I see a real problem facing mankind, especially those of us who live in the more advanced civilizations. In short it's the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics. And, it isn't the reason that science fiction writers love, where advanced machines try to take over the world. It's societies ever increasing use of advanced robotics to perform tasks that was once done by people.
Think about it. Do you really need a waitress at a restaurant? Not if AI advances much more than it is right now. You can certainly place your order using some kind of interface, such as a touch screen display. Your order could be prepared by an AI controlled robot and delivered to you table by an AI controlled cart. Even the clean up will be controlled by machines.
Self driving cars are already in the pipeline and will become common pretty soon. What will follow is self driving trucks and buses. How about self piloting planes? That certainly is a technical possibility.
Warehouses, already heavy in automation will become more so with the advance of AI and robotics. Pretty soon there will be no need for humans in that profession at all.
How about medicine? It is in the foreseeable future that machines controlled by advanced AI can do diagnostics and treatment better than any human doctor because of the ability to draw on vast medical data bases, and the ability to correlate all the information it can gather about your health. Machines will perform complex operations that no human can manage because of the precision of the AI controlled movement. In the not too distant future you may never actually need to see a live doctor at all to get the best medical care. Misdiagnosis will be a thing of the past. Something that happens all to often now. I know personally about that problem. You can get all your checkups and other examinations at home, along with necessary prescriptions filled and delivered to your door within one hour by machine. If you need more extensive examinations or procedures you visit a local clinic where you check in and then let a AI controlled robot perform those tasks. No waiting.
Dental care will be performed completely by AI controlled machines. Examinations and necessary corrective procedures can and will be performed without the interaction with a dentist or dental technician.
The number of humans necessary to build a car or truck, or for that matter any product that we use, has already been reduced by the reliance on automation. With advanced AI the need for people to build anything in a factory may nearly disappear all together.
To make matters worse, with advanced AI the machines will become self repairing. So the need for humans to maintain the machines will be significantly reduced.
Farming, already highly mechanized will move further into that direction so the need for humans to grow, tend to and harvest our food will be significantly reduced.
And, the list goes on.
AI controlled automation will make all the things we use cheaper, far better made with higher reliability and more available. That's the good side.
The problem is--where are all the people, put out of work by the prolific use of automation that is sure to come, go? How do they live? It seems like the trend that is beginning to become evident even today will accelerate. There will be the highly educated, highly trained people who are very well paid and live a very good life. Then there will be all the large number others who's jobs disappear due to automation.
We have faced this type of problem many times in our history and each time the system has adjusted over a fairly short time and things have improved for everybody. Maybe that will happen in the future. That is because, in the past, the new products that displaced the old and obsoleted the old skills, demanded more people to produce the increased demand for the new product. But, in the past the new product, such as the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, was still fairly labor intensive. That will not be so in the future. New products will be produced by automation and will require little usage of manual labor.
Not every thing that could automated will be. Some tasks will be more cost effective to perform manually because of the cost of a robot to perform them.
The dilemma is, that with the increased production capability to turn out products at a prodigious rate, we need consumers. But, if automation replaces workers on a large scale, then where are the consumers? That's a good question. Frankly I have no answer. Just wondering.
Sunday, August 6, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
English, a little fun
Look Dear, I said, "Is that a deer I see down by the sea? I wonder if it would wait while I guess it's weight. I know that here is no way I could weigh it. It looks like it is tough standing on that tuff with the ruff on it's neck, though it may be because it is looking through some bushes where there is a bee".
I threw a small stone through the air, but I missed. It brought up a tear as I watched it tear across the mountain tier after tier. Although, of course, it might be a hare with coarse red hair that I have read about and intend to read more. They're certain of the their footing over there. If a knight, who usually comes out a night, would show up it would help. Look at the man running bare chased by a bear that seems to bear down on him. I think he's the wright from the village on the right side of the river who was right when he did write about the bear market. I wonder if he can kick that can that is in his path. I think I knew him when he was new. I know that he should have said no before coming out. I think that I had seen him at another scene.
I threw a small stone through the air, but I missed. It brought up a tear as I watched it tear across the mountain tier after tier. Although, of course, it might be a hare with coarse red hair that I have read about and intend to read more. They're certain of the their footing over there. If a knight, who usually comes out a night, would show up it would help. Look at the man running bare chased by a bear that seems to bear down on him. I think he's the wright from the village on the right side of the river who was right when he did write about the bear market. I wonder if he can kick that can that is in his path. I think I knew him when he was new. I know that he should have said no before coming out. I think that I had seen him at another scene.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
Trump and Comey, an interesting tale
What is going on in Washington? The Democrats are going ape shit trying to tie Trump to either an obstruction of justice charge or colluding with the Russians to throw the 2016 election into Trumps lap. Or, anything else they can come up with.
All this actually started back during the primaries with Trump charging through the process like a bull in a china shop. He insulted everybody in sight and left a trail of blood behind him. A lot of that ill will was directed at members of congress and the Republican establishment. Groups that he would need later to govern effectively.
He was caught on a recording making some disparaging jokes about women. It actually wasn't anything that hasn't been said in a thousand locker rooms when the boys get together to brag about their real and fictional conquests. But, his remarks were not helpful to him or his image. He became a man who hates women and holds them in low regard. In spite of the fact that he has hired women to high positions in his company and his daughter is one of his closets advisers.
Central to his campaign was his position on illegal immigrants coming over our southern border. Of course he didn't just say that he was going to build a wall, but more than implied that the illegals coming into this country were mostly rapists and criminals. That didn't do him any favors with a majority of the Latinos living in this country who were the children and grandchildren of illegals themselves. The platform of securing our borders would probably have been enough for the vast American heartland and Rust Belt folks who sensed that we were loosing our heritage and jobs with the huge influx of foreigners into the country. As a result Trump was labeled a racist and bigot.
To add fuel to the fire he announced that he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country for a period of time until the vetting process could be strengthened due to the rash of terrorist acts that had happened around the world by radical Islamist in recent history. Of course the mainstream media and the liberals only heard the ban part and immediately labeled Trump as a religious bigot. He later modified that to just seven countries, but that isn't flying either. When Hillary trotted out the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in action, Trump couldn't just keep his mouth shut. He felt he needed to insult the parents. Not a good move.
He was very critical of the trade deals and agreements reached by the Obama administration with Iran, Cuba, Mexico, China and other countries. He contended that Obama had weakened America and cost American jobs in middle America while the cats on the coasts were getting rich on the backs of the middle class's sacrifices to the global economic and political philosophy. In that argument he had the position that appealed to the great swath of working people in the so called rust belt and the people of middle America. Of course the people living well of global trade and fraternization with China and other foreign nations didn't much like this approach. That of included the media which are almost universally liberals and Democrats.
So candidate Trump had little in the way of friends in the main stream media or even among the traditional Republican Party members.
As we all know he won the election against all odds and the polls which assured the Democrats of a victory. They still haven't got over that defeat and many of them still will not accept the results of the election. They are motivated to bring Trump and his administration down, no matter the harm to the constitution in doing so. They love to trot out the popular vote as proof that the American people favored Clinton. But, because of a number of reasons, including the Constitution, the popular vote isn't what elects a President. Why that particular statistic is mostly meaningless under the current conditions is something I might address in another posting on my blog.
Trump is not free of royal foo paws in all of this. In many ways he has only himself to blame. All one has to do is follow his pronouncements and tweets to understand that fact. He never saw or heard of a negative remark that he doesn't feel the need to fire off a quick reply, many of them ill thought out before sending. He also tends to say whatever comes into his head when asked a question, no matter how ill conceived the answer might be. He's even been known to contradict himself because on any given day he may feel different about something.
When Trump entered the White House (figuratively) he came in with huge ego and the same attitude he had as the head of Trump Enterprises. I believe that he thought he was now the CEO of the new Trump Enterprises, otherwise known as the US government. I don't think he quite understood, at first, that he was entering the snake pit of Washington politics, which is a far different animal from business. He came in with a promise to drain the swamp and is finding out that the swamp is full of very angry alligators that they love their swamp just the way it is.
Now let's get to Comey. It is clear to me that Trump considered the head of the FBI as part of his team and he expected a certain degree of loyalty from all his department heads. That's what he demanded from his business employees and he expected the same thing here. It's the only way to run a large business successfully. It did not seem to occur to him that the law enforcement branches of his government must be seen to remain independent of politics and influences from other government bodies. After all the head of the FBI worked for him and served at his pleasure.
The FBI had opened an investigation into two charges that involved Trump and his team. One was concerning the involvement of the Russians into our election and the other the situation of the National Security Advisor.
Members of his team, including his son in law, who he greatly admired, attempted to tell him that meeting with Comey in a private session, considering everything that was going on at the time, was a bad idea. But Trump, being Trump, thought he needed that meeting. This was only a few days after the President was sworn into office. It is reported that Trump stated to Comey that he hoped the he could see his way to close out the investigation into General Flynn. That the general was a good man who had served his country and he had been fired anyway due to lying about meeting with the Russian Ambassador to Vice President Pence and that he, Trump, would appreciate it. Comey apparently made no response in that conversation at time but took no further action because he didn't feel that Trump was bringing undo pressure on him to actually end the investigation. The Democrats, of course, have jumped all over the firing and Comey's statements as reason for a charge of obstruction. But, Trump had the right to fire the head of the FBI for any reason. Something the Dem's don't want to admit.
The Russian investigation was moving forward and Trump felt it was being directed at him. The Democrats were using this investigation to bolster their claim that the election had been stolen from them by nefarious actions and collusion by the Trump team with the Russians. This in spite of there being absolutely no evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump team and Russians about the 2016 election. But, that isn't stopping the Democrats and the left wing media from throwing charges around at random. If you turn in to CNN you would think that there isn't anything going on in the world except Trump's collusion with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton.
The investigation was not only an embarrassment to Trump but he felt that it was interfering with the ability to pass his agenda. He met with Comey and asked him about the Russian investigation and if he was a loyal member of the team, or words to that effect. Apparently Comey only answered that he would be honest. Apparently Trump never asked for Comey to squelch the Russian investigation. It's clear now that from that point Trump considered Comey as not loyal and not to be trusted. But, again Comey didn't feel, at the time, that Trump had crossed the line into obstruction. I think that in Trumps mind you are either with him or against him, and Comey wasn't with him.
Then Trump fired Comey. It is clear to me that there were several reasons for the firing, among other things, the Russian investigation. But probably the main thing was his feeling that Comey was not his friend. The best thing that Trump could have done at the time was keep his mouth shut and let his team spin the firing as best they could. But no. Trump stated in an interview on television that Comey was fired because of the Russian investigation. Not smart at all. In other tweets and interviews he gave different reasons. But, he had fired Comey and in a way that wasn't very respectful. Now Comey felt free to release his notes and recollections on the meeting with the President. It was payback time.
Immediately congress, which was already involved in hearings concerning the Russian hacking of the election material and it's release through Wikileaks, opened up the investigation into possibility of the an obstruction of justice charge against Trump.
So now we have a special counsel who has opened up a can of worms for Trump. The rumors have been floated that he would like to fire the special counsel but, he really doesn't have authority to do that. Those rumors have been denied a number of times, but the media, especially CNN, love the story to much to let it pass. To make matters worse, he can't stay off the social network. He continues to tweet, insulting the new special counsel, along with everybody else he senses is against him. He just can't back off and let his legal team handle the issues. They must be tearing their hair out as Trump makes their job harder and harder. He is really digging his own grave deeper and deeper. In the mean time Mueller is stacking his investigation team with people that contributed to the Obama and Clinton campaigns and are Democrat supporters.
I'm afraid, unless the special counsel gives Trump a clean bill of health on all counts, and considering the makeup of the special counsel staff, that is seeming more and more unlikely, the Senate Democrats could very well try to open up impeachment proceedings. Maybe they will to that even before the investigation is even complete. The Democrats certainly want his scalp and I'm afraid he has gored enough Republican Senators that an impeachment might carry. I can think of a couple of Republican Senators that might be tempted to have Trumps scalp. I doubt that it would happen, but you never know.
It isn't clear that the President has actually done anything wrong, except acted rather foolishly at times. He got caught up in a system that he didn't fully comprehend and made some moves and statements that left him open to criticism. What has been said is all that happened was the Trump was being Trump. The things he is trying to do through Executive Orders and legislation are, for the most part, the things that needed to be done. He killed the pact with Iran, is retrenching in relationships with Cuba, is asking NATO members to pay up their agreed to portion of member defenses, cutting some of the most bloated bureaucracies in Washington, submitted a budget to congress that moves the nation toward a balanced budget, is moving battle field decisions back to the soldiers on the ground and making positive moves to keep jobs in America. He's asked for a complete review of the massive set of regulations that are job killers.
Of course he's going to have a fight on his hands with entrenched special interests that control so many of the bureaus. One of Trumps problems, and a big one, is that the bureaucracies are riddled with people that a not his friends by any stretch. In fact they would work tirelessly to bring him down, to the point of damaging the country if they have to.
The frantic move toward all the "green" initiatives and the environmental lobby has spawned a huge industry, with lot's of money. Of course the environmental lobby only exists with the help of huge investments of the taxpayers money. At this time and in the foreseeable future, it is not able to stand alone economically.
There are whole industries tied up in keeping globalization of the economy alive and well. But, trade agreements negotiated by the Obama administration with the Pacific rim, Mexico and China among others, do not work in favor of the working classes of America.
It isn't clear where all of this is going. Based on four special elections, it doesn't seem that the issues which are captivating Washington have any relevance outside of the beltway. Republicans just added to their majority in the congress. Not a single Democrat victory.
But, the future will be interesting, to say the least. And the band played on.
All this actually started back during the primaries with Trump charging through the process like a bull in a china shop. He insulted everybody in sight and left a trail of blood behind him. A lot of that ill will was directed at members of congress and the Republican establishment. Groups that he would need later to govern effectively.
He was caught on a recording making some disparaging jokes about women. It actually wasn't anything that hasn't been said in a thousand locker rooms when the boys get together to brag about their real and fictional conquests. But, his remarks were not helpful to him or his image. He became a man who hates women and holds them in low regard. In spite of the fact that he has hired women to high positions in his company and his daughter is one of his closets advisers.
Central to his campaign was his position on illegal immigrants coming over our southern border. Of course he didn't just say that he was going to build a wall, but more than implied that the illegals coming into this country were mostly rapists and criminals. That didn't do him any favors with a majority of the Latinos living in this country who were the children and grandchildren of illegals themselves. The platform of securing our borders would probably have been enough for the vast American heartland and Rust Belt folks who sensed that we were loosing our heritage and jobs with the huge influx of foreigners into the country. As a result Trump was labeled a racist and bigot.
To add fuel to the fire he announced that he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country for a period of time until the vetting process could be strengthened due to the rash of terrorist acts that had happened around the world by radical Islamist in recent history. Of course the mainstream media and the liberals only heard the ban part and immediately labeled Trump as a religious bigot. He later modified that to just seven countries, but that isn't flying either. When Hillary trotted out the parents of a Muslim soldier killed in action, Trump couldn't just keep his mouth shut. He felt he needed to insult the parents. Not a good move.
He was very critical of the trade deals and agreements reached by the Obama administration with Iran, Cuba, Mexico, China and other countries. He contended that Obama had weakened America and cost American jobs in middle America while the cats on the coasts were getting rich on the backs of the middle class's sacrifices to the global economic and political philosophy. In that argument he had the position that appealed to the great swath of working people in the so called rust belt and the people of middle America. Of course the people living well of global trade and fraternization with China and other foreign nations didn't much like this approach. That of included the media which are almost universally liberals and Democrats.
So candidate Trump had little in the way of friends in the main stream media or even among the traditional Republican Party members.
As we all know he won the election against all odds and the polls which assured the Democrats of a victory. They still haven't got over that defeat and many of them still will not accept the results of the election. They are motivated to bring Trump and his administration down, no matter the harm to the constitution in doing so. They love to trot out the popular vote as proof that the American people favored Clinton. But, because of a number of reasons, including the Constitution, the popular vote isn't what elects a President. Why that particular statistic is mostly meaningless under the current conditions is something I might address in another posting on my blog.
Trump is not free of royal foo paws in all of this. In many ways he has only himself to blame. All one has to do is follow his pronouncements and tweets to understand that fact. He never saw or heard of a negative remark that he doesn't feel the need to fire off a quick reply, many of them ill thought out before sending. He also tends to say whatever comes into his head when asked a question, no matter how ill conceived the answer might be. He's even been known to contradict himself because on any given day he may feel different about something.
When Trump entered the White House (figuratively) he came in with huge ego and the same attitude he had as the head of Trump Enterprises. I believe that he thought he was now the CEO of the new Trump Enterprises, otherwise known as the US government. I don't think he quite understood, at first, that he was entering the snake pit of Washington politics, which is a far different animal from business. He came in with a promise to drain the swamp and is finding out that the swamp is full of very angry alligators that they love their swamp just the way it is.
Now let's get to Comey. It is clear to me that Trump considered the head of the FBI as part of his team and he expected a certain degree of loyalty from all his department heads. That's what he demanded from his business employees and he expected the same thing here. It's the only way to run a large business successfully. It did not seem to occur to him that the law enforcement branches of his government must be seen to remain independent of politics and influences from other government bodies. After all the head of the FBI worked for him and served at his pleasure.
The FBI had opened an investigation into two charges that involved Trump and his team. One was concerning the involvement of the Russians into our election and the other the situation of the National Security Advisor.
Members of his team, including his son in law, who he greatly admired, attempted to tell him that meeting with Comey in a private session, considering everything that was going on at the time, was a bad idea. But Trump, being Trump, thought he needed that meeting. This was only a few days after the President was sworn into office. It is reported that Trump stated to Comey that he hoped the he could see his way to close out the investigation into General Flynn. That the general was a good man who had served his country and he had been fired anyway due to lying about meeting with the Russian Ambassador to Vice President Pence and that he, Trump, would appreciate it. Comey apparently made no response in that conversation at time but took no further action because he didn't feel that Trump was bringing undo pressure on him to actually end the investigation. The Democrats, of course, have jumped all over the firing and Comey's statements as reason for a charge of obstruction. But, Trump had the right to fire the head of the FBI for any reason. Something the Dem's don't want to admit.
The Russian investigation was moving forward and Trump felt it was being directed at him. The Democrats were using this investigation to bolster their claim that the election had been stolen from them by nefarious actions and collusion by the Trump team with the Russians. This in spite of there being absolutely no evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump team and Russians about the 2016 election. But, that isn't stopping the Democrats and the left wing media from throwing charges around at random. If you turn in to CNN you would think that there isn't anything going on in the world except Trump's collusion with the Russians to steal the election from Clinton.
The investigation was not only an embarrassment to Trump but he felt that it was interfering with the ability to pass his agenda. He met with Comey and asked him about the Russian investigation and if he was a loyal member of the team, or words to that effect. Apparently Comey only answered that he would be honest. Apparently Trump never asked for Comey to squelch the Russian investigation. It's clear now that from that point Trump considered Comey as not loyal and not to be trusted. But, again Comey didn't feel, at the time, that Trump had crossed the line into obstruction. I think that in Trumps mind you are either with him or against him, and Comey wasn't with him.
Then Trump fired Comey. It is clear to me that there were several reasons for the firing, among other things, the Russian investigation. But probably the main thing was his feeling that Comey was not his friend. The best thing that Trump could have done at the time was keep his mouth shut and let his team spin the firing as best they could. But no. Trump stated in an interview on television that Comey was fired because of the Russian investigation. Not smart at all. In other tweets and interviews he gave different reasons. But, he had fired Comey and in a way that wasn't very respectful. Now Comey felt free to release his notes and recollections on the meeting with the President. It was payback time.
Immediately congress, which was already involved in hearings concerning the Russian hacking of the election material and it's release through Wikileaks, opened up the investigation into possibility of the an obstruction of justice charge against Trump.
So now we have a special counsel who has opened up a can of worms for Trump. The rumors have been floated that he would like to fire the special counsel but, he really doesn't have authority to do that. Those rumors have been denied a number of times, but the media, especially CNN, love the story to much to let it pass. To make matters worse, he can't stay off the social network. He continues to tweet, insulting the new special counsel, along with everybody else he senses is against him. He just can't back off and let his legal team handle the issues. They must be tearing their hair out as Trump makes their job harder and harder. He is really digging his own grave deeper and deeper. In the mean time Mueller is stacking his investigation team with people that contributed to the Obama and Clinton campaigns and are Democrat supporters.
I'm afraid, unless the special counsel gives Trump a clean bill of health on all counts, and considering the makeup of the special counsel staff, that is seeming more and more unlikely, the Senate Democrats could very well try to open up impeachment proceedings. Maybe they will to that even before the investigation is even complete. The Democrats certainly want his scalp and I'm afraid he has gored enough Republican Senators that an impeachment might carry. I can think of a couple of Republican Senators that might be tempted to have Trumps scalp. I doubt that it would happen, but you never know.
It isn't clear that the President has actually done anything wrong, except acted rather foolishly at times. He got caught up in a system that he didn't fully comprehend and made some moves and statements that left him open to criticism. What has been said is all that happened was the Trump was being Trump. The things he is trying to do through Executive Orders and legislation are, for the most part, the things that needed to be done. He killed the pact with Iran, is retrenching in relationships with Cuba, is asking NATO members to pay up their agreed to portion of member defenses, cutting some of the most bloated bureaucracies in Washington, submitted a budget to congress that moves the nation toward a balanced budget, is moving battle field decisions back to the soldiers on the ground and making positive moves to keep jobs in America. He's asked for a complete review of the massive set of regulations that are job killers.
Of course he's going to have a fight on his hands with entrenched special interests that control so many of the bureaus. One of Trumps problems, and a big one, is that the bureaucracies are riddled with people that a not his friends by any stretch. In fact they would work tirelessly to bring him down, to the point of damaging the country if they have to.
The frantic move toward all the "green" initiatives and the environmental lobby has spawned a huge industry, with lot's of money. Of course the environmental lobby only exists with the help of huge investments of the taxpayers money. At this time and in the foreseeable future, it is not able to stand alone economically.
There are whole industries tied up in keeping globalization of the economy alive and well. But, trade agreements negotiated by the Obama administration with the Pacific rim, Mexico and China among others, do not work in favor of the working classes of America.
It isn't clear where all of this is going. Based on four special elections, it doesn't seem that the issues which are captivating Washington have any relevance outside of the beltway. Republicans just added to their majority in the congress. Not a single Democrat victory.
But, the future will be interesting, to say the least. And the band played on.
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Medical care and the Pipe Dream
Donald and the other Republicans are all eager to strike Obamacare off the books and substitute some other plan which they say will be better and cheaper. But, Obama and Dems have saddled them with a real problem. In fact a couple. The Republicans say they will keep some of the things the ACA introduced, but that will make the avowed goal almost impossible to meet.
The promise, at least by The Donald, to (1) not let previous conditions be the cause of rejection of insurance, (2) that the 20 million or so people that got coverage as a result of the ACA will still be covered and (3) letting a young adult stay on their parents policy until the age of 26 will part of the new, cheaper and better plan that the Republicans will submit.
The biggest reason the ACA fell on it's face was simply that the young, healthy folks didn't sign up in droves. The only way to provide the lowest cost insurance for the masses is to spread the burden on paying for it to a large base of primarily healthy people that don't require much in the way of treatment. You need a large base of people who are paying in to the system much more than they're taking out of it.
The problem is, and will remain, that the Congress, especially the Republicans, want universal health care without instituting Universal Health care. They believe, by some fancy twist of their imagination, that they can achieve universal health care using the private sector. They spout a mantra of freedom of choice. They believe that if you presented the market place with a free market in the medical fields, the cost would go down due to competition and all would be right with the world.
To large extent that would be true. If the market were actually free and the consumer was free to choose any insurance plan from any locale and that the insurance companies could propose any plan from the bare minimum catastrophic only type with a large range of deductibles, to full comprehensive coverage and anything in between. But, if the government steps in and dictates conditions that private insurance companies have to meet, as the ACA did, then the savings would largely fly out the window. When you dictate that an insurance company can't turn down a applicant because of previous conditions or they have to carry a young adult on their parents policy, then they have no choice but to anti up their rates to cover the significant costs associated with those requirements. After all insurance companies are in the business to make money. They are not philanthropic organizations.
Consumers are not exactly dummies. The smart thing, under these conditions, is to buy limited coverage, or none at all, when you're young and healthy and then to buy or switch to more comprehensive policy if you come down with something bad. So the only way to spread the costs is make some level of insurance coverage mandatory for every body. That, by its nature will kill any free market idea associated with health care. Sound familiar? Obama tried to get around this problem by forcing a "tax" on those that didn't purchase the minimum insurance as dictated by the law. I'm not sure what the present bill before congress will end up imposing, but it has to somehow rope in the total population or it will fall on it's face just like the ACA did.
The Republicans love the idea of using tax credits to help lower income people buy private insurance. No matter how you look at it, this is another entitlement that would put into law if enacted. Of course if the tax credit is applied to taxes owed, there won't be much impact on the 40 percent of lower income people anyway; they don't pay taxes.
The other favorite among the conservative ranks is the Medical Savings Account. That really is a great idea if you are part of the middle class, which does cover a great swath of the American citizenry. But, if you happen to be in the lower third of income earners, then you don't have the resources to set money aside for medical purposes.
The idea seems to be that if they open the market, which by the way isn't happening with the present version of the plan, that will allow more people to buy private insurance and the lowest wage earners and unemployed will be directly subsidized by the government in such a way that they can purchase some form of insurance. Sound familiar. Think California Cares, which pays so little to the doctors that many of them will not participate in the plan.
The other mantra sung by the conservatives is that they don't want some government bureaucrat deciding about what medical treatment that will be allowed and where the coverage is applied. But, wait a minute. If you carry any kind of private insurance then you already have a bureaucrat deciding health care issues for you. They just work for the insurance company instead of for the government. And, those bureaucrats have a profit motive when considering whether to pay for some treatment that you might need.
Private insurance also limits the doctors you are allowed to see and sometimes the medical facilities that you can use, depending on the type of insurance. HMO's are a big factor in private insurance participation and they are generally very restrictive in where and by whom you can get medical treatment.
If you want to review the current health care in the USA I would refer you to my Blog of January 2016, "Health Care in the United States". It is clear that the current system we have isn't any thing to be held up as a model. We have the highest infant mortality rate, the shortest average life span and rank behind such countries as Singapore and Morocco by the World Health Organization. The ranking at the time is a paltry 37th in health care by that organization.
The argument is advanced that in those countries with Universal Health Care systems, that the wait to see a doctor is long, much longer than in the US. But, have you tried to get to see your doctor in a short time lately? In fact, the timeliness of care in America is about average when compared to the 11 wealthiest countries i.e. England, Germany, Canada, etc. All of them having some form of universal health care. Canada however, with a one payer system, was ranked last in that category. The following chart shows the breakdown of the various categories that were used to judge the rankings among the wealthier nations.
We spend more per capita and get less than any of the 11th wealthiest countries. So why are we trying to defend our present system so vigorously? Good question.
The Republicans face a real problem. As far as I can see, the plan put forth by the Republicans doesn't do much for the very people who were Trumps biggest supports in the last election. As bad as Obama Care was, this plan may actually be worse for the mid-west worker who is hurting because of a lot of reasons. The disgust with the ACA was one of the main things that swept the Republicans into office in the last two elections. If the establishment Republicans don't do something better than what they seem to be doing, they may, and probably will, find themselves on the street in two years.
Medical care has become a major issue to the citizens of this country. They are serious about wanting something done. If the politicians continue to evade a comprehensive plan that will assure medical care for all Americans, I think they may not be in office very long.
We'll see what happens over the next few months and what the fallout will be. I predict disaster myself. But, I've been wrong before.
The promise, at least by The Donald, to (1) not let previous conditions be the cause of rejection of insurance, (2) that the 20 million or so people that got coverage as a result of the ACA will still be covered and (3) letting a young adult stay on their parents policy until the age of 26 will part of the new, cheaper and better plan that the Republicans will submit.
The biggest reason the ACA fell on it's face was simply that the young, healthy folks didn't sign up in droves. The only way to provide the lowest cost insurance for the masses is to spread the burden on paying for it to a large base of primarily healthy people that don't require much in the way of treatment. You need a large base of people who are paying in to the system much more than they're taking out of it.
The problem is, and will remain, that the Congress, especially the Republicans, want universal health care without instituting Universal Health care. They believe, by some fancy twist of their imagination, that they can achieve universal health care using the private sector. They spout a mantra of freedom of choice. They believe that if you presented the market place with a free market in the medical fields, the cost would go down due to competition and all would be right with the world.
To large extent that would be true. If the market were actually free and the consumer was free to choose any insurance plan from any locale and that the insurance companies could propose any plan from the bare minimum catastrophic only type with a large range of deductibles, to full comprehensive coverage and anything in between. But, if the government steps in and dictates conditions that private insurance companies have to meet, as the ACA did, then the savings would largely fly out the window. When you dictate that an insurance company can't turn down a applicant because of previous conditions or they have to carry a young adult on their parents policy, then they have no choice but to anti up their rates to cover the significant costs associated with those requirements. After all insurance companies are in the business to make money. They are not philanthropic organizations.
Consumers are not exactly dummies. The smart thing, under these conditions, is to buy limited coverage, or none at all, when you're young and healthy and then to buy or switch to more comprehensive policy if you come down with something bad. So the only way to spread the costs is make some level of insurance coverage mandatory for every body. That, by its nature will kill any free market idea associated with health care. Sound familiar? Obama tried to get around this problem by forcing a "tax" on those that didn't purchase the minimum insurance as dictated by the law. I'm not sure what the present bill before congress will end up imposing, but it has to somehow rope in the total population or it will fall on it's face just like the ACA did.
The Republicans love the idea of using tax credits to help lower income people buy private insurance. No matter how you look at it, this is another entitlement that would put into law if enacted. Of course if the tax credit is applied to taxes owed, there won't be much impact on the 40 percent of lower income people anyway; they don't pay taxes.
The other favorite among the conservative ranks is the Medical Savings Account. That really is a great idea if you are part of the middle class, which does cover a great swath of the American citizenry. But, if you happen to be in the lower third of income earners, then you don't have the resources to set money aside for medical purposes.
The idea seems to be that if they open the market, which by the way isn't happening with the present version of the plan, that will allow more people to buy private insurance and the lowest wage earners and unemployed will be directly subsidized by the government in such a way that they can purchase some form of insurance. Sound familiar. Think California Cares, which pays so little to the doctors that many of them will not participate in the plan.
The other mantra sung by the conservatives is that they don't want some government bureaucrat deciding about what medical treatment that will be allowed and where the coverage is applied. But, wait a minute. If you carry any kind of private insurance then you already have a bureaucrat deciding health care issues for you. They just work for the insurance company instead of for the government. And, those bureaucrats have a profit motive when considering whether to pay for some treatment that you might need.
Private insurance also limits the doctors you are allowed to see and sometimes the medical facilities that you can use, depending on the type of insurance. HMO's are a big factor in private insurance participation and they are generally very restrictive in where and by whom you can get medical treatment.
If you want to review the current health care in the USA I would refer you to my Blog of January 2016, "Health Care in the United States". It is clear that the current system we have isn't any thing to be held up as a model. We have the highest infant mortality rate, the shortest average life span and rank behind such countries as Singapore and Morocco by the World Health Organization. The ranking at the time is a paltry 37th in health care by that organization.
The argument is advanced that in those countries with Universal Health Care systems, that the wait to see a doctor is long, much longer than in the US. But, have you tried to get to see your doctor in a short time lately? In fact, the timeliness of care in America is about average when compared to the 11 wealthiest countries i.e. England, Germany, Canada, etc. All of them having some form of universal health care. Canada however, with a one payer system, was ranked last in that category. The following chart shows the breakdown of the various categories that were used to judge the rankings among the wealthier nations.
We spend more per capita and get less than any of the 11th wealthiest countries. So why are we trying to defend our present system so vigorously? Good question.
The Republicans face a real problem. As far as I can see, the plan put forth by the Republicans doesn't do much for the very people who were Trumps biggest supports in the last election. As bad as Obama Care was, this plan may actually be worse for the mid-west worker who is hurting because of a lot of reasons. The disgust with the ACA was one of the main things that swept the Republicans into office in the last two elections. If the establishment Republicans don't do something better than what they seem to be doing, they may, and probably will, find themselves on the street in two years.
Medical care has become a major issue to the citizens of this country. They are serious about wanting something done. If the politicians continue to evade a comprehensive plan that will assure medical care for all Americans, I think they may not be in office very long.
We'll see what happens over the next few months and what the fallout will be. I predict disaster myself. But, I've been wrong before.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Pity the New President
The new President is entering office with a mountain of foreign and domestic problems that would tackle the wisdom of Salomon. A series of bad decisions over the last two administrations have led us into a mess in the middle east, a resurgent and expansionist Russia, a nuclear North Korea, a China that is growing more and more aggressive, and Iran that is on it's way to becoming nuclear. We seem to have made the wrong decision in most cases on the foreign front. We invaded Iraq and destabilized the middle east for, as it turned out, no good reason. Then, when we had taken on the job of nation building in that country, we elected a new President and promptly pulled out and left a vacuum that radical elements were quick to fill.
Syria is nothing but a mess with Russia and Iran now the leading figures in that area. The new President really has no good options opened to him. We stood by while Russia and Iran created a mammoth refugee problem and kept a brutal dictator in power.
China has weaponized islands, some of them man made, in territory that isn't theirs and seem to setting up the conditions where they will claim sovereignty. This really effects the trade of our allies and impacts on our desire to keep the seas open for free trade. They recently captured an American drone that was mapping the ocean floor in clearly international waters. Now they are rattling their sabres over the situation concerning Taiwan. Again, no good options are open when the other guy gets belligerent short of force.
Russia has moved in and captured the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine, who didn't have the power to oppose them. Still doesn't. Following that they have moved troops and equipment into eastern Ukraine and are making moves to annex that territory into Russia. And what did we do? Nothing, except wring our hands. We refuse to equip the Ukraine with the means for them to defend their territory because it might offend Russia. What does our new President do now. No good options.
Iran signed an agreement with the west to restrain their nuclear program for lifting of sanctions. With that went the release of billions of dollars to Iran. The sanctions are supposed to be re-instated if Iran didn't adhere to the conditions of the agreement. Guess what? They have already broken some of the conditions. What was done about it? Nothing. Our allies have too much of stake in selling arms to Iran to make them angry. So, nothing gets done. What does the new President do? No good options.
North Korea has developed the nuclear bomb and is far along in development of a missile that could reach the United States. They already can threaten our allies in the Pacific. North Korea is being run by a psycho that doesn't like us or any of our friends. What's our options now? None that are good.
On the home front the new President is faced with real problems in trying to get the economy moving again. The goal is creation of REAL jobs that pay wages sufficient for a family to live on. But, a number of factors stand in his way. The manufacturing jobs that used to provide those kinds of benefits have either escaped the high labor and regulatory costs in the United States by fleeing to foreign lands or have been automated. Robots now do what people were once paid good money to accomplish. He has mentioned raising the tariffs on foreign produced products to level the playing field. Another thing he has mentioned is a punitive "tax" on goods manufactured by American Companies in foreign lands. I have no idea how will get any of these proposals through the congress. Most economists seem to thing they are very bad ideas. What is needed will not have an immediate impact. In fact, lowering taxes and significantly reducing regulations may not pay off until this Presidents first four years are up. I pity the uproar when he can't deliver the jobs that he promised in the rust belt in a short time.
He will also face the problems of a massive public debt, Social Security that is really already broke, and other entitlement programs that are sopping the nations wealth.
In addition we have a significant balance of trade deficit that is growing to unstainable level.
I pity the poor guy who moves into the White House and has to face the world that he has inherited.
Syria is nothing but a mess with Russia and Iran now the leading figures in that area. The new President really has no good options opened to him. We stood by while Russia and Iran created a mammoth refugee problem and kept a brutal dictator in power.
China has weaponized islands, some of them man made, in territory that isn't theirs and seem to setting up the conditions where they will claim sovereignty. This really effects the trade of our allies and impacts on our desire to keep the seas open for free trade. They recently captured an American drone that was mapping the ocean floor in clearly international waters. Now they are rattling their sabres over the situation concerning Taiwan. Again, no good options are open when the other guy gets belligerent short of force.
Russia has moved in and captured the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine, who didn't have the power to oppose them. Still doesn't. Following that they have moved troops and equipment into eastern Ukraine and are making moves to annex that territory into Russia. And what did we do? Nothing, except wring our hands. We refuse to equip the Ukraine with the means for them to defend their territory because it might offend Russia. What does our new President do now. No good options.
Iran signed an agreement with the west to restrain their nuclear program for lifting of sanctions. With that went the release of billions of dollars to Iran. The sanctions are supposed to be re-instated if Iran didn't adhere to the conditions of the agreement. Guess what? They have already broken some of the conditions. What was done about it? Nothing. Our allies have too much of stake in selling arms to Iran to make them angry. So, nothing gets done. What does the new President do? No good options.
North Korea has developed the nuclear bomb and is far along in development of a missile that could reach the United States. They already can threaten our allies in the Pacific. North Korea is being run by a psycho that doesn't like us or any of our friends. What's our options now? None that are good.
On the home front the new President is faced with real problems in trying to get the economy moving again. The goal is creation of REAL jobs that pay wages sufficient for a family to live on. But, a number of factors stand in his way. The manufacturing jobs that used to provide those kinds of benefits have either escaped the high labor and regulatory costs in the United States by fleeing to foreign lands or have been automated. Robots now do what people were once paid good money to accomplish. He has mentioned raising the tariffs on foreign produced products to level the playing field. Another thing he has mentioned is a punitive "tax" on goods manufactured by American Companies in foreign lands. I have no idea how will get any of these proposals through the congress. Most economists seem to thing they are very bad ideas. What is needed will not have an immediate impact. In fact, lowering taxes and significantly reducing regulations may not pay off until this Presidents first four years are up. I pity the uproar when he can't deliver the jobs that he promised in the rust belt in a short time.
He will also face the problems of a massive public debt, Social Security that is really already broke, and other entitlement programs that are sopping the nations wealth.
In addition we have a significant balance of trade deficit that is growing to unstainable level.
I pity the poor guy who moves into the White House and has to face the world that he has inherited.
Monday, December 12, 2016
Capitalism and Socialism, a discussion.
First, let's differentiate among the three basic economic models,
Capitalism, Socialism and Communism. Most people lump Socialism and
Communism as being synonymous, but Karl Marx would beg to differ.
True Communism, as defined by Marx, is an expansion of the commune approach to a national economic model whereby everything is shared, i.e " from each according to their ability and to each according to their need". There is no need for money in this system as everybody is selfless and contributes to society for the good of the whole. (Lots of luck with that). Because some nation adopts the name of Communist, doesn't make them one by Marx and Engels definition. Marx envisioned that mankind would go through an evolution, socially, and true communism would be achieved. He also believed that communism was inevitable, but we would have to go through a phase which he called, "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Communist states such as China, the USSR, and others are really Socialist states run by dictators.What distinguishes the Communism we know and Socialism, is that Communism is a political position and Communist nations work to expand their influence into a world wide Communist state by any means necessary. Socialism, taken by itself, is strictly an economic model.
Socialism is the model where the government either owns or directly controls the principle means of production. Most all services, including medical, are owned by the government, or at least controlled by government, and it's practitioners are paid directly by the government. Central planners decide on the needs of the population and shift resources as needed. In general, private ownership and control of small businesses and even small farms are allowed but, are regulated by the government. It is the system that college students in the liberal arts, their college professors and way too many public school teachers, think is the correct and proper form of government. It espouses that all of societies ills are caused by evil capitalists who prey upon the working class and only government control of the economy can provide the benefits they so richly deserve.
It is a sirens song to the uninitiated. Everybody lives a life of comfort and free of nagging problems: lots of free stuff. A warm fuzzy safety blanket is wrapped around the whole population. You are taken care of from cradle to grave. What could be better than that? A socialist system, in concept, provides benefits such as free medical care, paid retirement, free education through a university for those qualified and other perks, whether they are done well or not. There is no such thing as a private enterprise labor union, as that would be in conflict with the central planners.There is no unemployment in a socialist system as every one is given a job, whether there is a need or not. In the ideal system, for instance, one parent is paid to take care of a child, because that is defined as a job.There is no competition among producers of goods in this system, which by the way, is one it's biggest weaknesses.
This economic system was tried by several large countries, with disastrous results. This system, by it's very nature, demands a tight control over the economy and therefore it's citizens. The government will decide where labor is needed, what is being produced and wages and other benefits of the workers. The prices of goods and services are also controlled by a central committee. The task of overseeing a vast economy results in a huge bureaucracy.
Socialism fails for a number of reasons, but mainly because human being are charged with running it. And, guess what, human beings are prone to get stupid, greedy, lazy, power hungry, and some of the other sins that hamstring a government and it's economy. Anyone who has ever come into conflict with a government bureaucracy can appreciate that a system that depends on the planning and control by a bureaucracy, will be a failure. Bureaucracies always degenerate into self sustaining organizations whose main goal is to expand their control and maintain their positions. If you think that the American bureaucracy is bad, image what a socialist economy would end up looking like.The EPA will never be satisfied that the environment is healthy enough. The endangered species folks will always find another species that needs their protection, be it a rat, butterfly, insect or something else. Each Bureaucracy will find a reason for their slice of the public pie to be continued and even to expand. Their primary goal will be to stay in business.
In a Socialist system there really is no motivation to succeed, except within the party structure. The resources to support the population within such a system is never large nor diverse enough to meet all the demands. Goods that are produced in this system are usually inferior, because the workers have no real motivation to be productive. Workers are hired where there is no need and can not be fired. Quotas for production are set and managers must meet them or face the consequences. Ergo, incomplete and inferior products are rushed out the door in order meet those quotas. In general the Socialist nations never export any consumer goods. The products just don't match up to the quality of goods produced by the capitalists.
They don't draw talent from other countries, as there is no motivation for top talent to enter such a system. (Except, of course, at the point of a gun as was done to the German scientists after WWII). And, there is no competition to spur improvements in currently produced products or the development of new ones. An old Soviet workers saying "The pretend to pay me so I'll pretend to work" is emblematic of the attitude among the working class. A black market typically thrives in this type of system, as it is the only way to get some products that people want and even need; paradoxically from the Capitalist countries.
Attempts at socialism has always been based on a central committee that exercises dictatorial power. China, the USSR, and Cuba are examples of the attempts to embrace a socialist system. Some South American countries have flirted with it with disastrous results. There really is no other way that the system can work. But, economic reality finally set in for China and Russia and they had to greatly modify their systems in order to survive. They still have an essential dictatorship, but they allow a limited free market to exist. They have adopted a form of Capitalism as their economic model. China and Russia have a lot of millionaires today and a middle class of professionals. They, especially China, have stepped up their technology of war making and now surpass the United States in space capable warfare. And, at least, match the west in Cyber warfare. That makes China and Russia an ever growing threat to the west and the democracies.
Capitalism is simply the model whereby the means of production and services are owned and managed by private capital. That can be a single individual or a group of investors having a small group of selected people perform the management function. There are many variations on this economic model, with government regulations and taxes interfering with the free trade of goods, services, and intellectual properties to a lesser of greater degree, but the essential theme of private ownership of the means of production holds.
Of all the economic systems that have imposed on, or adopted by it's citizens, the one that generates the greatest wealth and national prosperity is the system of free market capitalism.. It produces the greatest exploitation of any national resources available, encourages the growth of new business and generates more, and higher paying jobs than any other system of economics. It produces the most advanced medical treatment by the best and most highly trained doctors. It generates the greatest breakthroughs in medicine, drugs, and basic science. And why is that? In the grosses terms--GREED. The engine that drives capitalism is the desire and pursuit of profit and higher incomes in critical professions. This system encourages that pursuit.
It's the magnet that draws the best researchers in medicine and science. It encourages and rewards achievement. It's the reason that companies are formed and are expanded. It's the reason investors risk their own money to finance the start of a new business or to expand a current one. They hope for profit on their investment. It drives pharmaceutical companies to invest millions and even billions of dollars in the research of new drugs. It encourages the brightest minds to pursue higher education in all kinds of fields, because the rewards are great. Every advanced country in the world today has embraced some form of capitalism as it's basic economic system. The United States leads the way in free market capitalism.
A free market will also produce a ever improving product in fields where the free market exists. Look at the performance and reliability of the automobile today compared to just a few years ago. Competition has driven the auto makers to constantly fight for market share and have forced them to invest billions of dollars into improving reliability and performance for their product. This is true for all kinds of products. Of course it means that the organizations that can't keep up fall by the wayside. Remember the Hudson, Nash and Packard Motor Companies. That's what happens in a free market if you can't compete. Think of the TV of today as opposed to the CRT based systems. In fact, where the free market exists there has been a wave of improvements in all products. The freer the market, i.e. the less government regulation, the greater the incidence of entrepreneurship. In addition, of course, new products have been introduced. Think about the personal computer, a product that likely would never have come about within a socialist system. After all, no one except the Apple founders saw any need for such a device. We have cell phones, fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter, the internet, social media and a mountain of other things available to us that we take for granted, because individuals conceived of the idea and invested their money and time to make it happen. It has been proven over and over that the free market is the best judge of what is needed and wanted by the population and is the best system for adjusting to that need.
But: as one of our Presidents, I think it was Harding, who said "the only problem with Capitalism is Capitalists". When you think about it, all the depressions and recessions we have experienced, have been directly caused by out of control speculation in some critical market, driven by the desire to make a profit in that segment of the market. The stock market crash of 1929/1932, the housing bubble, driven by investment banks and loose credit requirements of the mortgage companies, are prime examples of what can happen.
And, unregulated capitalism will not remain a "free" very long. Look at the history of our own country. Before Teddy Roosevelt came along, trusts and cartels abounded. When a company gets large enough, or originates some product or service, it will take steps to block any competitor it see's that might threaten it's dominance of it's market. There are many ways that can be achieved, not the least of which is to buy up the competition. Look what happened to Westinghouse when the Edison Company, with the backing of the J. P. Morgan banking empire, forced the sale of all the patents it held on alternating current devices and formed General Electric. Westinghouse just didn't have the resources to fight the banking empire. Of course legislators can be "bought" to support the monopolies. Most of you don't remember the Tucker automobile. It was an innovative concept that pushed into new ideas of what a car could do. But, the big three, with their "bought" Senators got the government involved, held numerous hearings concerning a private enterprise and essentially killed the automaker and his concept. The big three didn't want the competition and had it squashed. And, if the market is controlled by just a few large corporations a little price fixing is not unheard of.
Industrialists will work to increase their profit and if left unchecked many actions they take will be unethical, even illegal. When the labor market, which after all is just a product, is driven only by supply and demand factors, and certain segments create a supply of labor that far exceeds the demand, labor can and will be exploited. Companies will get rid of it's waste products the cheapest way it can in order to maximize profit. Rivers are polluted as waste products are dumped. Workers are injured, or even killed, because safety measures are expensive. The water supply is tainted, even poisoned, because there is no effort to control the contamination of the soil and subterranean water supplies. It's too expensive. All these things have happened in the past. Some of them were actually illegal, but far the most part they were not forbidden under the current laws at the time. Of course, these type of actions are not limited to capitalists.
Enter government. Here we have a dichotomy. To maintain a free market, government interference is actually necessary. Only the government has the power to prevent the establishment of monopolies and trusts, to monitor and prevent companies from merging and buying up competitors in an effort to control the market, and to prevent price fixing among the principle players within a given segment of the market. I.e. to keep the market free.
Government,on the other hand, is the principle player in maintaining some monopolies that would fail if not for the governments support by law and by regulations. Some of those monopolies are generally desired and beneficial to most of the public. As an example, the Medical profession is pretty much controlled by government by the severe restriction on who can practice in that field. The practice of law is restricted in the same way. Your utilities enjoy a monopoly on the products they deliver, protected by Government. Patents are registered with the government and the force of the government protects competition for a period of 17 years. This only a couple of examples, there are many government protected monopolies. Some are not questioned by the public at large, but many are purely political in nature.
But, government regulators have a tendency to believe that regulations are an end in themselves, and they often produce regulations that inhibit the free market and business in general, especially small business. They have a history of turning out new regulations by the volumes every day. Those regulations are the greatest impediment to the establishment and growth of business, especially small business. Each bureaucracy feels it has a mandate to accomplish some task and they bull their way though to that end, no matter the consequences to the economy, or even to another bureaus agenda. Big business has the resources and capabilities to cope with the mound of regulations at a huge cost, but small business is simply overwhelmed. The only reason that Apple and Uber, for instance, got off the ground and running, was that the regulators hadn't caught up to them when they were launched.
While a free market system opens the door for the achievers, by it's very nature it leaves a certain segment of the population out of the flow for a number of reasons. This can be as the result of exporting the manufacturing of goods to a foreign country or, of late, the introduction of robotics to replace the human worker. In either case the worker now has no place to market whatever skills they have.This situation is not going to change. Even if you could bring back all the manufacturing that has been exported to foreign lands, only the labor intensive processes, which usually carry low wages, will supply significant jobs. Manufacturing opens up new jobs, but not in the old areas. The new jobs, that pay well, will require training, and a lot of it.
Look at the auto industry. Detroit has laid off thousands of auto workers, but there are more American cars being built today than ever. Robotics are here to stay and will become more intrusive in the future.There really is no place for the worker, whose skills have been bypassed by the advancement of technology. He/she retrains to fit into the new market, or goes on welfare.
New fields have been opened and those who have acquired the necessary skills to move into them make out like bandits, but those who haven't just sit around and wonder what happened. The advance of technology has made the STEM occupations well paid and the workers in high demand.The capitalist system is very dynamic. Change is constant and sometimes rapid. Of course it has made billionaires out of people who are are involved in the financial markets. It will always produce a market where almost all the wealth is concentrated in a very few people. Lately that has become a significant political issue as the wealth gap has become greater than any time in recent history.
If one looks at the history of the United States there has always been about 10 to 15 percent of the population, at least, that live on the edge of minimum subsistence. That usually means that there is always a subset of people who have not, or can not, achieve the skills necessary to compete in the society at that time. That number grows and shrinks, depending on the conditions at the time. But, it's always there. And, the free market system allows no aid for the under achievers.
Thus, the growth of government instituted welfare programs that purport to help those who get caught in the advance of technology, or other factors, beyond their knowledge. Many people talk of the welfare state as being tied to Socialism, but it really is a product of the capitalist system and is financed by taxes drawn from the achievers. After all the ideal Socialist system has everybody working or being paid for some service to the state. But, welfare is a yoke that ties the recipient to the government. It stifles the desire to get ahead, to achieve, to work. Once welfare starts it has tied a portion of the population into never ending servitude to the welfare handouts that proceed through generations.
The people are demanding and getting many of the perks of Socialism in a Capitalist system. Especially in Europe. In a lot of developed countries medical services are essentially or completely free to the consumer. Canada has a one payer system whereas England has a government run medical system where the professionals are employees of the government. The universities are free, but it takes a bit to qualify for entry. They enjoy extended paternity leave, government paid vacations and various perks that smack of socialism. The price they pay for these types of perks are high tax rates on all it's citizens. In some countries as high as 80% of their income ends up going to taxes.
That seems to be the direction that the United States is headed. We have Social Security, Medicare, Medical, all Socialist ideas. One administration after another seems to be trying to tackle the problem of medical care, mostly unsuccessfully. Obamacare is the latest attempt. College tuition has become so expensive that students are graduating with student loans so large they will be paying on them for years. Many economists blame the huge rise in tuition on government sponsored loans. In effect the government is paying the tuition and the student is stuck with paying it back. Given this fountain of available money the colleges just keep raising their fees and paying themselves more. If you haven't noticed the increase in medical expenses over the last few decades, you haven't been paying attention. Here again government financed insurance has opened up a gold mine to the medical profession and they are mining it. And the beat goes on.
True Communism, as defined by Marx, is an expansion of the commune approach to a national economic model whereby everything is shared, i.e " from each according to their ability and to each according to their need". There is no need for money in this system as everybody is selfless and contributes to society for the good of the whole. (Lots of luck with that). Because some nation adopts the name of Communist, doesn't make them one by Marx and Engels definition. Marx envisioned that mankind would go through an evolution, socially, and true communism would be achieved. He also believed that communism was inevitable, but we would have to go through a phase which he called, "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Communist states such as China, the USSR, and others are really Socialist states run by dictators.What distinguishes the Communism we know and Socialism, is that Communism is a political position and Communist nations work to expand their influence into a world wide Communist state by any means necessary. Socialism, taken by itself, is strictly an economic model.
Socialism is the model where the government either owns or directly controls the principle means of production. Most all services, including medical, are owned by the government, or at least controlled by government, and it's practitioners are paid directly by the government. Central planners decide on the needs of the population and shift resources as needed. In general, private ownership and control of small businesses and even small farms are allowed but, are regulated by the government. It is the system that college students in the liberal arts, their college professors and way too many public school teachers, think is the correct and proper form of government. It espouses that all of societies ills are caused by evil capitalists who prey upon the working class and only government control of the economy can provide the benefits they so richly deserve.
It is a sirens song to the uninitiated. Everybody lives a life of comfort and free of nagging problems: lots of free stuff. A warm fuzzy safety blanket is wrapped around the whole population. You are taken care of from cradle to grave. What could be better than that? A socialist system, in concept, provides benefits such as free medical care, paid retirement, free education through a university for those qualified and other perks, whether they are done well or not. There is no such thing as a private enterprise labor union, as that would be in conflict with the central planners.There is no unemployment in a socialist system as every one is given a job, whether there is a need or not. In the ideal system, for instance, one parent is paid to take care of a child, because that is defined as a job.There is no competition among producers of goods in this system, which by the way, is one it's biggest weaknesses.
This economic system was tried by several large countries, with disastrous results. This system, by it's very nature, demands a tight control over the economy and therefore it's citizens. The government will decide where labor is needed, what is being produced and wages and other benefits of the workers. The prices of goods and services are also controlled by a central committee. The task of overseeing a vast economy results in a huge bureaucracy.
Socialism fails for a number of reasons, but mainly because human being are charged with running it. And, guess what, human beings are prone to get stupid, greedy, lazy, power hungry, and some of the other sins that hamstring a government and it's economy. Anyone who has ever come into conflict with a government bureaucracy can appreciate that a system that depends on the planning and control by a bureaucracy, will be a failure. Bureaucracies always degenerate into self sustaining organizations whose main goal is to expand their control and maintain their positions. If you think that the American bureaucracy is bad, image what a socialist economy would end up looking like.The EPA will never be satisfied that the environment is healthy enough. The endangered species folks will always find another species that needs their protection, be it a rat, butterfly, insect or something else. Each Bureaucracy will find a reason for their slice of the public pie to be continued and even to expand. Their primary goal will be to stay in business.
In a Socialist system there really is no motivation to succeed, except within the party structure. The resources to support the population within such a system is never large nor diverse enough to meet all the demands. Goods that are produced in this system are usually inferior, because the workers have no real motivation to be productive. Workers are hired where there is no need and can not be fired. Quotas for production are set and managers must meet them or face the consequences. Ergo, incomplete and inferior products are rushed out the door in order meet those quotas. In general the Socialist nations never export any consumer goods. The products just don't match up to the quality of goods produced by the capitalists.
They don't draw talent from other countries, as there is no motivation for top talent to enter such a system. (Except, of course, at the point of a gun as was done to the German scientists after WWII). And, there is no competition to spur improvements in currently produced products or the development of new ones. An old Soviet workers saying "The pretend to pay me so I'll pretend to work" is emblematic of the attitude among the working class. A black market typically thrives in this type of system, as it is the only way to get some products that people want and even need; paradoxically from the Capitalist countries.
Attempts at socialism has always been based on a central committee that exercises dictatorial power. China, the USSR, and Cuba are examples of the attempts to embrace a socialist system. Some South American countries have flirted with it with disastrous results. There really is no other way that the system can work. But, economic reality finally set in for China and Russia and they had to greatly modify their systems in order to survive. They still have an essential dictatorship, but they allow a limited free market to exist. They have adopted a form of Capitalism as their economic model. China and Russia have a lot of millionaires today and a middle class of professionals. They, especially China, have stepped up their technology of war making and now surpass the United States in space capable warfare. And, at least, match the west in Cyber warfare. That makes China and Russia an ever growing threat to the west and the democracies.
Capitalism is simply the model whereby the means of production and services are owned and managed by private capital. That can be a single individual or a group of investors having a small group of selected people perform the management function. There are many variations on this economic model, with government regulations and taxes interfering with the free trade of goods, services, and intellectual properties to a lesser of greater degree, but the essential theme of private ownership of the means of production holds.
Of all the economic systems that have imposed on, or adopted by it's citizens, the one that generates the greatest wealth and national prosperity is the system of free market capitalism.. It produces the greatest exploitation of any national resources available, encourages the growth of new business and generates more, and higher paying jobs than any other system of economics. It produces the most advanced medical treatment by the best and most highly trained doctors. It generates the greatest breakthroughs in medicine, drugs, and basic science. And why is that? In the grosses terms--GREED. The engine that drives capitalism is the desire and pursuit of profit and higher incomes in critical professions. This system encourages that pursuit.
It's the magnet that draws the best researchers in medicine and science. It encourages and rewards achievement. It's the reason that companies are formed and are expanded. It's the reason investors risk their own money to finance the start of a new business or to expand a current one. They hope for profit on their investment. It drives pharmaceutical companies to invest millions and even billions of dollars in the research of new drugs. It encourages the brightest minds to pursue higher education in all kinds of fields, because the rewards are great. Every advanced country in the world today has embraced some form of capitalism as it's basic economic system. The United States leads the way in free market capitalism.
A free market will also produce a ever improving product in fields where the free market exists. Look at the performance and reliability of the automobile today compared to just a few years ago. Competition has driven the auto makers to constantly fight for market share and have forced them to invest billions of dollars into improving reliability and performance for their product. This is true for all kinds of products. Of course it means that the organizations that can't keep up fall by the wayside. Remember the Hudson, Nash and Packard Motor Companies. That's what happens in a free market if you can't compete. Think of the TV of today as opposed to the CRT based systems. In fact, where the free market exists there has been a wave of improvements in all products. The freer the market, i.e. the less government regulation, the greater the incidence of entrepreneurship. In addition, of course, new products have been introduced. Think about the personal computer, a product that likely would never have come about within a socialist system. After all, no one except the Apple founders saw any need for such a device. We have cell phones, fresh fruit and vegetables in the winter, the internet, social media and a mountain of other things available to us that we take for granted, because individuals conceived of the idea and invested their money and time to make it happen. It has been proven over and over that the free market is the best judge of what is needed and wanted by the population and is the best system for adjusting to that need.
But: as one of our Presidents, I think it was Harding, who said "the only problem with Capitalism is Capitalists". When you think about it, all the depressions and recessions we have experienced, have been directly caused by out of control speculation in some critical market, driven by the desire to make a profit in that segment of the market. The stock market crash of 1929/1932, the housing bubble, driven by investment banks and loose credit requirements of the mortgage companies, are prime examples of what can happen.
And, unregulated capitalism will not remain a "free" very long. Look at the history of our own country. Before Teddy Roosevelt came along, trusts and cartels abounded. When a company gets large enough, or originates some product or service, it will take steps to block any competitor it see's that might threaten it's dominance of it's market. There are many ways that can be achieved, not the least of which is to buy up the competition. Look what happened to Westinghouse when the Edison Company, with the backing of the J. P. Morgan banking empire, forced the sale of all the patents it held on alternating current devices and formed General Electric. Westinghouse just didn't have the resources to fight the banking empire. Of course legislators can be "bought" to support the monopolies. Most of you don't remember the Tucker automobile. It was an innovative concept that pushed into new ideas of what a car could do. But, the big three, with their "bought" Senators got the government involved, held numerous hearings concerning a private enterprise and essentially killed the automaker and his concept. The big three didn't want the competition and had it squashed. And, if the market is controlled by just a few large corporations a little price fixing is not unheard of.
Industrialists will work to increase their profit and if left unchecked many actions they take will be unethical, even illegal. When the labor market, which after all is just a product, is driven only by supply and demand factors, and certain segments create a supply of labor that far exceeds the demand, labor can and will be exploited. Companies will get rid of it's waste products the cheapest way it can in order to maximize profit. Rivers are polluted as waste products are dumped. Workers are injured, or even killed, because safety measures are expensive. The water supply is tainted, even poisoned, because there is no effort to control the contamination of the soil and subterranean water supplies. It's too expensive. All these things have happened in the past. Some of them were actually illegal, but far the most part they were not forbidden under the current laws at the time. Of course, these type of actions are not limited to capitalists.
Enter government. Here we have a dichotomy. To maintain a free market, government interference is actually necessary. Only the government has the power to prevent the establishment of monopolies and trusts, to monitor and prevent companies from merging and buying up competitors in an effort to control the market, and to prevent price fixing among the principle players within a given segment of the market. I.e. to keep the market free.
Government,on the other hand, is the principle player in maintaining some monopolies that would fail if not for the governments support by law and by regulations. Some of those monopolies are generally desired and beneficial to most of the public. As an example, the Medical profession is pretty much controlled by government by the severe restriction on who can practice in that field. The practice of law is restricted in the same way. Your utilities enjoy a monopoly on the products they deliver, protected by Government. Patents are registered with the government and the force of the government protects competition for a period of 17 years. This only a couple of examples, there are many government protected monopolies. Some are not questioned by the public at large, but many are purely political in nature.
But, government regulators have a tendency to believe that regulations are an end in themselves, and they often produce regulations that inhibit the free market and business in general, especially small business. They have a history of turning out new regulations by the volumes every day. Those regulations are the greatest impediment to the establishment and growth of business, especially small business. Each bureaucracy feels it has a mandate to accomplish some task and they bull their way though to that end, no matter the consequences to the economy, or even to another bureaus agenda. Big business has the resources and capabilities to cope with the mound of regulations at a huge cost, but small business is simply overwhelmed. The only reason that Apple and Uber, for instance, got off the ground and running, was that the regulators hadn't caught up to them when they were launched.
While a free market system opens the door for the achievers, by it's very nature it leaves a certain segment of the population out of the flow for a number of reasons. This can be as the result of exporting the manufacturing of goods to a foreign country or, of late, the introduction of robotics to replace the human worker. In either case the worker now has no place to market whatever skills they have.This situation is not going to change. Even if you could bring back all the manufacturing that has been exported to foreign lands, only the labor intensive processes, which usually carry low wages, will supply significant jobs. Manufacturing opens up new jobs, but not in the old areas. The new jobs, that pay well, will require training, and a lot of it.
Look at the auto industry. Detroit has laid off thousands of auto workers, but there are more American cars being built today than ever. Robotics are here to stay and will become more intrusive in the future.There really is no place for the worker, whose skills have been bypassed by the advancement of technology. He/she retrains to fit into the new market, or goes on welfare.
New fields have been opened and those who have acquired the necessary skills to move into them make out like bandits, but those who haven't just sit around and wonder what happened. The advance of technology has made the STEM occupations well paid and the workers in high demand.The capitalist system is very dynamic. Change is constant and sometimes rapid. Of course it has made billionaires out of people who are are involved in the financial markets. It will always produce a market where almost all the wealth is concentrated in a very few people. Lately that has become a significant political issue as the wealth gap has become greater than any time in recent history.
If one looks at the history of the United States there has always been about 10 to 15 percent of the population, at least, that live on the edge of minimum subsistence. That usually means that there is always a subset of people who have not, or can not, achieve the skills necessary to compete in the society at that time. That number grows and shrinks, depending on the conditions at the time. But, it's always there. And, the free market system allows no aid for the under achievers.
Thus, the growth of government instituted welfare programs that purport to help those who get caught in the advance of technology, or other factors, beyond their knowledge. Many people talk of the welfare state as being tied to Socialism, but it really is a product of the capitalist system and is financed by taxes drawn from the achievers. After all the ideal Socialist system has everybody working or being paid for some service to the state. But, welfare is a yoke that ties the recipient to the government. It stifles the desire to get ahead, to achieve, to work. Once welfare starts it has tied a portion of the population into never ending servitude to the welfare handouts that proceed through generations.
The people are demanding and getting many of the perks of Socialism in a Capitalist system. Especially in Europe. In a lot of developed countries medical services are essentially or completely free to the consumer. Canada has a one payer system whereas England has a government run medical system where the professionals are employees of the government. The universities are free, but it takes a bit to qualify for entry. They enjoy extended paternity leave, government paid vacations and various perks that smack of socialism. The price they pay for these types of perks are high tax rates on all it's citizens. In some countries as high as 80% of their income ends up going to taxes.
That seems to be the direction that the United States is headed. We have Social Security, Medicare, Medical, all Socialist ideas. One administration after another seems to be trying to tackle the problem of medical care, mostly unsuccessfully. Obamacare is the latest attempt. College tuition has become so expensive that students are graduating with student loans so large they will be paying on them for years. Many economists blame the huge rise in tuition on government sponsored loans. In effect the government is paying the tuition and the student is stuck with paying it back. Given this fountain of available money the colleges just keep raising their fees and paying themselves more. If you haven't noticed the increase in medical expenses over the last few decades, you haven't been paying attention. Here again government financed insurance has opened up a gold mine to the medical profession and they are mining it. And the beat goes on.
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Political Parties are Private Organizations
The Donald is back at again, crying over the fact that the rules governing the Colorado method of selecting delegates to the Republic National Convention is rigged against him and that the powers in the party are trying to "steal" the nomination from him. That seems to be his common complaint when something doesn't go his way. The rules for the selection of delegates were well known before he ever entered the race and certainly before the delegate selection. The fact that he didn't know the rules, or knowing them didn't do the necessary work to put together the forces in that state to do better job is his fault.
As far as stealing the nomination from him; you can't steal something from someone if they don't own it. And he doesn't own the parties nomination for President. No one owns it until they gain the necessary majority of the delegate votes as specified by the rules as laid down by the party before this race ever began. Can the party change the rules? Of course they can. If they see it to their advantage to do so, they might very well just change something.
For instance a rule in place at the moment would prevent anyone but Trump and Cruz from securing the nomination. When the rules committee meets, they may delete that rule, for obvious reasons.
Let's be clear. Political parties are private organizations. They can select their candidates any way they want to. There is no constitutional right for the voters have any say in that selection at all. If the party wishes to hold primary voting to help in selection of that candidate that's up to the party. If they choose to select their delegates to the national convention by a caucus method, that's a choice the state party can make. If they wish to select their candidate in the proverbial smoke filled room, they can. The party can set up any rules they want to in order to present the candidate that they think has the best chance to win the election. They can even stack the convention by use of Super Delegates, as the Democrats have in order influence the outcome of the convention.
Those facts seems to be lost in the vitriol surrounding this years run for the White House. Some of the candidates understand the rules and are using that knowledge to put together an organization that can take advantage of them. Others are living in ignorance and crying foul when the results don't go their way.
Even some of the media, especially on the Fox News Channel seem to be ignorant of some of the facts and are joining in the chorus lamenting what that see as the voters will being thwarted. How they came to that position isn't clear to me, but some of the commentators seem to have some idea that there is some "right" involved with the candidate showing up at the convention with the plurality of the delegates. They seem to have the opinion that denying that candidate the nomination would be "stealing" nomination.
In any event, this a great year for the media and political junkies, but a sad year for the Republicans. In a year where capturing the White House, with a congressional majority, was a slam dunk, The Donald has entered the fray and literally torn the party apart. I don't know whether the party can salvage anything at the convention, but whatever happens it might not be enough.
As far as stealing the nomination from him; you can't steal something from someone if they don't own it. And he doesn't own the parties nomination for President. No one owns it until they gain the necessary majority of the delegate votes as specified by the rules as laid down by the party before this race ever began. Can the party change the rules? Of course they can. If they see it to their advantage to do so, they might very well just change something.
For instance a rule in place at the moment would prevent anyone but Trump and Cruz from securing the nomination. When the rules committee meets, they may delete that rule, for obvious reasons.
Let's be clear. Political parties are private organizations. They can select their candidates any way they want to. There is no constitutional right for the voters have any say in that selection at all. If the party wishes to hold primary voting to help in selection of that candidate that's up to the party. If they choose to select their delegates to the national convention by a caucus method, that's a choice the state party can make. If they wish to select their candidate in the proverbial smoke filled room, they can. The party can set up any rules they want to in order to present the candidate that they think has the best chance to win the election. They can even stack the convention by use of Super Delegates, as the Democrats have in order influence the outcome of the convention.
Those facts seems to be lost in the vitriol surrounding this years run for the White House. Some of the candidates understand the rules and are using that knowledge to put together an organization that can take advantage of them. Others are living in ignorance and crying foul when the results don't go their way.
Even some of the media, especially on the Fox News Channel seem to be ignorant of some of the facts and are joining in the chorus lamenting what that see as the voters will being thwarted. How they came to that position isn't clear to me, but some of the commentators seem to have some idea that there is some "right" involved with the candidate showing up at the convention with the plurality of the delegates. They seem to have the opinion that denying that candidate the nomination would be "stealing" nomination.
In any event, this a great year for the media and political junkies, but a sad year for the Republicans. In a year where capturing the White House, with a congressional majority, was a slam dunk, The Donald has entered the fray and literally torn the party apart. I don't know whether the party can salvage anything at the convention, but whatever happens it might not be enough.
Friday, March 18, 2016
I see a disaster coming
Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump - two highly flawed candidates for the office of President of the United States, the most powerful office in the world.
Hillary has been part of and instrumental in the course in foreign affairs and agreements reached during Obama's reign. She has shown time and again that she really has no clue about the real world and what's happening. Her primary concern seems to be about her and protecting her position in the governing body. She put together a health plan during her husband's administration that even the Democrats couldn't swallow. When the incident in Benghazi blew up, she lied like a sailor to cover the state departments culpability in the whole affair. She had a private server installed in her own residence so that her e-mails would not be open to inspection by any government agency and proceeded to perform government classified activities on that unprotected server. Then she continued her lies when caught, stalled and erased thousands of e-mails from the server before the FBI could get their hands on it. Her story is that the documents that she received and transmitted at the time where not marked as classified. That's about the lamest excuse any public figure, especially the Secretary of State, can use to avoid prosecution for handling of classified data. She's supposed to know what's classified. On top of that, a former member of her staff has said that she directed that the classification markings on some documents be deleted before being transmitted.
Donald has tapped into a couple of sensitive issues for the blue collar workers and has exploited those issues to win a large lead in delegates to the convention. The problem he has now, is that he has left a trail of blood behind him. Personal insults levied at any and all of his opponents that dared to really challenge him. Now that he needs the party to unite behind him he has alienated everybody in sight. He didn't have to do that. His message was obviously resonating with enough voters to produce that lead. He didn't have to get personal with the other candidates. He managed to open his mouth and and say politically incorrect things that are often perceived to be an insult women, Hispanics and other minorities along the way. He probably was just being Trump, with no skill in playing the political game. The people who have known him for years say emphatically that he is none of those things. But, he has generated a prolific amount of potential sound bites for Hillary's campaign in the general election. Reality means very little in the political area, perception is everything. He is not going to do well among that group come November. And, without at least 25 to 30 percent of that group, you don't win.
A lot of key Republicans (the establishment),are frankly dubious about his ability to win in November. So what is the party to do? They see themselves losing the White House in an election that should have been a slam dunk. Even the local dog catcher could beat Hillary. They're afraid that Donald will take the party down with him and they might lose control of congress. As a result there is a lot of effort to force this primary into a open convention, where they feel that they may be able to field a better candidate. They look at the polls, break down the demographics, and see no way the Trump can win. Of course those same polls show that the next likely candidate, Cruz, can't win either. Unfortunately the polls show that the candidates that could win have been driven out of the race.
To set both Trump and Cruz aside at the convention would raise a storm within the party. A lot of their supporters would just stay home. There really is no way out of this conundrum. The only thing the party should hope for is that Donald will surprise every body again, just as he has throughout this whole campaign. In the beginning he was so incorrect in his statements all the pundits wrote him off. But, look what happened.
At this point Trump doesn't have the nomination wrapped. He's really the only one with a chance of doing so. Cruz may get close and challenge at the convention. Especially with the well funded and massive campaign being waged by the Republican establishment geared on stopping Trump from gaining the nomination on the first ballot. I think it would be best for the party if Trump did sew up the nomination before the convention. The last thing the party needs at this point is a floor fight over the nominee.
The question in November will be which candidate is the most disliked. Both have a large unfavorable rating.
We'll see how it plays out. For political junkies, this is a joyous time.
Hillary has been part of and instrumental in the course in foreign affairs and agreements reached during Obama's reign. She has shown time and again that she really has no clue about the real world and what's happening. Her primary concern seems to be about her and protecting her position in the governing body. She put together a health plan during her husband's administration that even the Democrats couldn't swallow. When the incident in Benghazi blew up, she lied like a sailor to cover the state departments culpability in the whole affair. She had a private server installed in her own residence so that her e-mails would not be open to inspection by any government agency and proceeded to perform government classified activities on that unprotected server. Then she continued her lies when caught, stalled and erased thousands of e-mails from the server before the FBI could get their hands on it. Her story is that the documents that she received and transmitted at the time where not marked as classified. That's about the lamest excuse any public figure, especially the Secretary of State, can use to avoid prosecution for handling of classified data. She's supposed to know what's classified. On top of that, a former member of her staff has said that she directed that the classification markings on some documents be deleted before being transmitted.
Donald has tapped into a couple of sensitive issues for the blue collar workers and has exploited those issues to win a large lead in delegates to the convention. The problem he has now, is that he has left a trail of blood behind him. Personal insults levied at any and all of his opponents that dared to really challenge him. Now that he needs the party to unite behind him he has alienated everybody in sight. He didn't have to do that. His message was obviously resonating with enough voters to produce that lead. He didn't have to get personal with the other candidates. He managed to open his mouth and and say politically incorrect things that are often perceived to be an insult women, Hispanics and other minorities along the way. He probably was just being Trump, with no skill in playing the political game. The people who have known him for years say emphatically that he is none of those things. But, he has generated a prolific amount of potential sound bites for Hillary's campaign in the general election. Reality means very little in the political area, perception is everything. He is not going to do well among that group come November. And, without at least 25 to 30 percent of that group, you don't win.
A lot of key Republicans (the establishment),are frankly dubious about his ability to win in November. So what is the party to do? They see themselves losing the White House in an election that should have been a slam dunk. Even the local dog catcher could beat Hillary. They're afraid that Donald will take the party down with him and they might lose control of congress. As a result there is a lot of effort to force this primary into a open convention, where they feel that they may be able to field a better candidate. They look at the polls, break down the demographics, and see no way the Trump can win. Of course those same polls show that the next likely candidate, Cruz, can't win either. Unfortunately the polls show that the candidates that could win have been driven out of the race.
To set both Trump and Cruz aside at the convention would raise a storm within the party. A lot of their supporters would just stay home. There really is no way out of this conundrum. The only thing the party should hope for is that Donald will surprise every body again, just as he has throughout this whole campaign. In the beginning he was so incorrect in his statements all the pundits wrote him off. But, look what happened.
At this point Trump doesn't have the nomination wrapped. He's really the only one with a chance of doing so. Cruz may get close and challenge at the convention. Especially with the well funded and massive campaign being waged by the Republican establishment geared on stopping Trump from gaining the nomination on the first ballot. I think it would be best for the party if Trump did sew up the nomination before the convention. The last thing the party needs at this point is a floor fight over the nominee.
The question in November will be which candidate is the most disliked. Both have a large unfavorable rating.
We'll see how it plays out. For political junkies, this is a joyous time.
Monday, March 14, 2016
The new attack on free speech
Ever since the adoption of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment has been under attack. Especially the right of the citizen to gather in groups and to hear speakers expressing views contrary to those held by another faction.
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Down through the years one group or another has been trying to shut down meetings and rallies, by disruptive tactics, to which it didn't want people exposed. In the 19th and through the late 20th century it was the political far right for the most part. The KKK, for a brief period the American Nazi party, the big manufacturers who attempted suppression of the labor movement, the enemies of civil rights and similar organizations that attempted to disrupt, intimidate and harass any speaker and their listeners who tried to hold a meeting, or a rally in support of reform. They tried to suppress any demonstration of citizens that were campaigning for equality of races and/or gender or better working conditions. They attempted and were frighteningly successful, at least for awhile. in disrupting rallies and demonstrations for a position on critical human rights issues that contradicted their preconceived notions, prejudices and greed. The crusaders persevered however, and with the backing of the government with legislation was able to gain many, if not most, of their objectives.
Now, however, a new dynamic has entered the political arena. It is the left wing, the so called liberals, that are the biggest impediment to free speech in America today. These are the same groups, that at one time, where the recipients of bully boy tactics attempting suppress their drive for a change of the status quo.
The evidence is everywhere. The disruption at a Donald Trump rally just the other day in Chicago is just one example, but there are many. They want to make sure the no one is exposed to political positions that they don't agree with. They did not choose a peaceful demonstration outside the hall where Trump was to speak, but rather, infiltrated the hall and disrupted the meeting, causing enough violence and threat of violence that the meeting had to be cancelled. Of course Donald Trump's problem is- He turns on his mouth before he engages his brain. So, he is far from being politically correct. But, he has the right to be so. Most speakers caught in the same position as Trump, with demonstrators trying to disrupt his or her meeting, might have thought the same things that he said out loud. But, most politicians know that those types of pronouncements are not politically correct and would have handled it differently. Of course in Trumps case, the motivation may be more than just disagreement for some of his "speech before thinking pronouncements" and may have the objective of keeping him from getting the nomination.
Conservative speakers who don't toe the liberal orthodoxy are shouted down and even banned from campuses. A former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Condolleezza Rice, was asked by a major university to withdraw from a commencement address because the left leaning students threatened to disrupt it and didn't want to hear what she might say. This was a woman who was instrumental in American foreign policy for almost eight years, who was also a recognized expert in that field before she ever became part of the administration. She was a person who had something to say and should have been allowed to say it. This is far from the only example. This is happening at the same time socialist professors and speakers, a completely failed system every place it's been tried, are welcomed with open arms. In many colleges and universities across this country, conservative talk is labeled as "Hate Speech" and is not to be allowed.
The university is supposed to be the citadel of discourse and ideas discussed freely. They should be the greatest defenders of the right of the students to express their thoughts and to have free and open discussions on all points of view. The student should be exposed to, and asked to dissect, the positions of the right and the left of the political spectrum. However, the left is not willing to engage the people that they disagree with in civil discourse, but rather use the tactics that were used by the fascists in Germany and Italy prior to WWII and despots around the globe. The left employs these tactics to make sure ideas that are counter to their positions would not be heard. That's probably because in a civilized debate their position would be shown to be full of fairy dust.
Some people in the organized, and it was clearly organized, disruption at the Trump political rally were carrying signs that equated Trump with Hitler. Of course that comparison is ludicrous, and is used extensively by left wing groups that don't like the political views of another. When you think about it, it is the crowd that is using the methods of fascists, not the scheduled speaker.
The liberal media immediately blamed the near riot on Trump. That the disruptive people were exercising their constitutional right in staging the interruption and breaking up the political rally. Frankly that argument holds no water at all. The group with different beliefs have a perfect right to hold rallies and demonstrations supporting their own views, with out disruption from any other group, but they don't have the right to infringe on another person, or groups, in an effort to prevent them from their right of free speech. Bernie Sanders has the right to spout socialism at organized rally's and should be able to do so without organized hostile crowds trying to prevent him from giving his point of view. As should Hillary. Martin Luther King had a right to organize and lead the famous marches for which he is famous without violence and threat of violence dogging his every move.
As a side thought, I wonder what the media would say if a right wing group attempted the disruption of a Sanders or Clinton political rally to the point it had to be cancelled. I'm sure that the group that staged the protest would have been labeled with unflattering names.
I believe it was Hamilton who said, "I might not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
The American Retreat
When you look at the history of American actions, or lack thereof, over the last few years, you can't come to any conclusion other than America is retreating from the world stage. We don't seem to have the will it takes to do the things that must be done to maintain our external and internal security.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Right after WWII we drew down our armed forces and put ourselves into a vulnerable position, thinking that our possession of the atomic bomb would deter any aggressor form threatening us. That turned out to be a short lived advantage as Russia was able to steal almost our atomic secrets and build their own bomb.
Then came Korea. A war we weren't expecting and not ready to fight. In that war , in the end, we had to settle for a stalemate because were unwilling to do the things that had to be done to achieve victory. That would have required that we stand up to the Chinese, something we were not willing to do.
Vietnam was next on the list. A war we should have and could have won, but were again unwilling to make the steps necessary to win. A war that dragged on and on to become America's longest war, being led by a bunch of people in Washington who had no idea what the hell they were doing. This was a war that could have been won decisively within a couple of years with a tenth of the body count that did occur, but our leaders were afraid and unwilling to commit the military to the task. The body bags piled up with the military hampered by decisions made in Washington that were driven by uncertain leaders. The era of instant communications had arrived and that allowed and encouraged the Washington brain trust, who had no military experience of any kind, to micromanage the war, as opposed to WWII where the goal was spelled out by the President but the execution was left to the professionals in the military.
The press, given free reign in Vietnam, as opposed the WWII, told a story that was one sided and definitely not favorable to the Americans fighting in that war. All the public ever saw was the sensational pictures that sold newspapers or ads on TV. It has been speculated, and probably true, that if the American press had been given the same freedom in WWII they were given in Vietnam, they would have withdrawn support for the war after the battle for Tarawa.
The American public was unwilling to back the effort necessary and the politician's reacted accordingly. We lost that one big time and left in full retreat and with our tail between our legs. The casualties and the waste of resources was all for nothing. Vietnam was one of the most shameful events in American history. We entered a war we were not committed to win, with no long term objectives fully in mind.
Then we had the Iran situation arise, where members of the American embassy were taken hostage after the invasion of American territory by the Iranians. By any definition that was a act of war against America. So, how did we react? We protested and wrung our hands. I can guess what would have happened if such an act had occurred under a number of other administrations. American armed forces would have been mobilized and Iran would have either had to release our people of face the consequences. At one time foreign governments did not mess with Americans-the consequences were too dire.
We did have a brief 12 year reprieve from a meek position under Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Reagan stood up to aggression against our allies and the threat from the powerful Soviet Union. Reagan faced the Soviets and dared them to expand their empire. There is no doubt the Soviets yearned for the annexing of all of Europe into the Soviet Bloc. A strong U S military, rebuilt under Reagan, along with our allies, challenged that desire and finally contributed heavily to the fall of the Soviet Union and the liberation of a number of countries formally held hostage by the Soviets. At that time our allies viewed the United States as being trustworthy and would stand by them in case of trouble. That trust no longer exists.
George H. W. Bush put together a force and expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait after they invaded. But, he didn't pursue the defeated Iraqi army into Iraq and take on the problem of Nation Building, which would surely happen if he did. Again we stood up for our friends, this time in the middle east.
Why we invaded Iraq is still a mystery to me. George W. Bush was assured by the CIA and DIA that Sadam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction, but then so was Iran and North Korea. I suppose the reasoning was two fold. He felt that his father had not finished the job when he chose not to pursue the Iraqi forces and perceived that Iraq would be a threat to the Middle East if he succeeded. I'm sure that he nor his closest advisors ever considered the fact that if we overthrew the Iraqi regime we would inherent the long term problem of nation building. The President and his advisors were badly mislead on the mood in Iraq and probable consequences of deposing Hussein and his army, which what was keeping the country pacified.
We were overjoyed when we invaded and defeated the Iraqi army so decisively but, we were not really prepared for the reality of what would happen afterward.
George W. did recognized, a little late perhaps, the reality of the Iraqi occupation and increased troop strength in what's been called the surge. That worked. But, Obama proceeded to dismantle the occupation forces and encouraged the spread of insurrection in the area. Most of problems in the middle east now can be traced back to America's actions. First we destabilized the situation in the area and then we pulled back, leaving a highly volatile mess behind.
Now the US is faced with problems on the world stage with a President that is unwilling, unable, or naïve enough to face up to our growing list of enemies and their aggressive actions.
In the South China Sea on a speck of land, disputed by several countries, far from the borders of China, the Chinese have placed surface to air missiles and fighter planes. The facilities now function as a forward base for the Chinese military in a challenge to the US naval dominance of the Pacific Rim. And what do we do? Nothing.
We have supported Syrian rebels in their fight to throw off the dictatorship Bashar-al-Assad regime. The rebels were making significant gains in their fight against the government and looked close to overthrowing the regime. But, the Russians have entered the fray with significant air power and have propped up dictatorship. This war has sent a flood of refugees fleeing the war and is swamping neighboring countries and Europe by their numbers. At the same time there is a large ISIL force in Syria trying to expand their caliphate. We have provided limited air support to the troops fighting ISIL on the ground, but have not challenged the Russians at all in their very active support of Bashar-al-Assad. All we have done is wring our hands and tried to negotiate something with the Russians.
The Russians invaded and annexed the Crimea, taking it from the Ukraine by force. We wrong our hands but did nothing. Not even providing the arms to the Ukraine so that they had a chance against the armored Russian invaders. That bit of history has been almost forgotten with the sweep of other events.
The Russians then effectively split the Ukraine into two separate provinces. The eastern part of Ukraine being completely under Russian control. And what do we do? Nothing. We refuse to even supply defensive weapons to aid them in defense of their country.
Iran has repeatedly violated UN banes with a shopping spree for military weapons, development of a nuclear bomb and development and testing of ballistic missiles. They have acquired the S-300 anti-aircraft batteries from Russia and is negotiating another 8 billion dollar arms deal with them. What did we do? We pulled back after an agreement that clearly has no teeth and released100 billion dollars to them.
The United States is retreat all over the world, while China is advancing their dominance over the Asian rim, Russia is exerting her influence and domination over eastern Europe and Iran. along with Russia, are already in a position to dominate the middle east.
We still have the most powerful military in the world. But, I guess their purpose is to march in parades and do flyovers at football games. We certainly are not using our military might as a factor in the events that are taking place. If your enemy knows you won't interfere in their actions, then there is not restraint on what they can do.
And what does our President concentrate on? Climate change, Cuba and Gitmo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)