• Home
  • Booklets/Grouped Entries
  • Tech Tsunami
  • List of Entries to Date
  • About the Author

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

usrevolution5

Category Archives: Gov’t Policy

#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

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.

Scene: Jordan’s office Washington, DC

092615_2031_Characters7.gifGelly:  “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.”

092615_2031_Characters1.jpgJordan:  “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?”

TurtleneckJordan:  “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.”

tweetyJC:  “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.”

RantJC:  “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…?”

trump-scowlJC:  “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 goofy006think 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.”

gangster-cartoon-clip-art-540pxJC:  “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.”

kick-in-the-pantsJordan:  “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.

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.

Normally, I allocate one entry every six months or so as a “sense check” sense-checkwhether the 5th 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 3rd party…Trump continues to exhibit behavior that most politely can be described Howdy-Doodyas 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 092615_2031_Characters12.gifdemonstrate 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 questioncancel 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 Self-Destruct-Buttonremarks 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 military-clip-art--military-clipart-8claim 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 laughing-manis 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-explosionnuclear 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.

092615_2031_Characters8.gifDictators 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 2nd 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 Connecting Dotschanged.  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 5th 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.

american-revolution-728714Once 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 Turtleneckindicate 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?

   

#231 Lessons from Revenge Revolution: Trump’s ‘Incompetents Club’ Cabinet (Part 7 of 7)

18 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Federal Budget, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution

≈ Leave a comment

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.  This conversation begins Entry #225.

Gelly:  “Drone Man, nice to see you again.  I thought you were headed back to your 092615_2031_Characters7.gifgranddaughter’s tour group.”

Drone Man:  “Just as I got off the elevator in your lobby she called and said there’d been a delay of an hour or so.  So, Gelly, if it’s OK, I’ll take that cup of coffee you offered a few minutes ago.”

Gelly:  “Of course.  Come on in.  Jordan and I were just taking a short break.”

Jordan:  “Welcome back, Drone Man.  So we have you for another hour or so, eh?”

Drone Man:  “If you can put up with me.”

Jordan:  “It’s tough but we’ll try.”

(Gelly brings Drone Man coffee.)

Drone Man:  “Thanks for the coffee Gelly.  And since I interrupted you guys, I have another favor.”

Jordan:  “Which is…?”

Drone Man:  “In discussing lessons learned from the Revenge Revolution, I’ve not heard much about the Trump Administration…other than some lessons about what not goofy006to do for economic and tax policies.”

Jordan:  “You have a specific topic in mind?”

Drone Man:  “What about the lessons learned from Trump’s selection of various cabinet positions and heads of agencies?”

Jordan:  “You mean Trump’s appointments to the ‘Incompetents Club?’”

Drone Man:  “C’mon.  You really don’t mean the appointees were incompetent, do you?  Lots of smart people.”

Gelly:  “Jordan, Drone Man makes an interesting point.  These were smart people.  What do you mean?”

Jordan:  “Would either of you hire me to manage your brain surgery?”

Drone Man:  “Of course not.  That would be stupid.  What do you know about brain surgery?”

Brain deadJordan:  “Then stupid is as stupid does.. Why nominate a brain surgeon to be head of HUD (Housing and Urban Development).  Just because he lived in public housing as a kid, doesn’t mean he knows how to manage the agency.  The same applies to any number of Trump’s appointments – EPA, DOE, Interior…and the list goes on.  Zero knowledge of the agency they were to manage.”

Drone Man:  “Look, Trump was trying to ‘drain the swamp.’  He needed to appoint people who were not connected to the agency.”

Jordan:  “If you’re going to drain the swamp, don’t you think you should put someone who knows something about swamps?”

aligator-clip-artGelly:  “But didn’t Trump claim that people who knew the swamp were the problem?  Therefore, why appoint them?”

Drone Man:  “Keep poking him, Gelly.”

Jordan:  “My view is Trump was focused on the wrong target.”

Gelly:  “Well, then who’s to blame for the swamp if it’s not the bureaucrats at the agencies?”

Jordan:  “A group that few people really think about as a core problem – Congress.  CongressOh, yes, people think some members of Congress are too self-centered and non-responsive.”

Gelly:  “What about voters?  People keep electing the same congressional rep.  There’s very little turnover.”

Jordan:  “I agree voters share part of the blame.  But, unlike legislators in Congress, voters can’t make laws.  Voters cannot determine what money the Federal government will spend.  And that fact seems to be where Trump completely missed the boat.  The Federal agencies do not authorize their budget.  All spending bills are initiated in the House, not by the agency.”

Gelly:  “So you’re saying the agencies really manage the money that Congress authorizes, right?”

ConstitutionJordan:  “Exactly.  If you listened to Trump, who apparently had never read the Constitution and sleep-walked through his 8th-grade civics class, you’d think EPA, Defense, Education, Interior, Transportation and all the other agencies just ran around printing money willy-nilly.  Someone forgot to tell the Donald, if you want to change what goes on in Washington, you better start with the place that approves the spending…Congress.”

Gelly:  “I must missing something.  If the heads of agencies are really just managers, why were the Trump appointments so bad?  I mean most of his appointments were business people and former military generals.  Don’t these guys know how to manage?”

Drone Man:  “She’s spot on, Jordan.  What’s the issue with my man’s appointments…I mean Trump’s appointments?”

Jordan:  “Like I said earlier, if you’re going to manage a complex task…like brain surgery…you should know something about the subject matter.”

Gelly:  “This discussion all seems abstract to me.  You have a specific example?”

Jordan:  “Yes, Trump put ideologues in management positions.  Few of the appointees had real-world experience in the field they were supposed to manage…and some had no management experience whatsoever.  That same approach…ideologues managing areas where they had little experience…is what ruined one of the world’s best companies.”

GM,_logoDrone Man:  “Based on you past, you must be talking about another general…General Motors?”

Jordan:  “In the early 1980’s when Roger B. Smith took over as chairman, he too claimed he wanted to ‘drain the swamp,’ although he used different words.  Like Trump he focused on cost, cost, and cost.  He chose to pursue seemingly easy, high-profile targets, including shafting some long-time vendors.”

Gelly:  “But isn’t that just the way good businesses operate?”

Jordan:  “Not really.  Trump’s record as a businessman is not very good.  Why GM was so remarkably successful for so many decades was not because it focused primarily on cost.”

Drone Man:  “What did Smith do that was so wrong?  I still don’t understand.”

BeanCounterJordan:  “His approach to generating profits was wrong.  Smith put a bunch of bean counters in staff positions that had nothing to do with finance.  Their job was to generate more profits, primarily by cutting cost and then cutting more cost.”

Gelly:  “That sounds like the approach Trump and heads of agencies took.  Keep cutting cost.”

Drone Man:  “What’s wrong with cutting cost?  All large organizations have fat, especially the government.  You sound like some screaming liberal…or even worse fat-personsome academic.”

Jordan:  “And you sound like Trump with his immature tweets.”

Gelly:  “Now children, let’s behave.”

Jordan:  “Yes, mother.  Anyway, in Smith’s obsession with profits, he forgot one thing…sustained profits are not generated from cutting costs.  Sustained profits, and not just for GM but for any company, are generated from selling more product, whether cars and trucks or computers or shirts and sweaters.  No organization can sustain itself without generating revenue.”

Gelly:  “So what really happened at General Motors when Roger Smith was chairman?  Is that the person who people called ‘Squeaky’?”

Jordan:  “During Squeaky’s reign…I mean Smith’s reign in the 1980’s, GM lost 10 points of market share.  Let put that in perspective.  If annual car and truck sales are say 15 million units, then GM no longer produced and sold 1,500,000 sales units every single year.”

money-down-the-drainDrone Man:  “Each year?  That seems like a huge number…and lots of money down the drain.”

Jordan:  “At the time it was the equivalent of about six (6) large assembly plants with thousands and thousands of people and suppliers.  1.5 million is more cars and truck than sold in the US by Chrysler, Honda, Toyota at the time and bunch of other manufacturers.”

Gelly:  “Well, if GM lost those sales in the 1980’s, did the slide continue in the 1990’s?”

Jordan:  “That’s the problem, once a slide like that starts, it’s very hard to stop.  GM eventually declared bankruptcy.  Before it started to rebound in about 2014, GM share was only about 1/3 of what it was just before Smith took over.”

Drone Man:  “That’s amazing.  They lost 2/3 of their market share?”

Jordan:  “Just about 2/3, yes.”

Drone Man:  “So, if sales and revenue decline, all those cuts in expenses mean man-fallingnothing.  If the revenue falls, then profit also falls and the organization does not come out ahead…and in the end can be worse off.”

Jordan:  “Interesting dilemma, huh?  I’m not saying you shouldn’t look for ways to cut cost, but people need to understand what generates revenue…and it’s not from cutting cost.”

Gelly:  “For the government, revenue is from taxes.  So, if the economy continues to stall or even sink, or people are not as productive and make less money, then the long-term effects are like what happened to GM.  That doesn’t seem very appealing.”

Drone Man:  “I’d never really connected the dots between the skills of the cabinet members and the possible effect on the country.  It’s really important to have the right people in the right job.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “As I asked earlier, would you hire me to manage your brain surgery?”

Drone Man:  “When I think about Trump’s picks for cabinet posts, most of them were ideologues opposed to the fundamental purpose of the agency.  No wonder there were so many problems.”

Jordan:  “No different from Roger Smith chosing people in GM who were focused on cutting cost and not generating revenue.  As most of Trump’s cabinet didn’t understand government, most of Smith’s picks didn’t really understand the car business.”

Gelly:  “And Trump selected people who were focused on destroying the very agency they were supposed to lead.  Rather than making the agency better, they wanted to destroy it.”

Drone Man:  “Unfortunately, the result for the country was about the same as GM…except rather than going bankrupt the US had the Revenge Revolution.”

three-stoogesJordan:  “Now you see why I called Trump’s cabinet the ‘Incompetent’s Club.’  They might have been smart in one field but they were like Larry, Moe and Curly in their government jobs.”

Drone Man:  “And with that bit of wisdom, I need to disappear…this time for good.  Gelly, Jordan, it’s been swell.”

#229 Post Revenge Revolution: Lessons Learned – Economic Policy Fundamentals: Taxes (Part 5)

04 Sunday Dec 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Economics, Federal Budget, Gov't Policy, Lessons of Revolution

≈ 2 Comments

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.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC, start of work day.  (Conversation starts Entry #225)

Jordan:  “Gelly, whenever you’re ready let’s continue the discussions about lessons learned from the Revenge Revolution.  We’re supposed to talk about economic policy.”

092615_2031_Characters7.gifGelly:  “We can start as soon as a friend of yours arrives.”

Jordan:  “What? Friend visiting?  There are no meetings scheduled now.”

Gelly:  “Drone Man just called and asked if he could stop by.  He should be by shortly.  Is that OK?”

Jordan:  “Of course.  Besides, he and I have periodic conversations about economic policy.  Interested to see if he’s changed his position since the Revenge Revolution.”

Gelly:  “Speaking of Mr. Drone Man.”

Drone Man:  “Gelly, Jordan, nice to see you.”

Jordan:  “Nice to see you Drone Man.  What brings you to the DC, or the Swamp as the Trumpsters called it?”

TrumpDrone Man:  “Probably still a swamp, even after Trump.  I’m here because my granddaughter had a field trip to Washington and she wanted me to be a chaperone.  I’ve got a couple of free hours and thought it might be fun to stop by and chat.”

Jordan:  “Your timing is perfect.  Gelly and I have been discussing lessons learned from the Revenge Revolution.  Next on the list is economic policy — taxes.”

Drone Man:  “May I participate?  I’ll try to be polite.”

Gelly:  “So, Jordan, you were going to explain some of the fundamentals of good economic policy, starting with taxes.”

Drone Man:  “Gelly, all you need to know about economic policy is two words.  You don’t need to know anything else.  The two words are ‘tax cuts.’”

Jordan:  “Forever the Trumpster, despite all that went wrong under that administration.  Let’s take Drone Man’s two-word policy and see if it works.”

drone-manDrone Man:  “Of course tax cuts work.  Tax cuts always work.  Talking to you liberals is so frustrating.  Why don’t you admit we’re right!”

Gelly:  “Oh boys, I thought this was supposed to be a civilized conversation.”

Jordan:  “You’re right Gelly.  Here’s the premise for why tax cuts supposedly work.  The tax rate on the wealthiest in the US is too high.  By lowering the tax rate, the wealthiest will invest more money and create jobs for those with middle and lower incomes.”

Gelly:  “You mean like the benefits of tax cuts for the rich somehow trickle down to the rest of us?”

voodoo-2015958Jordan:  “Yes, that’s the theory.  It’s also what Bush 41 called voodoo economics.”

Drone Man:  “Cut the editorializing and keep to the theory, please.”

Jordan:  “The added investment associated with the tax cuts would create more jobs, which in turn would create more taxes and the added taxes from the middle and lower-income families would more than offset tax cuts for the wealthier. Did I explain the theory about right Drone Man?”

Drone Man:  “Close enough.”

Confused Clip ArtGelly:  “I have what’s probably a really dumb question.”

Jordan:  “I’m sure the question is not dumb.  Fire away.”

Gelly:  “Once taxes are cut, then the wealthy people are supposed to invest the extra money.  But where do they invest it?”

Drone Man:  “More factories to make more goods.  They hire more people.  That’s where all the extra jobs come from…and then the extra tax revenue flows back to the government.  It’s so easy to understand.”

Gelly:  “Here’s what I don’t understand.  If middle and lower-income people only have a little bit more money to spend…or maybe no more money to spend after the tax cuts…then who’s going to buy all the extra products the new factories make?”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Good question.  How ‘bout that Drone Man?”

Drone Man:  “What’s not to understand?”

Gelly:  “Let me ask the question this way.  Drone Man, if you owned a business, under what conditions would you invest and expand the business?”

Drone Man:  “I’d expand when I thought demand for the company’s products was going to exceed production capacity.”

Gelly:  “Would you expand if customers could not afford to buy more of your products?”

Drone Man:  “Of course not.  That would be stupid.  The idea of ‘build it and they will come’ only happens in the movies.  What was the name of that movie about some baseball diamond in a cornfield?”

field-of-dreamsGelly:  “You mean ‘Field of Dreams’?”

Drone Man:  “That’s the one.  ‘Field of Dreams.’  No business can operate like that.”

Gelly:  “Jordon also mentioned ‘Field of Dreams’ to me.”

Drone Man:  “At least we agree on something.”

Gelly:  “If I understand both of you correctly, business owners, even if they have more personal income…say through a tax cut…aren’t going to expand their business unless…”

Drone Man:  “…unless demand is going to increase and outstrip capacity.  Why can’t you guys understand this?”

Gelly:  “Then why would a tax cut that disproportionately favors the wealthy cause these owners to make more…what do the accountants call it, capital investments?  Why wouldn’t the business owners just put the money in the bank or Used Car royalty-free-car-salesman-clipart-illustration-443283the stock market?  Tell me what I’m missing?”

Jordan:  “Now Drone Man, tell Gelly what’s wrong with her logic?”

Drone Man:  “OK, so the wealthy probably won’t increase capital spending and instead purchase bonds or stocks.”

Gelly:  “Here’s another dumb question.  Why wouldn’t putting more money in the pockets of middle and lower-income families create more demand than giving more money to the wealthy?  It seems logical the lower and middle-income people would spend most of the extra money.  Then the additional spending would create extra demand and allow the wealthy business owners to build money-in-pocketmore factories…and make even more money?”

Jordan:  “Gelly, how much someone spends of an extra dollar received is called the marginal propensity to consume, or MPC.”

Gelly:  “You said to remember the letters MPC.  So I assume this MPC, or marginal propensity to consume, is higher for lower and middle-income families?  If someone who doesn’t have much money gets $1,000, they’ll spend most of it.  To someone who’s rich, $1,000 is probably a rounding error and they won’t spend it, right?”

Jordan:  “You got it.  Now Drone Man, what about Gelly’s analysis?  Wouldn’t the Wall Street Signeconomy be better off if the tax cuts or government spending were directed at people who would spend the money and help the economy grow rather than people who will put the money in stocks or bonds?”

Drone Man:  “OK Gelly, you’re right…I mean you might be right.  I mean, no you’re not right.  Tax cuts for the wealthy have proved to be a way to sustain growth in the economy.”

Jordan:  “Really?  You have some hard evidence?”

ronald_reaganDrone Man:  “Look at what Reagan did.  He cut taxes and the economy grew.”

Jordan:  “What if I said Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew even more?  Plus there was a budget surplus under Clinton and a huge deficit under Reagan.  In fact under Reagan…and Bush 41/43… growth in the deficit as a percent of GDP was proportionately much higher than under Obama.  In fact, under the so-called fiscally conservative Reagan-like Republicans, the debt as a percent of GDP increased more than 150%.  The increase would have been much higher if Clinton hadn’t had a budget surplus and lowered debt as a percent of GDP.  Here, let me dig out a chart and show you.”

Drone Man:  “I don’t need to see your phony chart based on made-up data.  You have your facts, I have mine.”

Jordan:  “Excuse me, Drone Man?  You’re claiming data about the deficit and GDP are fabricated?  You think the there are multiple sets of economic data?”

Drone Man:  “What I know is what I know…and I know I’m right.  I don’t need some liberals so-called economic data.  It’s always biased.  Why did I stop by here?”

(To be continued)

#216 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 3)

04 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, Economics, Gov't Policy

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, 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.

Scene: Jordan’s Office, on phone with nephew of long-time friend.  Nephew is taking advanced economics course and been assigned paper to determine if  trade agreements cost US workers jobs.  Conversation begins Entry #214.

Jordan:  “Billy, I’ve got my coffee refilled.  Back to the question, ‘Do trade agreements cause job losses for US workers?’  For now focus on manufacturing jobs.”

student clip_art_free_-_school_clip_art_free_20121124_1951589029Billy:  “I suppose it depends on what expertise each country has.”

Jordan:  “Give me an example.”

Billy:  “If a country has much lower labor cost, then high labor-content jobs might move to the new country…assuming the skills were there.”

Jordan:  “OK, I’ll buy that argument.  What about jobs where labor content is low?”

Billy:  “Then there’s no reason any jobs should be lost.  Why would you move to a different country if labor content in the US plant is low?  That makes no sense.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “What about moving jobs if the labor cost in the new country is lower but the delivery times are longer and other logistics issues are more complicated?”

Billy:  “That might make sense.  If I were the US company, I’d have to decide if responding to customer orders more quickly was more important than savings a few bucks.  I suppose if you’re making Popsicle sticks that are all the same, cost per stick becomes more important.  However, I think for many products turnaround time and responding the customer requests are more important than a few dollars saved.”

Jordan:  “You mean if you were selling products like clothing, furniture, cars?  Stuff like that?”

t-shirtBilly:  “For clothing it’s probably OK to source overseas generic items like T-shirts, underwear and some other articles that rarely change – maybe some standard jeans, for example.  But for products that are more subject to fashion changes, I’d want to have assembly as close to the marketplace as I could.”

Jordan:  “What about automotive products — cars and trucks?”

Billy:  “If I ran an auto company, I’d want at least some cars and trucks assembled in the US.”

Jordan:  “Seems as if the most of the foreign auto companies agree with you.”

Billy:  “Never thought about how many foreign auto companies have assembly Honda Logo 1plants in the US.  Let’s see, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, and Hyundai…even Mercedes.    I’d also want key components assembled in the US.  Look what happened to the Japanese auto companies after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in what 2011 or 2012.  The Japanese auto companies had to cut way back on production until they could find another supplier before resuming production.  Then they had to air freight some of the parts to keep the assembly lines operating.  Talk about expensive.”

Jordan:  “What else do you think is different about auto plants…in fact most manufacturing plants…than 25-30 years ago, and especially 40-50 years ago?”

Billy:  “Not sure what you mean.  I wasn’t around then.”

Selectric_IIJordan:  “Here’s another way to think about it.  Do you know how to use a typewriter?”

Billy:  “I know how to type…but you know what?  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a typewriter, other than photographs in books and in old movies.”

Jordan:  “Ever seen a picture of an old auto assembly plant?”

Assembly Line 3Billy:  “Yeah, lots of people working on an assembly line.”

Jordan:  “Have you seen a picture of a modern auto assembly plant?”

Billy:  “Seems as if no one is around.  Most everything is assembled by a robot.  The few people who are around seem to be watching the robots.”

Honda-of-America-Manufacturing-assembly-lineJordan:  “Now do you understand my question about what’s different from 25-30 years ago?”

Billy:  “You mean much of the labor content in putting together cars and trucks has disappeared.”

Jordan:  “With that in mind, now what do you think about the argument by some politicians that countries with which we have trade agreements have stolen many US jobs?”

Billy:  “The jobs in automotive…and probably most manufacturing jobs…were not lost to Mexico or China or wherever…but lost to automation.”

Jordan:  “Claiming jobs were lost because of trade agreements makes for good donald-trump10-second sound bites.  And, yes, some jobs were lost.  But the decline in manufacturing jobs and the decline in jobs requiring say high-school or some college have been lost to automation, not trade agreements.”   

Billy:  “My paper needs to explain that while some jobs in certain industries can be lost due to trade agreements, many of the job losses, in fact possibly most of the job losses in manufacturing, are due to adaptation and implementation of technology.”

Jordan:  “So far we’ve talked about manufacturing jobs.  What about the service sector?”

Billy:  “You know, I don’t think I’ve heard a politician talk about whether trade 75% Pie chartagreements affect jobs in the service sector.  From what I’ve studied so far in economics, the service section is a much greater percentage of GDP than manufacturing.  In terms of employment service sector accounts for about 70.0% of all jobs.”

Jordan:  “Good guess.  It’s a bit higher — 75.0%+.”

Billy:  “Then why don’t politicians talk about the service sector?  Why just manufacturing jobs when they talk trade agreements?”

Jordan:  “Because many service-sector jobs…not all but many…cannot be exported.”

Billy:  “So politicians focus on the sound bite, not the substance.”

Jordan:  “I’m not discounting the importance of manufacturing jobs.  I’m a big 352596-waldorf-astoriabeliever of a very strong manufacturing sector.  But the fact is, service jobs dominate the economy.  If you want to stay in a hotel in Manhattan, you cannot export your stay to a hotel in Cancun.  The hotel, staff, food service all have to be in Manhattan.”

Billy:  “What about the effect of automation on service sector jobs, like what happened to jobs in manufacturing?”

Jordan:  “Great question, Billy.  We’ll talk about that next.  I think many people are in for a big surprise.”

(Continued)     

#215 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 2)

27 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Economics, Gov't Policy

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, 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.

Scene: Jordan’s Office, on phone with nephew of long-time friend.  Nephew is taking advanced economics course and been assigned paper to determine if  trade agreements cost US workers jobs.  Conversation begins Entry #214.

092615_2031_Characters7.gifGelly: (answering in-bound call) “Mr. Abel’s office.  May I help you?”

Caller:  “My name is Billy Belleville.  I believe Mr. Abel talked to my aunt.  I also left a voice mail yesterday that I would call back.”

Gelly:  “Yes, Mr. Belleville, we’ve been expecting your call.  And, FYI, please call Mr. Abel, ‘Jordan.’  I know you’ve had good upbringing, but this is a business call.  I’ll patch you through.”

student clip_art_free_-_school_clip_art_free_20121124_1951589029Billy:  “Thanks.”

Gelly:  “Jordan, Billy Belleville is on line #2.”

Jordan:  “Billy, thanks for calling again.  My apologies for having to leave a voice mail yesterday.  Gelly and I were both out of the office.  How may I help you?”

Billy:  “Did my aunt tell you about my assignment?”

Jordan:  “I have some idea but why don’t you assume I know nothing and start over.”

professor4Billy:  “I’m taking an advanced economics class this semester.  A major portion of the grade is a paper to determine if trade agreements help, hurt or have minimal impact on US employment.”

Jordan:  “Any other instructions?”

Billy:  “Not about the problem.”

Jordan:  “Interesting topic.  I like that your professor kept the instructions vague.  Welcome to the real world.”

Billy:  “I was hoping you could give me some guidance.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Glad to try.  My first question is, ‘What do you think the impact of trade agreements is on US employment – positive, negative or neutral?’”

Billy:  “I really don’t know.  There seems to be a significant difference of opinion in Washington.”

Jordan:  “What have you heard?”

Billy:  “I remember the 2016 presidential election.  Donald Trump kept saying that trade agreements were bad for US workers.  He also said if elected, he donald-trumpwould tear up the agreements and renegotiate them in favor of the US.”

Jordan:  “So based on Trump logic, you’d conclude that trade agreements are bad, right?”

Billy:  “Yes, but that makes no sense.  I mean, why would the US enter into all these agreements if the agreements are always bad?”

Jordan:  “Welcome to Washington hyperbole.  Just for fun let’s discount the figure-thinking-hiDonald’s logic and assume for a minute that maybe not all trade agreements are bad.  What do you think trade agreements are supposed to do?”

Billy:  “Trade agreements should make it easier for two countries, or even a block or countries, to trade with one another.”

Jordan:  “Good fundamental answer.  I would add that ideally the countries involved in the trade agreement have different skill sets or capabilities.”

Billy:  “So, if we take the US, since we’re a very efficient producer of many agricultural products – corn, soybeans and wheat, for example – the US should seek out countries that might need these products but have some products the US doesn’t produce or where the US cost is too high.  Is that right?”

Jordan:  “Yes.  Now let’s take a trade agreement that is in place and see what naftaeach country could or should bring to the table.  Let’s take NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Agreement that includes Canada, the United States and Mexico.  Let’s start with Canada – what does it bring to the table?”

Billy:  “Agriculture, especially wheat, fish products, manufacturing and lots of minerals and timber products.”

Jordan:  “What about the US?”

Billy:  “Agriculture – as I said corn, wheat, soybeans…and I think even rice.  Huge manufacturing base, although a lot fewer people today that say 40-50 years ago.  Lots of oil and gas.  Many minerals – although not as much as Canada, and software, if that counts.”

Jordan:  “Software counts.  What about Mexico?”

Billy:  “Maybe not fair, but I think Mexico as very limited manufacturing, except Mexican Flagon the Rio Grande border, not much agriculture for export.  I guess mostly tourist locations.  Lots of lower-cost labor.”

Jordan:  “What you described for Mexico is a huge untapped market for goods produced in the US and Canada.”

Billy:  “But don’t the Mexican people need more income to buy the goods.  Don’t they need higher-paying jobs?  They just can’t go buy on credit if they don’t have money to pay it back.”

Jordan:  “Where are those jobs going to come from?”

Billy:  “According to what Trump kept saying, the jobs were coming from US workers.  If not US workers – or Canadian workers — where do they come from?”

Jordan:  “The better question is, ‘How can trade agreements create jobs in both countries and…notice I said both countries.  Or for NAFTA, create jobs in all three countries’?”

Billy:  “I understand your question.  For jobs to be created in one country doesn’t that mean jobs are lost in the other country, or countries.  Is that right?”

Jordan:  “Trade between countries is not a zero-sum game.  Trade agreements should create job opportunities.”

RantBilly:  “Then why did Trump and some other politicians keep ranting that trade agreements are bad for the US?”

Jordan:  “I want to add one more issue to think about…and then we’re going to take a short break.  Why are politicians who oppose trade agreements with other countries not opposed to one state in the US recruiting companies from another state?  Such recruiting, especially by southern states, includes huge taxpayer-funded incentives.  Why should North Carolina use taxpayer money to recruit companies located in say Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, New York City?  Allowing states to use taxpayer funds to recruit companies in other states is worse that zero-sum, it’s negative.  Think about that issue over the break.”

(Continued)      

#214 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 1)

21 Sunday Aug 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ 3 Comments

First-time readers, 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.

Scene: Jordan’s Washington, DC Office

092615_2031_Characters7.gifGelly:  “Jordan, Ms is on the phone and would like to talk to you.”

Jordan:  “Really?  What’s she want to talk what?”

Gelly:  “Some question about trade agreements and the impact on American jobs.”

Jordan:  “OK, thanks.”  (Jordan picks up phone.)  “Mr. Abel here.  How may I help you?”

Womens symbolMs:  “Cut the formality, Jordan.  How are you?  Been a while since we chatted.” 

Jordan:  “Agreed it has been too long.  I’m doing OK.  More importantly, how you doing?  You survive the floods in Louisiana?”

Ms:  “Floods were south of here.  I’ve got a lot of friends in that area.  Most of them have lived down there for a long time and never experienced a flood.  But not this time.  Really bad damage.  Awful.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “Sorry to hear about your friends.  But are you OK?”

Ms:  “Just had another check-up and everything looks fine…thankfully.”

Jordan:  “Great.  Now, really why the call?”

Ms:  “My nephew is in college and taking some advanced economics course.  On the first day the professor assigned everyone a paper to analyze and decide whether US trade agreements are good, bad or neutral for US employment.”

DrakeJordan:  “And he thought you might have a contact that could help him?”

Ms:  “He knew for sure that I couldn’t help him.  What does a motorcycle riding aunt know about trade agreements and employment?”

Jordan:  “You never know.”

Ms:  “So what do I tell him?  Can you help?”

Jordan:  “I’ll try.  What’s his name?”

Ms:  “Beaufort Belleville.”

student clip_art_free_-_school_clip_art_free_20121124_1951589029Jordan:  “You kidding me?  Beaufort Belleville.  What kind of name is that?”

Ms:  “You know some old-line southern families use surnames of close relatives for first names of children.  Anyway, he goes by Billy, so please don’t call him Beaufort.”

Jordan:  “Glad to talk to Billy.  Have him call me Wednesday or Thursday this week, if possible.  I’ll give Gelly a heads up about the call.”

Ms:  “Thanks Jordan.  He’ll appreciate it…and I will to.”

Jordan:  “Let’s have dinner next time you’re at the farm up here or when I’m down your way, OK?”

Ms:   “OK, but remember it’s your turn to buy.”

Jordan:  “Alright, I’ll buy.  Take care.”   

#208 Why Vote for the Donald (Part 5 of 5)

10 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, 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.

Scene: Jordan’s Washington office.  Conversation begins Entry #204.

Greenie:  “Jordan, we’ve got to finish your fraternity brother’s list soon.  I need to get back.”

TrumpJordan:  “Alright.  The #10 reason to vote for the Donald, ‘Budget: Balance the Damn Thing.’”

Greenie:  “That seems like a logical statement.”

Jordan:  “It’s logical part of the time but not logical all the time.”

Greenie:  “When’s it logical…and when’s it not logical?”

Jordan:  “When do you think it’s logical?”

BeanCounterGreenie:  “If I look at my own situation, I get more concerned about spending too much during times when the economy is not so good.  I turn into a bean counter.  So I guess when the economy is not doing well we should balance the budget, right?”

Jordan:  “In the most diplomatic way I know, ‘you’re wrong.’”

Greenie:  “But it seems as if everyone should cut back on spending when times 010414_1635_16TeachingS2.jpgare not as good.  I don’t understand what’s not logical about that.”

Jordan:  “First, and I’ll keep this short because of your limited time, the actions of government to help keep the economy healthy are exactly the opposite of actions of individuals.”

Greenie:  “You mean as consumers cut back, the government should increase spending?  Increased government spending will get the economy going again?”

Jordan:  “Exactly.”

Greenie:  “Never thought about it quite that way.  But now I see why.  If the Spiralgovernment cuts back the same time as consumers, then incomes decline even more and spending would fall further.  The economy would then get worse, a whole lot worse, not better.”

Jordan:  “Why people don’t understand such a simple fact is beyond me. There is a ton of empirical evidence supporting that fact.  Government should increase deficit spending in bad economic times and try to run a surplus in good economic times.”

Greenie:  “Then why do Republicans keep harping on a balanced budget?  The Trumpsters were not the first Republicans do make the claim about a balanced budget and some Republicans still are.  Why?”

teacher_-_economicsJordan:  “Because many Congressional reps and a lot of Republican voters do not understand the difference between macro and micro-economics.  I can forgive someone who did not go to college for not understanding.  But virtually all Congressional Representatives and Senators have advanced degrees.  There is no excuse for not understanding the difference.”

Greenie:  “Anything else about the deficit?”

Accountant-Clip-Art6Jordan:  “Yes, there is a major difference in the required  accounting method between government and business.  If government could use the same accounting method as business, much of the deficit would disappear.  At the same time, if business had to use the same accounting method as the government, profits for a lot of companies would become deficits.”

Greenie:  “I believe you but the reasons are probably a bit arcane.  Let’s save it for another day.  What about reason #11?”

Jordan:  “Foreign countries: stop giving them our money.  Charge them for our help.”

Greenie:  “What’s not logical about that idea?”

globeJordan:  “I assume the Trumpsters were talking about foreign aid.  In broad terms foreign aid consists of three major chunks: (i) military related; (ii) assisting countries with economic development; (iii) Ex/Im Bank – export/import bank.”

Greenie:  “Remember, keep this simple.”

Jordan:  “Military-related would be expenditures for bases in say Germany, Japan and Korea.  One can argue how long such bases should remain open but the US does get something in return for these expenditures — military bases on foreign soil.  The bases allow the US to respond more quickly to threats to friendly nations and to threats to the US directly.”

Greenie:  “So, if the US doesn’t believe the bases are worthwhile, then we should close them?”

Jordan:  “Fair question that needs to be addressed by Congress.  But it’s a Turtleneckcomplicated question without a simple answer.”

Greenie:  “The other two chunks of foreign aid sound like some handout.”

Jordan:  “Direct foreign aid is designed to help countries struggling with economic growth or stability.  Just for fun, what percent of the budget goes for such aid?”

penny_back_40225_lgGreenie:  “If the Trumpsters thought it was such an issue, it must be at least 10%…maybe 15% or 20%.  Otherwise it doesn’t seem really worth talking about.”

Jordan:  “Try less than 1.0%”

Greenie:  “You mean like less than a penny per dollar?  So what’s the big deal?”

Jordan:  “The issue made the Trumpsters feel good I guess.”

Greenie:  “But let’s say the US charged the countries for this aid.  Why shouldn’t they pay?”

Jordan:  “If the country could pay, they wouldn’t need the aid.  Part of the reason for the aid is to buy ‘goodwill’ for the US.  If the US doesn’t support these developing countries, enemies of the US will.”

German FlagGreenie:  “A question then is whether buying some intangible like goodwill is worth the cost, even if it’s a penny.”

Jordan:  “Think about Germany and Japan after WWII.  What would those countries be like today without the Marshall Plan?  What would Europe and Asia be like”

Greenie:  “I see your point.  What’s this bank thing?”

Jordan:  “Ex/Im Bank – export/import bank.  Part of the bank’s function is to lend money to developing countries to assist with buying US-made products.”

Greenie:  “That seems like some sort of give-away program to those countries.”

Jordan:  “Think of it as a way to increase US employment.  Over the years, two of Boeing Logothe largest beneficiaries have been Boeing and Caterpillar.   A bunch of US companies have benefitted but Boeing and Cat have been in the group of big dogs.”

Greenie:  “You said Ex/Im is some type of bank.  Aren’t banks supposed to make money rather than give away money?”

Jordan:  “Ex/Im generates more money for the US economy than it costs.  Why the Trumpsters never understood that is beyond me.”

Greenie:  “You think the lack of understanding the value of foreign aid contributed to the Revenge Revolution?”

Jordan:  “When one does not understand the benefits of something…or even Talk Radioworse takes no time to try to understand…then it’s easy to be influenced by 10-second sound bites, negative advertising and talk-radio blowhards.  The short answer, ‘yes,’ not understanding foreign aid contributed to the Revenge Revolution.”

Greenie:  “What’s #12?”

Jordan:  “’Fix the tax code.’”

Greenie:  “I agree with that.”

Income TaxJordan:  “So do I.  The underlying issue is how to structure the tax code to: (i) generate enough income to run the government; (ii) be easy to understand; (iii) be fair to all income levels.”

Greenie:  “You agree the tax code is too complicated, right?”

Jordan:  “Yes.  Here’s an idea.  If the Trumpsters in 2016 and Republicans now really want to fix the tax code, then sit down with the Democrats and agree that the entire tax code has to be written on one sheet of 8.5’ x 11.0” paper – front and back – using 11 point font.”

Greenie:  “You think that would work?”

Jordan:  “The one sheet of paper would force both parties to think through the purpose of taxes and force compromises on both sides.”

Greenie:  “Interesting idea.  What’s the last one on the list?”

Jordan:  “’#13, Respect our military and our flag.”

military-clip-art--military-clipart-8Greenie:  “Sounds simple but what do you think that means?”

Jordan:  “I don’t know.  If the implication is the military is always right, then I can’t buy the argument.  And neither could the Founding Fathers.  The US military Commander-in-Chief is a civilian, not a military officer.”

Greenie:  “What about respect for what the military does – protect the country.”

Jordan:  “OK, but that’s what the military is for.  Besides what about respect for protection provided by police and fire departments?”

Greenie:  “You getting off track?”

Jordan:  “Possibly but I get very upset by the implication that the military is DoD Logoabove reproach.  The military has some great people.  And some bad ones.  Folks, the military is an organization with good parts and not so good parts.”

Greenie:  “Mmm.  To the Trumpsters the military is a part of a government agency that should be highly respected.  Yet other government agencies should not be respected and some even dismantled.  Trumpster logic I guess.”

Jordan:  “Trumpsters…well all of us…need to remember what the military is and what it is not.  I think the respect for the military would increase significantly if the US reinstated conscription.  Doing a stint in the military…or any kind of government service…provides a different perspective. ”

Greenie:  “Conscription is controversial.  Save that for another day.  What about respect for the flag?”

Jordan:  “I could be wrong, but my interpretation of Trumpster logic — respect for the flag is tied to respect for the military.  Therefore anyone who opposes what the military supports…Vietnam, Iraq, for example…by implication doesn’t respect the flag.  Trumpsters seem to link the two.”

american-revolution-728714Greenie:  “While you were talking, I had a vision of the same conversation happening in say 1775.  Would someone who didn’t respect the British military and the British flag be scorned by the Trumpsters?  I mean those who didn’t respect it were the liberal rebels.”

Jordan:  “With that comment Greenie, I think you answered the question if the statements and actions by the Trumpsters contributed to the Revenge Revolution.”

Greenie:  “Thanks for the help Jordan.  I’m outta here.”     

 

#203 Reliving Archie Bunker (Part 4 of 4)

11 Saturday Jun 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, 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.

Scene: Coffee shop near Jordan’s office in Washington, DC. Jordan meeting with JC, a long-time friend.  They have been discussing a range of topics about the causes of the Revenge Revolution, one of which was the polarization caused by various laws.  A person at the next table interrupts them.  Conversation starts entry #201.  More about North Carolina law referenced, entry #200.

Jordan:  “So, Jacko, you think the only people who really do something for this country are those pick up a rifle.  You really believe that?”

Middle Aged ManJacko:  “Yep.”

Jordan:  “What about the doctors and nurses who treated you…especially the medic who was in combat?  Did they really do something for the country?”

Jacko:  “Well, yes.”

Jordan:  “What about the people who made your uniforms, ammunition, assembled the vehicles?”

Jacko:  “Yes, I suppose so.”

TurtleneckJordan:  “What about policemen, firemen?”

Jacko: “Yes, yes.”  

Jordan:  ““Ever see the movie ‘Schindler’s List’?”

Jacko:  “No, but I know what it’s about.”

Jordan:  “Then what about people like Oskar Schindler and others who risked their lives to help someone they had no real connection to.  How do you view them?”

Jacko:  “Gutsy, real gutsy people.  But I don’t know where you’re headed with these questions.”

Jordan:  “If someone like Schindler were transgender, would you think any less of him or her for what they did?”

Jacko:  “Never thought about it that way.”

Jordan:  “Society cannot just discriminate arbitrarily or because the majority doesn’t like some group.  At the same time society has to be reasonable making rules and laws.”

Jacko:  “I’ll grant you that we can’t just pick groups to discriminate against.  But what about the bathroom issue?  To me that’s the most important issue when we talk about those people.”

010414_1635_16TeachingS1.jpgJC:  “Those people meaning transgenders?”

Jacko:  “OK, transgenders.”

JC:  “Jacko, are you concerned about women dressed as men peeing in the men’s room?”

Jacko:  “I’m more concerned for having men in women’s restrooms…and locker rooms.”

JC:  “Are you a woman?”

Jacko:  “Well, no.”

ladies-restroom-map-symbol-hiJC:  “Then why not let women decide who can pee in the women’s room.  I get tired of men claiming to have the best interest of women in mind when men haven’t a clue what it’s like to be a woman.”

Jordan:  “See, Jacko, I told you she was Miss Diplomatic.”

JC:  “You don’t have a clue either, Jordan.  Would you guys quit pandering me and the women in your lives?  Women face all kinds of safety issues around men.  Women start getting leered at and harassed as teenagers…Wolfand I’m not sure it ever stops.”

Jordan:  “Are you complaining about being a woman?”

JC:  “No I’m very happy being a woman.  I’m just saying women face a different set of issues than men.”

Jacko:  “But we’re just looking out for women’s safety.”

JC:  “In my most diplomatic way, why don’t you guys please let women decide women’s issues?  We don’t need your help, thank you.”

Jordan:  “Well, what about men in women’s restrooms and locker rooms?”

locker_roomJC:  “Look, I’m not naïve.  Some jerk will probably put on a dress and claim to be a trans.  But life is filled with trade-offs…and more so for women than men.”

Jordan:  “So, you’re OK with transgender men in women’s restrooms and locker rooms?”

JC:  “For now, yes.  Earlier in this conversation we talked about the Department of Education directive.  Middle school and high-school transgender boys can’t just arbitrarily go into women’s restrooms and locker rooms.  The school has to doe logobe notified first and some agreement worked out.”

Jordan:  “True, and most of the angst about men in women’s locker rooms seems to be directed at kids past puberty.”

JC:  “From what I’ve read and seen, most trans-men are gentle souls.  Think about it.  Why would a guy want to dress like a woman, knowing he’ll be harassed and abused in an all-male restroom or locker room?  Seems to me we should at least acknowledge that transgenders are gutsy people.  You might not agree with them but they are gutsy.”

Jacko:  “Alright.  I don’t like it but I’ll agree that transgenders are gutsy.  And I’ll agree to let women take the lead on this issue.”

JC:  “Am I hearing things OK?”

elephant-clip-artJacko:  “Yes you are.  As a Republican I’m in favor of smaller government and less regulation.  Maybe the Republicans should practice what they preach.  Let’s get government out of restrooms…”

JC:  “…and bedrooms.”

Jordan:  “Well, at least we reached some agreement.  Jacko, thank you for stopping.  I enjoyed the conversation.”

Archie BunkerJC:  “Me, too.  And, Jacko, I won’t accuse you of being Archie Bunker anymore.”

Jacko:  “Don’t go too far, JC.  Archie’s one of my idols.”       

#200 US Microcosm: Raleigh Republicans Render Revenge (Part 1)

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

≈ 3 Comments

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020).  Most entries assume 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 entries are constructed as a dialogue between the main character, Jordan Abel, and variety of colleagues, friends and random acquaintances.  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.

This entry breaks with the traditional format.  Regular readers might be wondering why all the entries about NC legislators.  I’d like to let go and move on to another topic.  However, just when I think the legislators are beginning to act rationally, they manage to continue to do something potentially harmful to the state.

MicroscopeThe actions in Raleigh seem to be a microcosm of what’s happening in Washington.  Two sides seemingly unwilling to compromise, even if one of the positions is considered so extreme that no compromise is possible.  Further, the irrational actions often continue even when continuing could cause consider harm to a wide swatch of society.

For NC legislators, the most recent action is a threat to withhold a limitation on the amount of sales tax on jet fuel paid by American Airlines.  While I believe that incentives are not the most effective way to attract and grow businesses, incentives do seem appropriate in some cases…and this is one.

American_Airlines_logo.svgCharlotte is a major airline hub (Initially USAir which was acquired by American).  The airport itself is not a major economic driver, but having a major airline hub is a major economic driver.  Numerous companies, especially companies with HQ outside the US, have cited an important reason for locating in and around Charlotte is easy access to international flights.

Baby-girl-sitting-11929-largeSo why does the legislature want to eliminate the incentives?  Not because of opposition to incentives.  But because American Airlines supported repealing HB2 (the bill that among other things forces transgenders to use the bathroom of the sex listed on their birth certificate).  And American is not alone is supporting repeal of HB2.  Many large employers in North Carolina have urged the governor and legislators to repeal of the law.

So, how do the governor and legislators respond?  Like 2-year olds. The legislator and the governor appear willing to bring economic harm to many Temper Tantrumcitizens in NC because someone told them their legislation was stupid.  And, like a whiny 2-year old, the legislators and the governor blamed someone else – in this case the mayor of Charlotte.

What did the Charlotte mayor do?  Lead the effort to pass the ordinance allowing transgenders to select their restroom.  The ordinance, which applies only in the City of Charlotte, is admittedly controversial.  However, before the ordinance took effect and before the residents of Charlotte had an opportunity to overturn the ordinance – city-wide referendum, recalling the mayor and council, etc. – the state legislators stepped in to “save Charlotte from itself.”

So here we have legislators from throughout the state, many of whom probably have NC Outlinenever been in Charlotte, telling the residents of Charlotte what’s good for them.  And oh, yes, Charlotte residents, we’re going to take away your right to address issues that affect only your city.  Why?  Because, we, the Republicans in Raleigh, know best.  A little bit of overreach here?

Then what happens?  With the overreach the NC legislators poked the big dog in Washington…and, oops, the dog bit back.  Department of Justice filed a suit against Big Dogthe state.  Then the Department of Education issued a directive mandating that schools comply with regulations that are similar to the Charlotte ordinance.

The NC 2-year olds claimed overreach by the Federal government and harden their stance.  The result was to inflict more economic damage on the state as companies began to drop NC from consideration for relocating or expanding operations.  The economic damage affected Charlotte, even though the City has made considerable effort to attract a more diverse workforce and attract more high-tech industries.

The legislators apparently offered to repeal HB2 if Charlotte repealed its ordinance.  The Charlotte mayor and some council members…and many citizens…responded by asking “‘why agree to something the other side had no business getting involved in the first place?” The current resolution of the issue is weaving its way through the courts, which could take years.

A better step, I think, is let the people of Charlotte decide if they want to support Ballot_Clipart_01the ordinance.  Let residents debate the plusses and minuses, possibly reach a reasonably palatable solution to all sides.

Voters in the City of Houston rejected a similar ordinance.  Other cities have ordinances similar to the one passed by Charlotte.  But let the residents of the area affected decide.  If Charlotte wants to be labeled as “too liberal” by some others in NC, so be it.  Those same people will likely not go to New York, San Francisco or many other locations.

The irony, from my perspective, is transgenders have been using the bathroom of choice for many years with no apparent incidents.  Now that the City of Charlotte formalizes the choice, Republicans in Raleigh believe there is an issue.  Uh, your reaction couldn’t be merely political could it?

And thus, the suggestion that NC is a microcosm of the US.  Every decision in Raleigh and Washington seems to have become so politicized that compromise and reasonable solutions are impossible.  Further the seeming insistence on seeking revenge and Turtleneckinflicting pain on those who have a different view reinforces my concern the US is headed for a 5th revolution, the Revenge Revolution.

The next few entries will center on NC HB2 bill.  Then we’ll move on.  Jordan Abel

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013

Categories

  • Affordable Solutions
  • Back Asswards Thinking
  • Background
  • Background Stupid Is as Stupid Does
  • Benefits of Revolution
  • Causes of the Revolution
  • Common Sense Policies
  • Corporate Policy
  • Definitions
  • Diversions
  • Economics
  • Education Issues
  • Federal Budget
  • General Motors
  • Gov't Policy
  • Infrastructure & Fixed Fuel Prices
  • Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products
  • Lessons of Revolution
  • Personal Stories
  • Possible Solutions
  • Post Trump Presidency
  • Rebranding Black Community
  • SCOTUS
  • Sense Check
  • Societal Issues
  • Stupid Is as Stupid Does
  • Tech Tsunami
  • Trump 47
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • usrevolution5
    • Join 32 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • usrevolution5
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...