#236 Primer Cha 1: You Can’t Drive Very Fast Only Looking in the Rearview Mirror

29 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Economics, Possible Solutions

First-time readers, the dialogue in this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Gelly: “Jordan, I’ve finished editing the first few chapters.”

Jordan: “Good. Make any changes?”

Gelly: “I tried to make the text more current by including excerpts from papers you wrote later, especially during the early days of the Trump Administration. Hope adding the more recent information was OK.”

Jordan: Glad you added the updates. Thanks. Let me take a look.”

(Chapter 1 of Primer. PDF Download will be available after a few more entries. Text of download will be formatted in columns.)

Imagine this: You need to get someplace quickly. You jump in the driver’s seat and start the car. But the windshield is covered by one of those sun screens. You can only see by using the rearview mirror.

Question: How fast can you drive when you can only see out of the rearview mirror? Not very fast and not very safely.

Where do we start? By removing the sun screen blocking the window. Start looking forward instead of only looking to the past. Duh, the future is different from the past. Yes, learning from the past is important so check the rearview mirror periodically, but spend more time looking ahead than looking behind.

Yes, like all countries, the United States needs to update its approach to economic development. However, the US is facing a major fork…maybe forks…in the road. The combination of a bifurcated economy, concern about our competitive position worldwide and a polarized Congress makes prospects for long–term growth problematic. Without a change in approach the US could fall behind global competitors.

Think it can’t happen? Roughly 100 years ago GDP/capita in Argentina was about 80% of the US GDP/capita. Today, GDP/capita in Argentina is a little over 30% of US GDP/capita. Argentina made some bad strategic economic decisions.

But what about decision–makers in the US? Why are most people in public positions, elected officials and many CEO’s, seemingly reluctant to take a stand on issues outside what is perceived as “mainstream” – thus the analogy of not driving fast while looking only through the rearview mirror?

And why, in 2017, is President Trump’s solution to “Make America Great Again” based on ideas that might have worked when kids hung dice on the rearview mirrors? The ideas are great for nostalgia but they have no basis in today’s economic world, no recognition how technology has affected manufacturing employment and no recognition of the impact on jobs of emerging technologies.

And, no Donald, merely claiming that GDP will increase 4.0% or more each year will not make it happen, nor will claiming “clean coal” bring jobs to back to West Virginia, nor will tweets or tariffs. Nor will pillorying anyone, even well-respected office holders, who question the logic of these retro positions.

So, What Are They Thinking? Given that kind of back-asswards thinking, it is no wonder that many of us get so frustrated with some government policy decisions. Is it no wonder we get angry when a CEO gets a large bonus after laying off workers? It is no wonder we get angry when tax policy encourages companies to send jobs overseas?

Among voters left, right and middle, many decisions by government and business seem to make no sense. In fact, many decisions by government and business seem to be exactly opposite of the best interest of the United States and its citizens.

Does Back-Asswards Have Negative Consequences? Yes, most emphatically yes. In searching for answers to what seem to me to be counter-intuitive decisions, three situations came to mind: (i) the town where I was raised and received my primary and secondary education has been devastated by job losses; (ii) my first post-college employer and a company which was the heart of US manufacturing for decades, General Motors, filed for bankruptcy (in 2011); (iii) thinking and analysis have been replaced by babble spouting talking–head entertainers.

Rather than “pouting and shouting” or even worse, “tweeting” about these frustrations, I decided my therapy was to write a primer outlining how using basic economic principles, business principals and more practical, affordable solutions to help address some policy issues facing the US public and private sectors.

A few years ago I wrote a short paper titled “Why a Healthy Domestic Auto Is Important.” After distributing to a few friends and colleagues, I was surprised by how many commented they had not heard such rationale, agreed it made sense and as such changed their mind about whether the US government should have supported bailing out General Motors and Chrysler. (The paper is included in this primer.)

With that encouragement I drafted other essays, which will be part of the primer. My hope is at least a few people read some or all of the primer and begin to think more broadly and take action on those thoughts.

The primer is designed to be apolitical. The ideas are not exclusively left or exclusively right. Quite honestly, the ideas are so common sense and so basic that at times I am embarrassed to publish them. You would think everyone knew these fundamentals. But apparently not since many are not applied, not understood or lost in political rhetoric.

The primer is also designed to help describe what I consider the cause of the deterioration in the ability of US companies to compete effectively worldwide. Some essays are purely educational; others propose solutions.

As you read these essays, please (i) keep an open mind about the analysis and proposed solutions; (ii) consider how you can implement part or all of the idea, whether you are a member of Congress, a CEO, employee or citizen; (ill) discuss ideas with friends, family and colleagues. The early entries are intended to offer an understanding of some common economic principles and terms. Other entries include common questions, claims and arguments for/against a particular government policy or action.

When you listen to others make claims about what government policy needs to change, or make such claims yourself, then think about the context of the argument and if some additional data or analysis would change your position.

The primer is work in progress. The intent is to add chapters regularly as topics arise. I will update existing chapters for new information and any necessary corrections.

The primer is not a source authority on economics. I would never be so presumptuous. So, if you are schooled on these subjects, please scan the chapters. If nothing else, you can offer ideas on how to improve them.

I hope you find the primer thought provoking, entertaining at times and educational. Please send ideas other topics as well. This primer is the beginning of a journey. I need some guidance on where to go next. Thank you for your time.

For Your Information: If you are curious about my background, raised in Danville, IL, then a town of almost 50,000 (now closer to 30,000). Danville is about 120 miles south of Chicago. Like many Midwest towns in my formative years, Danville was a mix of industrial plants surrounded by farms. Danville offered a good mix of ethnic groups and religions. The public school system was well respected, producing more than its share of successful entertainers, astronauts, educators, doctors and corporate executives.

Education: Drake University (Des Moines, IA); Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Job locations: Detroit area (twice), New York, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Charlotte (currently).
Politics: Fervent independent. Have voted for wide range of Republicans and Democrats. Some in the south consider me a liberal. I remind them of the history of the Republican Party…and that the Civil War ended 150+ years ago, ending with a gentle reminder to “get over it.” I skip “you lost.”

#235 The Set-Up. Primer from “Practical, Affordable Policies Institute” (Part 1)

22 Sunday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Common Sense Policies, Economics, Gov't Policy, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products

≈ 7 Comments

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC

Gelly: “At the beginning of each year, I clean out some file drawers. Look what I ran across.”

Jordan: “I’d forgotten about these. I must have drafted some of these in about 2010-2011, but never published them.”

Gelly: “What were they for?”

Jordan: “Each article was to be a chapter in a primer about how to develop practical, affordable government policies to address key issues. The primer would be the foundation for an organization I thought of creating – the working name was the Practical, Affordable Policies Institute, as known as…”

Gelly: “PAPI. I like that name. My ‘pappy’ always had good, practical advice for our family. So you wanted to become Washington’s ‘PAPI’, right?”

Jordan: “You know better than that.”

Gelly: “Well, someone must have wanted your advice, at least some idea about what was in the primer.”

Jordan: “Not that many people knew about the primer. As a sense check, I circulated the articles within a fairly small group inside the Beltway. Wanted to get reactions and ideas how to improve.”

Gelly: “That explains the phone call in the early days of the Trump Administration. A couple of staffers asked for copies of the primer. I wasn’t sure what they were talking about. Remember when I asked you about it?”

Jordan: “Yes and I was out of town…somewhere. I emailed the staffers a copy but you and I never talked about the primer when I got back. The staffers that called probably were part of the review group.”

Gelly: “Now the rest of the conversation with the staffers makes sense. They were concerned that senior officials in the Trump Administration had no clear policy for addressing many aspects of the economy.”

Jordan: “You mean they didn’t consider Trump’s tweets and ‘toss out whatever Obama did’ as real policy?”

Gelly: “I still shudder when I think about Trump’s approach early on. Do you think these articles actually helped turn things around?”

Jordan: “In Washington, as you know, a good idea has many fathers. But, I presume the staffers did distribute the primer to some people in the Trump Administration…very discreetly, of course.”

Gelly: “As I flipped through the pages, some of the articles seemed to be more about approach than actual policy.”

Jordan: “True. I thought the articles about approach might be helpful since to make something happen – accelerate economic growth, for example – you can’t simply wish it to be true and expect results.”

Gelly: “So, to implement a policy and make it work you really do need a plan and a disciplined approach to implementation.”

Jordan: “Yes, and the statement seems so incredibly obvious. I remember some people finished an article and asked…and I think rightfully so…’what’s the value here? What’s being discussed is just common sense.’”

Gelly: “Funny, I thought the same thing about some topics. But I agree that common sense seems to get lost on some people when they’re inside the Beltway.”

Jordan: “Let’s hope it doesn’t get lost for us.”

Gelly: “Another question. Do you think if all the ideas in the primer were implemented, the country could have avoided the Revenge Revolution?”

Jordan: “That’s a real stretch. What I do know is if the Trump Administration had considered more carefully the essence of what was outlined in the primer, then the likelihood of a Revenge Revolution would have diminished. At a minimum the Revenge Revolution would have been later and less disruptive.”

Gelly: “You ever going to publish these?”

Jordan: “Should I? Whadda think?”

Gelly: “My vote is ‘yes’ you should publish.”

Jordan: “I’m not sure what all the topics were. You have a list?”

Gelly: “Here’s a list so far. I think there are a few more.”

You Can’t Drive Fast Looking through the Rearview Mirror
Basic Economics and Common Sense
National Debt Is Too High. Well, Not Really.
Unemployment: Always a Lagging Indicator
Seasonal Adjustments and Trend Lines
Manufacturing Creates Wealth
Impact of Losing the US Manufacturing Base
Eliminating the Incentive to Pillage
Recruiting New Plants or Overseas Manufacturing
Practical Policies to Rebuild US Manufacturing
Why a Healthy Domestic Auto Industry Is Important
Securing Equity Capital for Start-Ups, Emerging Companies
Capitalizing on Global Warming

Jordan: “I’d forgotten about a few of those. Gelly, here’s an idea. I’ll consider publishing the primer…rather we’ll consider publishing the primer…after you edit the various entries.”

Gelly: “You want me to edit?”

Jordan: “I know some of the data needs to be updated, which I can help with. But having you edit will make sure the papers are understandable to the average reader. I tried to make the language simple but not sure I always succeeded.”

Gelly: “How quickly do you want the editing finished?”

Jordan: “Weave the editing into your normal schedule. Finish at least one per week and try to get two finished. And, then we’ll publish as you finish, OK?”

Gelly: “We’ll publish? But these are your papers.”

Jordan: “No. They’ll be our papers and we will publish.”

(Entries for the primer will be published at one or two per week. Entries published to date will be available for download on the “Policy Primer” page of the blog. Format will be double columns.)

#234 The Bet: How Long before Trump Leaves Office?

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s office Washington, DC

Gelly: “We have an unexpected visitor.”

JC: “Hi Jordan. Glad to see me?”

Jordan: “Of course, JC. I’m always glad to see you. And you’re in town because…?”

JC: “Greenie is adding a few chapters to her book about the causes of the Revenge Revolution. She wants me to research if and how the tone of the transition after the election and the tone of the Inaugural speech might have influenced the effectiveness of the administration.”

Jordan: “Interesting topic. So, if the transition was smooth, the incoming might be more effective, right?”

JC: “Exactly…and vice versa.”

Jordan: “Speaking of inaugurations, do you remember our conversation in 2017, just before Trump was sworn in?”

JC: “Of course. And the loser, or winner depending on one’s perspective, never paid off the dinner bet. Whadda say we have the payoff this evening?”

Jordan: “Gelly, am I free this evening, please? And, if so, would you like to join us for dinner?”

Gelly: “Yes, you’re available and I would love to join you guys. But I don’t know all the background about the bet, just bits and pieces.”

JC: “Here’s the short version. Remember I stopped by the office a few days before Trump’s inauguration?”

Gelly: “Yes, but just after you got here I had to leave for a meeting.”

(Conversation from January 17, 2017)

Jordan: “JC, you must be in town for the inauguration.”

JC: “You’re right about the inauguration but not here for the swearing-in.”

Jordan: “Listen, if you need tickets, I can get you a couple. Lots of members of Congress are not attending.”

JC: “Not on your life would I attend. I’m in town to join a protest march against Tweety Bird.”

Jordan: “Now, now, you should show the incoming president some respect.”

JC: “Why? He never showed any respect to president Obama.”

Jordan: “But still.”

JC: “The Republicans never showed any respect for Obama either, especially old Mitchie McConnell. What a hypocrite.”

Jordan: “Some people think McConnell was just doing his job…and quite effectively.”

JC: “Now we’re headed into an era where the Republicans…more appropriately called the Republicants and Republirants…actually have to do something other than say ‘no.’ And we’ve got an incoming president who thinks an oligarch is a hero and people with education and experience are trash.”

Jordan: “The oligarch – you mean POTUS’ love for Putin?”

JC: “Please, the Trumpster is not yet POTUS and, yes his love for Putin. I mean really, Jordan, aren’t you upset? The man is crazy!”

Jordan: “You are a bit pumped. Why do you say he’s crazy?”

JC: “Look at his behavior. Remarks during the campaign were bad…and frequently way out of line for a presidential candidate. But his behavior and remarks since the election have been worse.”

Jordan: “Such as…?”

JC: “The list of ‘stupid is as stupid does’ is almost endless and keep growing daily. Let’s start with trashing Representative John Lewis. Trump tweets that Lewis is ‘all talk and no action.’ Really, Donald? Lewis no action? Every read any history? Of course not. And Donald what have you done that merits noteworthy ‘action’?”

Jordan: “You consider that the attack on Lewis classifies him as crazy? Maybe it was just a bad tweet.”

JC: “You know my degree…my degrees are in psychology. Diagnosing from afar is a bit risky. But his behavior is so blatant and so consistently outside the norm that I think there’s a rock-solid case to label him as delusional. He has exhibited no reasoning skills whatsoever. In fact I’m not sure he can differentiate between what’s true and what’s not true.”

Jordan: “Could his behavior be an early sign of Alzheimer’s? Although when first diagnosed I think he was older than the Donald, Fred Trump was afflicted with Alzheimer’s.”

JC: “I didn’t realize his father had Alzheimer’s. Wouldn’t wish that on anybody. Early-stage Alzheimer’s really hard to separate from some other mental illnesses and even dementia caused by say a chemical imbalance.”

Jordan: “No way to really know?”

JC: “If we take his brain out we’ll know for sure. I know, I know.”

Jordan: “So what’s the solution? Your protests aren’t going to change his behavior. He’s so thinned-skinned he’ll probably double down and bully even more people.”

JC: “The only solution I know of is to take him out. Where’s the mafia when you need them?”

Jordan: “You serious? Take him out? Really?”

JC: “Tell me how else to control the guy? He shows no sign of understanding the complexities of many domestic and international issues, let alone how to solve problems. Tweeting does not constitute well thought-out policy. He’s simply dangerous to the country.”

Jordan: “I agree he doesn’t come across as the brightest bulb around but many presidents have not been the smartest guy in the room.”

JC: “But no president that I’m aware of exhibited such irrational behavior. On the Trump scale of behavior, Nixon look almost normal.”

Jordan: “If he’s so bad, then how long do you think he’ll last?”

JC: “Want my honest opinion?”

Jordan: “Yes, please.”

JC: “He’ll be taken out after a year…OK, I’ll give him two years.”

Jordan: “You really mean taken out…or just booted out, like impeached?”

JC: “He will not be president in two years. And I’ll bet you a dinner and drinks I’m right.”

(End of earlier conversation.)

Gelly: “So now I have the whole story. And I’m invited to the payoff this evening.”

(Entry to be concluded sometime.)

#233 Is Revenge Revolution Still Likely? Yes, Outlook Worse. (Part 2 of 2)

07 Saturday Jan 2017

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, the blog is usually constructed as a dialogue between characters. The dialogue is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020) and assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Normally, I allocate one entry every six months or so as a “sense check” whether the 5^th US revolution, aka Revenge Revolution, seems plausible by say 2020-2025. Given developments since the election of Donald Trump, and especially given recent actions and statements by the president-elect, I felt compelled to expand “sense-check” entry #232.

If you want to read no farther, my conclusion is this. A Revenge Revolution is not just a possibility, but is quickly moving to the category of “highly likely.” In addition, the US is likely to experience another president being assassinated, or at a minimum removed from office. OK, now the rationale.

Believe what you want…and I don’t care if you voted for Clinton or Trump or a 3^rd party…Trump continues to exhibit behavior that most politely can be described as bizarre and more realistically described as Howdy-Doody like, reacting as would a puppet when various inexperienced people pull the strings. There is no consistent pattern of behavior, just jerky, random motions.

Trump’s campaign promised he would effectively “drain the swamp.” Well, if you want to change the way an organization behaves, rational people know you cannot simply “blowup” the infrastructure of the organization and expect it to remain standing and operate effectively.

If you want to lead an organization through the change, you have to demonstrate leadership qualities yourself. The person trying to initiate the change cannot simply give staff members the finger, belittling the organization they work for and then expect staff members to follow proposed changes enthusiastically. Plus, if one is going to make change, then there must be a plan to follow that leads away from the current way of operating to a new way of operating. Change without a clear plan is a sure recipe for chaos.

So far, Trump has not disclosed anything remotely resembling a plan. And worse, Trump continues to demonstrate an apparent inability to develop a cohesive plan. Sending tweets does not constitute a plan. OK, so you want to cancel Obamacare. What is the replacement? The approach is not like tearing down a building before you’ve decided on plans for the new building and converting the land to a parking lot while building plans are crafted. Such an approach won’t work for making changes to health care, or EPA, or Education or any other agency.

Assessing the structure and efficiency of the CIA seems a fair goal. But if you expect support for such an assessment, why on earth would you claim that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks provide more credible information than the CIA? Such remarks not only fall in the category of “stupid is as stupid does,” but self-destructive. Such remarks can affect national security and beg for some covert operator(s) to take out “the problem”, i.e., the Donald. If you think such an idea is impossible in the US, then you’re being incredibly naïve or smoking way too much weed.

If you want the support of the military, it won’t result from merely appointing a couple of generals to your staff. If you want support of the military, would you claim to know more about field operations than generals in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere?

If the wacko rhetoric had stopped at the end of the campaign, then many in the affected agencies might have sighed and agreed to move on. But, no, the wacko behavior has not stopped. The wacko behavior continues unabated and, if anything seems to have ratcheted up. Before being briefed by the CIA, the Donald claimed to know “what no one else knows” about potential Russian hacking. Well, Donald, that means one of two things – either you’re wired to Putin or you’re stupid.

I have a friend who claims Trump is a great negotiator and incredibly smart. Trump might know how to negotiate a real estate deal, although the track record is anything but stellar. But Trump incredibly smart? That’s one of the funniest statements I’ve heard in years. The man cannot put a coherent paragraph together. I realize many Trump supporters might not care what he says, but a lot of high-powered people worldwide do.

If his words and tweets have to be interpreted by staff…as they are now…then how do critical messages get communicated to government agencies, the public and other world leaders? Why not go ahead and tell the military to launch nuclear missiles…and then sometime later have a staffer clarify the remarks by claiming that’s not what he really meant to say. Oh well, nuclear war means more new buildings are needed…and the Trump organization can build them.

Maybe flaunting social norms, ignoring the press, disregarding protocol and thumbing your nose at possible conflicts of interest feeds the Donald’s ego and makes him feel important. But, Mr. President-elect, you are setting up yourself and the country for failure. Your behavior is Richard Nixon on steroids. Nixon was able to resign. You are likely not to have that option.

Dictators in other countries might be able to bully the masses and stay in power. What’s different about the US is the number of arms held by citizens. Remember the 2^nd Amendment? And, in case you’ve forgotten, thanks to the NRA many of the arms owned by the citizens are military style and military caliber. Oops.

Some icing on the cake. Discussion of and/or Congressional attempts to overthrow the basic operations of the Federal government, including Social Security, Medicare and some form of health insurance, will add fuel to an environment that is ripe for a revolution. I find it interesting that soon after the election, I received an email from an ardent Trump supporter, asking me to sign a petition to ensure Medicare is not changed. Some Trump supporters are starting to connect the dots and apparently are not very happy. Think about this situation – if a segment of the population starts to rebel using firearms, even a small segment of the population, the local police and military will find it nearly impossible to maintain control.

As for Trump himself, while the Secret Service might be able to protect the president, Trump’s primary NY residence, Trump Tower, and other residences and properties associated with Trump will be easy targets. Even for Trump Tower, the Secret Service cannot shutdown commerce on 5^th Avenue just because Trump or some of his family is in residence. Even more challenging is how the Secret Service will prevent IED-drones from being launched from near-by Central Park or even from New Jersey. OK, so a single drone won’t bring down Trump Tower, and maybe five drones won’t…but five drones with high explosives can cause serious damage and a major fire.

Once it starts, the Revenge Revolution will not stop with taking out one key figure in government. Unfortunately, if Trump is assassinated then it is likely vice-president Pence will be taken out as well. Additional targets could be those in the Cabinet and Congress who are perceived to be destroying basic rights.

Do I hope I’m wrong with this prediction? Yes, I hope I am wrong. The segment has not been fun to write, believe me. But like it or not, what we’ve not seen in the behavior of the president-elect is any indication he understands the gravity of the job as president. Further, none of his remarks, tweets and other actions indicate a level of maturity, or even intellect, required to be the US president. A couple of days ago Vice-President Joseph Biden was quoted as telling the president-elect to “grow up.” Joe, you comment is spot on. Unfortunately, for the US, and the world, the president-elect seems incapable of growing up. And aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Monthly Archives: January 2017

#236 Primer Cha 1: You Can’t Drive Very Fast Only Looking in the Rearview Mirror

#235 The Set-Up. Primer from “Practical, Affordable Policies Institute” (Part 1)

#234 The Bet: How Long before Trump Leaves Office?

#233 Is Revenge Revolution Still Likely? Yes, Outlook Worse. (Part 2 of 2)