not allow everyone to vote in both primaries? If done honestly and with thought, it might help move the parties toward the middle and govern with compromises to the other side with the goal of clean efficient government. But with our current state of partisanship it could also lead to mischief voting which might well not be useful.
I have never had a problem with the parties saying only registered voters can vote in a primary. That made sense to me. If people want to vote in a primary, they register as members of the party by a deadline. They have to anticipate that and comply with the deadline. And the deadline has to be early enough for voter lists to be transmitted to each polling location.
Meanwhile Ted Cruz said Sarah Palin like comments after losing in NY. I would never say they had similar IQ's, so it must be something in the bitterness that passes for conservatism today.
"You may have been knocked down, but America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat, and the crowd has given the final count ... It is time as us for a nation to shake it off and be who we were destined to be.”
NY is the 3rd largest populated state in the U.S. If you have been rejected by a state's voters, you would think you would contemplate what motivated those people to vote for the other guy rather than dismiss the whole state for rejecting you and vowing to continue on your path to force the state to comply with your view. But that is why NY rejected Ted Cruz. I am not sure why the NY GOP rejected John Kasich, although he did win somewhere in NYC and maybe Albany.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is flying in a plane he owns which had its registration expire in January. Thus, he is flying a plane that is illegal to fly. Similar behavior to an undocumented worker crossing the border to work in the U.S. because he wants and needs to be somewhere to achieve what he wants to achieve. You would think Trump would be more sympathetic to such behavior since he exhibits such behavior.
And last but not certainly not the least. Newsmax.com, an extremely right wing website that I click on occasionally through Yahoo, is flat out for Trump now, saying if a contested convention steals it from Trump, it will show the evils of the party elders, who in their mind are the Bush neoconservative wing of the party who in their words, led us into the disaster of Iraq and all its fallout. Unfortunately, their prescription (Trump's positions) of securing the borders, tossing all the undocumented over the wall and tearing up trade treaties will only generate a massive recession with higher inflation.
I have never had a problem with the parties saying only registered voters can vote in a primary. That made sense to me. If people want to vote in a primary, they register as members of the party by a deadline. They have to anticipate that and comply with the deadline. And the deadline has to be early enough for voter lists to be transmitted to each polling location.
Meanwhile Ted Cruz said Sarah Palin like comments after losing in NY. I would never say they had similar IQ's, so it must be something in the bitterness that passes for conservatism today.
"You may have been knocked down, but America has always been best when she is lying down with her back on the mat, and the crowd has given the final count ... It is time as us for a nation to shake it off and be who we were destined to be.”
NY is the 3rd largest populated state in the U.S. If you have been rejected by a state's voters, you would think you would contemplate what motivated those people to vote for the other guy rather than dismiss the whole state for rejecting you and vowing to continue on your path to force the state to comply with your view. But that is why NY rejected Ted Cruz. I am not sure why the NY GOP rejected John Kasich, although he did win somewhere in NYC and maybe Albany.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is flying in a plane he owns which had its registration expire in January. Thus, he is flying a plane that is illegal to fly. Similar behavior to an undocumented worker crossing the border to work in the U.S. because he wants and needs to be somewhere to achieve what he wants to achieve. You would think Trump would be more sympathetic to such behavior since he exhibits such behavior.
And last but not certainly not the least. Newsmax.com, an extremely right wing website that I click on occasionally through Yahoo, is flat out for Trump now, saying if a contested convention steals it from Trump, it will show the evils of the party elders, who in their mind are the Bush neoconservative wing of the party who in their words, led us into the disaster of Iraq and all its fallout. Unfortunately, their prescription (Trump's positions) of securing the borders, tossing all the undocumented over the wall and tearing up trade treaties will only generate a massive recession with higher inflation.
Friday, April 15, 2016
The Problems With All the Candidates for President
I watched the Democratic Debate last night. Funny, how an election that you can participate in focuses the mind on watching these intense people work to convince us that we should vote for them. I would not want to have a beer with any of them, I don't think any of them drink. How could you pop a few back and then go out and campaign? Raise money? Think about critical issues?
Anyway, I came away with an understanding of every candidates weakness as a candidate.
Hillary can be attacked from the left and the right because (i) she has a long track record of centrist policies and (ii) decisions which might have been better than the alternative, but are still open to attack because things did not work out well. And she has been on the national scene for 24 years and many people are tired of her. The national attention span does not tolerate anyone being acceptable for 24 years, except for possibly a rock star or a movie star, but they get to disappear when not touring or promoting a film, unlike politics which is 24/7.
Bernie does not do details. He is a big picture guy with some knowledge of things he is interested in. But he does not understand the complexity of the economy and his economic policies cannot be implemented because even centrist Democrats would not support some of his proposals, let alone the GOP. And how is he going to pay for public college education for all? He is going to have the states pay 1/3 of it. I have no idea how states which are cutting spending for k-12 education because they prefer to cut taxes or at least contain taxes (even NY is doing that) are going to find the funds to pay for all this free college. This stuff fires up the young voters, but it is not practical. And I cannot believe how pro-palestinian Bernie was in the debate. I may think Israel has to go down a different path which includes a two state solution because a one state solution is not a peaceful solution, but I disagree strongly with Bernie that only Israel did bad things in Gaza. Hamas started the whole thing and is a terrorist supporting government. And that is the beauty of a two state solution, even terrorist governments have to govern well if they want a happy population and they can be held accountable for their terrorist actions which deny's the population happiness, and, hopefully, they hold their government responsible changing that government's behavior. That is my pipe dream. But Bernie would be a failed President because he does not do details.
John Kasich does not have a coherent plan for health insurance, but he might if he were running as a Democrat. Unfortunately for him, he is what passes for a centrist Republican now, which is a RINO to some and he is part of the establishment GOP which has lied to so many of the GOP rank and file that everyone, whether they did that or not, is subject to the anger that the GOP rank and file feel.
What is amazing is Ted Cruz has promulgated many of those positions that lead to the lying that has disillusioned the rank and file, and even formulated some of his own original positions (shutting down the government as a strategy when you cannot get what you want the normal way) that feed that disillusioning. And some 65% of the population does not like him. He did 2 days in NY and then fled to California where I doubt he is spending much time in L.A. or S.F. And I doubt we will see him in NY again. If he won the Presidency, would he even come to speak at the U.N.? Does anyone else find his voice grating? Ted Cruz is very scary.
There are many problems with Donald Trump and it all rolls up into 70% of the population not liking him. Donald Trump is HUGELY SCAREY.
And I cannot remember, whether it is Trump or Cruz, but one of them is feuding with the Drudge Report. Maybe the conservative spin Dr's are consuming themselves. That would be a positive.
Well that runs through all the candidates, and I will be voting for Hillary Tuesday because she is qualified and 4 years of Hillary will absolutely have the Talk Radio Right and Pundit Class fuming at the GOP's ineptitude.
Anyway, I came away with an understanding of every candidates weakness as a candidate.
Hillary can be attacked from the left and the right because (i) she has a long track record of centrist policies and (ii) decisions which might have been better than the alternative, but are still open to attack because things did not work out well. And she has been on the national scene for 24 years and many people are tired of her. The national attention span does not tolerate anyone being acceptable for 24 years, except for possibly a rock star or a movie star, but they get to disappear when not touring or promoting a film, unlike politics which is 24/7.
Bernie does not do details. He is a big picture guy with some knowledge of things he is interested in. But he does not understand the complexity of the economy and his economic policies cannot be implemented because even centrist Democrats would not support some of his proposals, let alone the GOP. And how is he going to pay for public college education for all? He is going to have the states pay 1/3 of it. I have no idea how states which are cutting spending for k-12 education because they prefer to cut taxes or at least contain taxes (even NY is doing that) are going to find the funds to pay for all this free college. This stuff fires up the young voters, but it is not practical. And I cannot believe how pro-palestinian Bernie was in the debate. I may think Israel has to go down a different path which includes a two state solution because a one state solution is not a peaceful solution, but I disagree strongly with Bernie that only Israel did bad things in Gaza. Hamas started the whole thing and is a terrorist supporting government. And that is the beauty of a two state solution, even terrorist governments have to govern well if they want a happy population and they can be held accountable for their terrorist actions which deny's the population happiness, and, hopefully, they hold their government responsible changing that government's behavior. That is my pipe dream. But Bernie would be a failed President because he does not do details.
John Kasich does not have a coherent plan for health insurance, but he might if he were running as a Democrat. Unfortunately for him, he is what passes for a centrist Republican now, which is a RINO to some and he is part of the establishment GOP which has lied to so many of the GOP rank and file that everyone, whether they did that or not, is subject to the anger that the GOP rank and file feel.
What is amazing is Ted Cruz has promulgated many of those positions that lead to the lying that has disillusioned the rank and file, and even formulated some of his own original positions (shutting down the government as a strategy when you cannot get what you want the normal way) that feed that disillusioning. And some 65% of the population does not like him. He did 2 days in NY and then fled to California where I doubt he is spending much time in L.A. or S.F. And I doubt we will see him in NY again. If he won the Presidency, would he even come to speak at the U.N.? Does anyone else find his voice grating? Ted Cruz is very scary.
There are many problems with Donald Trump and it all rolls up into 70% of the population not liking him. Donald Trump is HUGELY SCAREY.
And I cannot remember, whether it is Trump or Cruz, but one of them is feuding with the Drudge Report. Maybe the conservative spin Dr's are consuming themselves. That would be a positive.
Well that runs through all the candidates, and I will be voting for Hillary Tuesday because she is qualified and 4 years of Hillary will absolutely have the Talk Radio Right and Pundit Class fuming at the GOP's ineptitude.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Nothing is Ever as Simple as a Politician Desires
There are so many examples of this in today's news, I'm not sure where to start, so I shall see where we go.
Donald Trump Claims the Convention Delegate appointment process is rigged against him. Sorry Donald, you use shell companies and the legal code to isolate your properties from each other so that lenders can only look to each property for repayment. You were able to figure that out, why can't you figure out how to get your people appointed as convention delegates? You have only yourself to blame because you didn't bother to figure out the process and if you can't do that, how are you going to manage the country well? I don't think you have the intelligence or sufficient ability to grasp the complexity that managing the country requires. And you are an unworthy human being who uses their name to take advantage of other people to enrich yourself. That may be marketing genius, but when you don't pay your debts, you are unworthy of admiration.
But Trump is only gathering the anger that a substantial percentage of white America reflects. Steven Rattner follows up one of my earlier posts that Congressional opposition to all things Obama created this anger at the GOP establishment. Helping people who lose their job to globalization and technology is complicated and not every possible path will be a good expenditure of public funds. But President Obama proposed various things and the GOP Congress shot them down. Now they are paying the price in the form of Donald Trump.
Link to Rattner Column
Meanwhile, drought in Africa, war like conditions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the NE corner of Nigeria have created a complex source of migration by people who want to live somewhere safe. One example of that is described by Thomas Friedman who was in Niger.
"Says the U.N.’s Barbut, “Desertification acts as the trigger, and climate change acts as an amplifier of the political challenges we are witnessing today: economic migrants, interethnic conflicts and extremism.” She shows me three maps of Africa with an oblong outline around a bunch of dots clustered in the middle of the continent. Map No. 1: the most vulnerable regions of desertification in Africa in 2008. Map No. 2: conflicts and food riots in Africa 2007-2008. Map No. 3: terrorist attacks in Africa in 2012."
Bombing them to smithereens is not going to solve desertification, conflicts and food riots which cause the desperation that leads to migration and radicalization. Solving this problem is very complex.
Link to Friedman column
And I cannot let John Kasich off the hook today. While he is the most reasonable GOP candidate left, I saw an interview of him yesterday. When asked about Health Insurance, he said of course we need to repeal Obamacare, but he added, we will protect people with pre-existing conditions.
How do you make such insurance affordable if the healthy people are not required to buy health insurance?
How do you make the health insurance companies profitable if people with pre-existing conditions can just buy health insurance when they need to?
And how do you keep the hospitals and clinics financially viable if the uninsured, who cannot afford health insurance, are showing up there when they are sick?
And what about the economic costs of people not maintaining their health because they don't have heath insurance.
Health care is complex and his simple answer was loaded with followup questions which were not asked.
I almost forgot Bernie. He is running ad's here in NY saying he will break up the banks, make college free and end income inequality by ending the rigging of the system. Yet, when asked for details on how he would accomplish any of that. he says that has to be worked out in the future. Well, none of that is simple, any paths have complex side effects and little of it is politically practical. That is not the basis for running the government effectively and I will not vote for him this time, just as I never voted for him when I lived in Vermont. I don't disagree with his policy goals, but I believe in effective and well managed government.
Donald Trump Claims the Convention Delegate appointment process is rigged against him. Sorry Donald, you use shell companies and the legal code to isolate your properties from each other so that lenders can only look to each property for repayment. You were able to figure that out, why can't you figure out how to get your people appointed as convention delegates? You have only yourself to blame because you didn't bother to figure out the process and if you can't do that, how are you going to manage the country well? I don't think you have the intelligence or sufficient ability to grasp the complexity that managing the country requires. And you are an unworthy human being who uses their name to take advantage of other people to enrich yourself. That may be marketing genius, but when you don't pay your debts, you are unworthy of admiration.
But Trump is only gathering the anger that a substantial percentage of white America reflects. Steven Rattner follows up one of my earlier posts that Congressional opposition to all things Obama created this anger at the GOP establishment. Helping people who lose their job to globalization and technology is complicated and not every possible path will be a good expenditure of public funds. But President Obama proposed various things and the GOP Congress shot them down. Now they are paying the price in the form of Donald Trump.
Link to Rattner Column
Meanwhile, drought in Africa, war like conditions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, the NE corner of Nigeria have created a complex source of migration by people who want to live somewhere safe. One example of that is described by Thomas Friedman who was in Niger.
"Says the U.N.’s Barbut, “Desertification acts as the trigger, and climate change acts as an amplifier of the political challenges we are witnessing today: economic migrants, interethnic conflicts and extremism.” She shows me three maps of Africa with an oblong outline around a bunch of dots clustered in the middle of the continent. Map No. 1: the most vulnerable regions of desertification in Africa in 2008. Map No. 2: conflicts and food riots in Africa 2007-2008. Map No. 3: terrorist attacks in Africa in 2012."
Bombing them to smithereens is not going to solve desertification, conflicts and food riots which cause the desperation that leads to migration and radicalization. Solving this problem is very complex.
Link to Friedman column
And I cannot let John Kasich off the hook today. While he is the most reasonable GOP candidate left, I saw an interview of him yesterday. When asked about Health Insurance, he said of course we need to repeal Obamacare, but he added, we will protect people with pre-existing conditions.
How do you make such insurance affordable if the healthy people are not required to buy health insurance?
How do you make the health insurance companies profitable if people with pre-existing conditions can just buy health insurance when they need to?
And how do you keep the hospitals and clinics financially viable if the uninsured, who cannot afford health insurance, are showing up there when they are sick?
And what about the economic costs of people not maintaining their health because they don't have heath insurance.
Health care is complex and his simple answer was loaded with followup questions which were not asked.
I almost forgot Bernie. He is running ad's here in NY saying he will break up the banks, make college free and end income inequality by ending the rigging of the system. Yet, when asked for details on how he would accomplish any of that. he says that has to be worked out in the future. Well, none of that is simple, any paths have complex side effects and little of it is politically practical. That is not the basis for running the government effectively and I will not vote for him this time, just as I never voted for him when I lived in Vermont. I don't disagree with his policy goals, but I believe in effective and well managed government.
Monday, April 11, 2016
Fracking is Environmentally Sound
Bad Operators have given fracking a bad name in some quarters, and there are aspects of fracking that inconvenience those who live near a well. But the fact is, every form of energy extraction inconveniences someone who lives nearby. Even wind and solar can inconvenience someone who lives nearby, or so the NIMBY's who fight those things claim.
We don't have an economy or economic wealth or anything anyone cares about in their life style or basic sustenance without energy.
I have attached a link to a column written by a liberal that is far more knowledgeable about the details of why fracking is environmentally sound policy.
Link to column
We don't have an economy or economic wealth or anything anyone cares about in their life style or basic sustenance without energy.
I have attached a link to a column written by a liberal that is far more knowledgeable about the details of why fracking is environmentally sound policy.
Link to column
Sunday, April 10, 2016
5 Myths About Global Trade
As you might suspect, this supports my view that the U.S. wins more than it loses from global trade and there is no nirvana for factory workers from trade barriers.
Global Trade Myths column
Global Trade Myths column
Friday, April 8, 2016
Conservative Pundits Look For a Solution and Putin Shows a Sensitivity
Charles Krauthammer and David Brooks tried today to find a solution to the GOP problems. They are both grasping at what I hope are long shots low in probability to a Democratic victory that shows the GOP that the public does not buy into trickle down economics and hyper-partisan politics any more.
Link to CK column
Link to DB column
The problem with David Brook's hopeful path, is that I don't believe that GOP exists anymore. Moderate Republicans have been driven into the Democratic Party being called RINO's and having their moderate positions ridiculed.
I have a good number of GOP friends, and while only RedStateVT has a blog, where you can track his beliefs (He wishes Dick Chaney were running for President), I know MC and RM hold similar beliefs on many issues. RR might fall into David Brook's slip stream, but I haven't discussed politics with him in a while and he definitely voted GOP in the last two elections and has been none to very Bush II like in his approach to the world. As for the rest of them, the only place I can track them is Facebook and most seem to like Donald Trump believing that immigration and trade are the reason the working class have it so tough. So I don't think David Brook's path has a chance in hell of occurring.
I sympathize with the working class, but I believe immigration and trade mitigate the stress that technology, growth in global labor forces with sufficient education for manufacturing and slavishness to corporate shareholder and management income is the primary cause of that stress. You cannot offset comparative advantage with a wall, you need domestic policies that improve your comparative advantage and maintain the overall architecture of the economic base (i.e. infrastructure and a level playing field for competition).
And lastly, suddenly Putin is saying the Panama Papers are a CIA plot against Russia. What poppycock!!! Why would the CIA go after the President of Iceland or David Cameroon's family?
The fact that Putin is so sensitive to the Oligarch's use of global financial manipulation can only mean one thing, even though he is not named in any of the documents, Putin is on the take somehow. It is well hidden, but make no doubt about it. Money is being skimmed off the Russian economy and it is being funneled by Putin cronies to him. Maybe not today, but in the future. Otherwise, why would he try to protect them by calling it a CIA plot?
And lastly, while I support work requirements for people to receive support, and I think the government has to more closely examine disability claims, the fact is that hungry people without jobs tend to find it hard to find a job and are more likely to commit a crime to get some money to feed themselves. Isn't that what Les Miserables is all about? But compassion is not a hallmark of this GOP Congress.
Link to column on the Do Nothing Congress as Prime Example 1 of Receiving a paycheck for not working
Link to CK column
Link to DB column
The problem with David Brook's hopeful path, is that I don't believe that GOP exists anymore. Moderate Republicans have been driven into the Democratic Party being called RINO's and having their moderate positions ridiculed.
I have a good number of GOP friends, and while only RedStateVT has a blog, where you can track his beliefs (He wishes Dick Chaney were running for President), I know MC and RM hold similar beliefs on many issues. RR might fall into David Brook's slip stream, but I haven't discussed politics with him in a while and he definitely voted GOP in the last two elections and has been none to very Bush II like in his approach to the world. As for the rest of them, the only place I can track them is Facebook and most seem to like Donald Trump believing that immigration and trade are the reason the working class have it so tough. So I don't think David Brook's path has a chance in hell of occurring.
I sympathize with the working class, but I believe immigration and trade mitigate the stress that technology, growth in global labor forces with sufficient education for manufacturing and slavishness to corporate shareholder and management income is the primary cause of that stress. You cannot offset comparative advantage with a wall, you need domestic policies that improve your comparative advantage and maintain the overall architecture of the economic base (i.e. infrastructure and a level playing field for competition).
And lastly, suddenly Putin is saying the Panama Papers are a CIA plot against Russia. What poppycock!!! Why would the CIA go after the President of Iceland or David Cameroon's family?
The fact that Putin is so sensitive to the Oligarch's use of global financial manipulation can only mean one thing, even though he is not named in any of the documents, Putin is on the take somehow. It is well hidden, but make no doubt about it. Money is being skimmed off the Russian economy and it is being funneled by Putin cronies to him. Maybe not today, but in the future. Otherwise, why would he try to protect them by calling it a CIA plot?
And lastly, while I support work requirements for people to receive support, and I think the government has to more closely examine disability claims, the fact is that hungry people without jobs tend to find it hard to find a job and are more likely to commit a crime to get some money to feed themselves. Isn't that what Les Miserables is all about? But compassion is not a hallmark of this GOP Congress.
Link to column on the Do Nothing Congress as Prime Example 1 of Receiving a paycheck for not working
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
What I Regret Most About Heightened Partisanship
Thomas Friedman reviews a book today that deserves considered thought by all parts of the political spectrum. What I regret most about our heightened state of partisanship is that there is no common sense of problems or goals, with the result that there is little dialogue about the traditional GOP/Democratic intellectual examination of the role of the government vs the role of the markets.
The book is about what should be the goal of American Foreign Policy. An area where there used to be bi-partisan examination of policy with agreement on what the problems and goals were, if not the exact policy that would get us there. Now all politics seems to be a blood sport about winning and having it "my way" with no respect for what the views of the other side are. Perhaps that is inevitable on certain issues which derive from fundamentally held personal views on those issues, but other issues such as the government must provide basic services and national security and both must be paid for deserve dialog with respect for each other's point of view.
I will digress for a minute. NY Mayor Di Blasio has diverted money from a water tunnel project that is essential for the vitality of NYC. The current water tunnels have not been inspected or had maintenance performed on them since they were built and flooded 80 or 90 years ago. The new tunnel, which will allow that maintenance is almost finished, but still 5 or 6 years away from completion. So what does the mayor do, he diverts the funding for this work to other parts of the budget so he can limit the increase in water and sewer bills. You cannot use infrastructure as a tool of social policy, that only produces bankruptcy as we see in Puerto Rico. It only produces a failed system as we see with the Washington D.C. Metro. Infrastructure must be funded because an economy does not exist without infrastructure.
But the topic of the day is foreign policy. Friedman reviews a book, Mission Failure by Michael Mandelbaum. The focus on the book is the transition of U.S. foreign policy from efforts to contain countries conduct of affairs outside their borders to influencing the conduct of affairs inside their borders. And the need for the citizens within those borders to be able to effectively conduct those affairs in a manner that U.S. policy seeks.
The book is about what should be the goal of American Foreign Policy. An area where there used to be bi-partisan examination of policy with agreement on what the problems and goals were, if not the exact policy that would get us there. Now all politics seems to be a blood sport about winning and having it "my way" with no respect for what the views of the other side are. Perhaps that is inevitable on certain issues which derive from fundamentally held personal views on those issues, but other issues such as the government must provide basic services and national security and both must be paid for deserve dialog with respect for each other's point of view.
I will digress for a minute. NY Mayor Di Blasio has diverted money from a water tunnel project that is essential for the vitality of NYC. The current water tunnels have not been inspected or had maintenance performed on them since they were built and flooded 80 or 90 years ago. The new tunnel, which will allow that maintenance is almost finished, but still 5 or 6 years away from completion. So what does the mayor do, he diverts the funding for this work to other parts of the budget so he can limit the increase in water and sewer bills. You cannot use infrastructure as a tool of social policy, that only produces bankruptcy as we see in Puerto Rico. It only produces a failed system as we see with the Washington D.C. Metro. Infrastructure must be funded because an economy does not exist without infrastructure.
But the topic of the day is foreign policy. Friedman reviews a book, Mission Failure by Michael Mandelbaum. The focus on the book is the transition of U.S. foreign policy from efforts to contain countries conduct of affairs outside their borders to influencing the conduct of affairs inside their borders. And the need for the citizens within those borders to be able to effectively conduct those affairs in a manner that U.S. policy seeks.
"Beginning with the 1991 decision of the first Bush administration to intervene in northern Iraq and create a no-fly zone to protect the Iraqi Kurds from their country’s genocidal leader, Saddam Hussein, “the principal international initiatives of the United States” for the next two decades “concerned the internal politics and economics rather than the external behavior of other countries,” writes Mandelbaum, with whom I co-wrote a book in 2011, “That Used to Be Us”.
“The main focus of American foreign policy shifted from war to governance, from what other governments did beyond their borders to what they did and how they were organized within them,” writes Mandelbaum, referring to U.S. operations in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan and toward Chinese human rights policy, Russian democratization policy, NATO expansion and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
“The United States after the Cold War … became the equivalent of a very wealthy person, the multibillionaire among nations,” he argues. “It left the realm of necessity that it had inhabited during the Cold War and entered the world of choice. It chose to spend some of its vast reserves of power on the geopolitical equivalent of luxury items; the remaking of other countries.”
.............................
"Don’t get him wrong, Mandelbaum says. The U.S. beat back some very bad actors in Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, and later in Libya. “The military missions that the United States undertook succeeded. It was the political missions that followed, the efforts to transform the politics of the places where American arms prevailed, that failed.”
You would think that the Presidential campaign would at least be recognizing that Foreign Policy is an issue worth discussing. Instead, it is caught up in the partisan war of words with no respect or recognition that we need other countries to cooperate. Trump wants to use economic force to get the things he wants. Cruz wants to bomb innocent people who are necessary to a solution. I have no idea what Mitch Mitchell wants other than to continue to collect his Majority Leader paycheck. Sanders thinks we can ignore the world. And the voters are not being educated in the manner necessary to gain political support for a bi-partisan foreign policy. I have no regret greater than this.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Donald Trump Speaks GOP Truth and a Simplified Way to Analyze the Election Campaign
1st, curtesy of an email from a son to a father who is a friend of ours. No idea of the original artist and not sure how I get the picture twice. When I delete the copy I see below, I delete both copies.
And how did Donald Trump speak the truth. The GOP does believe in punishing women who get abortions or who even have sex that generates a pregnancy, while they limit access to birth control by defunding and shutting down Planned Parenthood offices. An unwanted pregnancy is punishment, as is the trauma of getting an abortion. Women, who make bad decisions, are punished one way or the other. But there is no equivalent punishment for the men who got them pregnant. And Donald Trump doesn't think there should be.
And pity upon the woman who doesn't have access to a legal abortion, she will go to jail in some states.
" In Indiana last year, Purvi Patel was sentenced to 20 years in prison for what the prosecutor charged was an illegal self-abortion. In Tennessee, Anna Yocca was charged with attempted murder for trying to end her pregnancy with a coat hanger. In Pennsylvania, Jennifer Whalen went to jail for giving her daughter abortion pills. Have our kinder, gentler abortion opponents spoken up for any of these women?"
Friday, April 1, 2016
The GOP's Problem from my RINO Point of View and the Democrat's Challenge
There are really two problems and they combine to make winning the Electoral College a challenge. One could say the same thing for the Democrats and I will below.
The biggest challenge to the GOP is trickle down economics which the high income people love doesn't work for Blue Collar workers and these people have lost their economic base over the last 20 years and have now woken up to that fact and are angry about it. So they like their social security and Medicare and Medicaid and don't want it messed with.
The second problem is the GOP has driven out its socially liberal financially conservative members such as myself by being disrespectful to anyone who thinks people of all persuasions deserve their liberties under the Constitution.
The Democratic's challenge is to protect the social safety net without going overboard with it, and that is why I will be voting for Hillary in two weeks in the NY primary because we cannot afford free college tuition for everybody. Bernie is raising young peoples hopes without a hope or prayer of it being affordable. And the Democrat's challenge is to keep the party respectful of gun owners rights and religious people so people like that will vote for a Democrat once in a while or maybe even more often than that.
The Democrat's have not done well with their challenge over the last 6 years, but I will say this. President Obama has one potential great achievement that will go down in history as one of the most unbelievable accomplishments when not trying to achieve something. The President has generated so much dislike that the energy emanating from the anti-Obama movement has exploded in 3 directions and threatens to cause the GOP to divide into two parties: The Trump movement which is attractive to the anti-immigration, we want respect and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; the Cruz movement which is attractive to the socially conservative, anti-tax and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; and the Big Business trickle down crowd which has historically provided the GOP leadership. RINO's of course are now Democrats or Independents.
The biggest challenge to the GOP is trickle down economics which the high income people love doesn't work for Blue Collar workers and these people have lost their economic base over the last 20 years and have now woken up to that fact and are angry about it. So they like their social security and Medicare and Medicaid and don't want it messed with.
The second problem is the GOP has driven out its socially liberal financially conservative members such as myself by being disrespectful to anyone who thinks people of all persuasions deserve their liberties under the Constitution.
The Democratic's challenge is to protect the social safety net without going overboard with it, and that is why I will be voting for Hillary in two weeks in the NY primary because we cannot afford free college tuition for everybody. Bernie is raising young peoples hopes without a hope or prayer of it being affordable. And the Democrat's challenge is to keep the party respectful of gun owners rights and religious people so people like that will vote for a Democrat once in a while or maybe even more often than that.
The Democrat's have not done well with their challenge over the last 6 years, but I will say this. President Obama has one potential great achievement that will go down in history as one of the most unbelievable accomplishments when not trying to achieve something. The President has generated so much dislike that the energy emanating from the anti-Obama movement has exploded in 3 directions and threatens to cause the GOP to divide into two parties: The Trump movement which is attractive to the anti-immigration, we want respect and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; the Cruz movement which is attractive to the socially conservative, anti-tax and we don't trust GOP leadership crowd; and the Big Business trickle down crowd which has historically provided the GOP leadership. RINO's of course are now Democrats or Independents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)