Alternative Fact: Mexico will pay for Trump’s crazy wall through a 20% tariff on goods imported from Mexico to the USAs
Real Fact: Umm, that’s Americans who will be paying … anything they buy from Mexico will cost 20% more. Or they’ll purchase goods imported from some other country to avoid paying the import duty and still end up paying for the wall (plus interest on the wall) because that’s how floated debt works in the real world.
There’s been a lot of reporting and chatter about voter fraud. I assumed this was intentional fraud until I started seeing reports that some of Trump’s advisers, cabinet nominees, and even a daughter were guilty of one of the particular missteps against which Trump rails.
I have lived in several states. I have also been registered to vote in each of them. I verified my registration on three different states, and wanted to remove my registration from the states in which I don’t actually live. Spent two hours searching two different Board of Election sites and there’s no published process for rescinding a registration. Checked the federal Election Assistance Commission — they do not even say you need to rescind your previous registration. It’s a “good idea”, but it also says “your new election office uses this information [your former address] to notify your former election office that you no longer reside in that jurisdiction”. Evidently there’s a fairly high failure rate on this process.
This is not voter fraud – it was a failure on my part to properly research the process and then follow up to confirm my non-registered status in other states. There’s a big difference between casting ballots using the same identity in multiple states, voting under multiple identities, etc and unknowingly being registered to vote in more than one state.
Making people aware of the problem – especially if local Boards of Election update their web sites with instructions on removing invalid registrations – is certainly a worthwhile endeavor. I work in IT; I like clean data. Cleaning up the state registries may make analysing data to identify actual fraud easier (i.e. the fact that I show up on three states is more indicative of fraud since it is common knowledge that individuals should be rescinding old registrations). But how much money is going to be wasted hunting for phantom election fraud?
Trump’s recent statement that 75% of federal regulations would be eliminated under his presidency is outright terrifying. On all levels, there are heaps of crazy regulations. Just yesterday, I learnt that it is illegal in Ohio to leave a running vehicle unattended. I cannot recall a particular instance where I left my vehicle running whilst I ran inside to grab a forgotten item, over to the mailbox to drop off an envelope, or some similarly quick jaunt away from my running vehicle … but I’m sure I *did*.
The thing is, as silly as any specific regulation may seem, there IS logic behind it. The rational may be outdated and thus no longer applicable, but laws were not enacted for the sake of using up legislative time. I doubt regulations were enacted as a farce. It would be an interesting academic study to enumerate all regulations for a particular branch and research the history and rational for each of them. Some are obvious — fleet fuel economy standards are to reduce oil usage. Emission standards are meant to reduce pollution. Then there are regulations such as 15 U.S.C. §§330a — “No person may engage, or attempt to engage, in any weather modification activity in the United States unless he submits to the Secretary [of Commerce] such reports with respect thereto, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may by rule prescribe. The Secretary may require that such reports be submitted to him before, during, and after any such activity or attempt.” Sounds a little bit silly at first, but if nothing else tracking weather modification attempts and their wider impact has value.
There are regulations on the banking industry, oversight of derivative markets, rules governing stock trading. Publicly traded companies are required to file accurate financial information with the SEC. It is not legal to dump toxic chemicals into the environment. The FDA has guidelines that are meant to ensure the safety of foods and labeling laws so you have a basic idea of what you are consuming. There are fleet average fuel efficiency requirements. There are laws against manipulating energy markets. There are regulations that protect intellectual property.
I understand the argument that the free market would drive some of these same ends. If fuel economy is a concern to people, then more fuel efficient cars will be in demand. But that depends on honest, accurate reporting from corporations, and individuals being able to get the information they need to make an appropriate decision. I, personally, do not want to research the reputation of ten different companies before purchasing a bag of flour. I enjoy the fact that a bag that contains something other than ground up wheat lists the ‘extras’ – at the point of purchase, I can read the bag and decide if it is something I want to purchase. I also know that there are random inspections and any company lying about their ingredients is likely to incur a significant fine.
Another ‘free market’ example is the reduction of polystyrene packaging. Thirty years ago, any fast food purchase included a Styrofoam container (or three). In the 80’s, polystyrene materials were manufactured using chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). When this became fairly widespread knowledge, manufacturing processes were changed to use HCFC-22 (better but still ozone layer impacting). Another public movement against the material came about because it does not biodegrade — and its ubiquitous use in packaging meant litter was everywhere. And would stay there until it blew away to be somewhere else. Some localities banned the material for restaurants, but it was never a widespread thing. But polystyrene packaging is nowhere as prevalent today as it was thirty years ago. This is a result of consumer pressure.
My point is that I am fully aware that consumers can drive business decisions. Other regulations are not easily replicated by purchaser decisions. And consumer decisions require accurate information. Get rid of SEC filings — something I’m sure would save time and money for corporations (and the SEC) — and there’s no standard set of information upon which I can make investment decisions. No longer require estimated fuel economy using a standardized method (even if the method itself could be improved), and how do you compare vehicles beyond general physics which tells me a giant H2 is going to be more fuel efficient than a little Fiat 500. Eliminate environmental regulations, how do I know a company’s impact on their local environment?
Declaring that businesses should stay in this country because we’re going to severely cut corporate taxes and eliminate 75% of regulations is just a stupid statement. Sure, this guy throws out stupid statements as beginning negotiating positions … but how does a self-proclaimed awesome negotiator not know to start low on some things and high on others. Companies want 100% of regulations eliminated … so our government has just started the negotiation at 75%. They either stand or go up from there.
A friend of mine started a thread on Facebook about why the media doesn’t call out Trump’s lies, using the example of his claim that the Lincoln Memorial is never/rarely used for inauguration events. And how his representatives can call these lies “alternative facts” with any seriousness. Trump lies so often and about so many ridiculous things (DC is sold out of dresses, really??). The thing is, media outlets do call him out(https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/donald-trump-says…/… or http://time.com/4640346/donald-trump-lincoln-memorial/ for the Lincoln Memorial example).
Why don’t these become big stories? Why is the constant flood of lies not a big story?
Trump supporters that I know tell me it’s hyperbole (what *is* the difference between hyperbole and lying?) and negotiating positions (I remember being a sixteen year old kid asking for a tattoo as a negotiating position when I wanted Manic Panic hair coloring … not sure what it says that our new President’s negotiating tactics and teenage kids differ only in scale) and I shouldn’t take everything he says so seriously.
I’m still not sure how to take that argument. I use rhetorical hyperbole too. I haven’t literally told Anya a million times to clean up her toys – that would be 650 times a day each day of her life. I try to be careful to say “It *SEEMS* like I’ve told you a million times to get the books on the bookshelf”. But it doesn’t seem harmful when I say “dude, I’ve told you a million times. Seriously, pick up the books!”.
I am willing to believe that people don’t mind being lied to by Trump … what I cannot figure out, then, is why they considered Clinton to be offensively dishonest. It’s a different type of lying — using technicalities. When I would do it, my mother called it lying by omission — you make a statement that is technically true because of some technically valid meaning of a word and/or some incorrect assumption the other party makes about your statement. Consider Bill Clinton’s “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” statement — there is a difference between present and past tenses. If you ask me if I’m driving a Jetta, I can accurately say no because *right this second* I am sitting on the sofa typing … you assume I sold my Jetta, which from the perspective of a legal proceeding really is the interrogating attorney’s fault, but when you’re fifteen … you don’t get far telling your mom it’s her fault for not being specific enough or making erroneous assumptions 🙂
And maybe this is why I get so offended by Trump’s lies but don’t mind Clinton’s — I enjoy studying law and the challenge language adds to legal proceedings. To me, someone answering a present tense question ignoring past facts is clever (and highlights a flaw in the line of questioning). Essentially I don’t feel like I was lied to, I feel like someone outmaneuvered me. On the other hand, someone making an outright stupid provably untrue statement insults me.
I could see someone making an inverse conclusion, though. That uppity lawyer thinks he’s smarter than me, the LIAR! But is any amount of hyperbolic lying acceptable just because it’s a rhetorical technique most use occasionally. Do people condone it because they do it? Or the liar is seen as a ‘real’ person because he engages in the same rhetorical techniques they use?
So Trump businesses are going to donate the profits from foreign governments directly to the Treasury to avoid the appearance of impropriety. And they release this information to the public – the receipts, the cost analysis to determine profit, and a copy of the transfer so donations can be verified? But let’s assume that becomes part of their public accounting processes – that the Trump Organization now has a web page with this accounting, along with an image of the cancelled donation cheque. How does this avoid the appearance (and the fact) of corruption??
Buying influence is not limited to foreign governments, and to imply otherwise is insulting. Boeing wants a lucrative contract, so they book all of their corporate conferences at Trump properties. Hell, Syria wants the US to leave them alone so the second cousin of every high-ranking official rent out a floor and a ballroom for the year.
Well, Trump hasn’t even been sworn in yet and I’ve got my first entry for this list: http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/politics/trump-wall-mexico.html?_r=0 in which he says we’re going to float the debt to build this massive wall (hopefully finding the least environmentally damaging route, eminent domaining the fewest people, and so on). Then we’ll get Mexico to pay for it. Umm … so in business, this was basically the 2008 crash. We find a pool of people who aren’t going to pay, create debt on that not-a-payment, build a heap of stuff, and then act surprised when they fail to pay. Now, in the business world, you turn to the government to bail out your bad debt.
When you do this as a government … I don’t think the IMF is going to pay in Mexico’s stead for debt to which they’ve never consented. And if you look at the IMF requirements in Greece or Ireland, I sincerely hope that isn’t the direction the US goes.
a.k.a ‘be careful what you wish for”
There is a short story written by W. W. Jacobs called “The Monkey’s Paw” which centers around an enchanted paw that grants wishes but in horrifying ways. A family wishes for two hundred pounds, and receives the sum as a sympathy payment when their son is killed in a machine accident at his place of employment.
I think of this story a lot in politics — it’s a little like the law of unintended consequences (consequences which can be beneficial, negative, or harmful which arise from ignorance of the impact of your change). The monkey’s paw has individuals who well know of the possible tragic effects (the first owner wished for his own death, the next owner threw it into the fire to avoid its curse) but decide to use the object anyway.
So you’ll get the Affordable Care Act overturned. Good for you. Now you no longer have coverage for pre-existing conditions … which means you’re stuck in your job until the condition is cured because you cannot afford to pay for the treatments (hope it is curable!). You have a lifetime coverage limit of a million or two – which sounds like a lot until you talk to someone who had premature babies and incurred a quarter mill in a couple of months. Oh, and once the kids are born their lifetime limit kicks in — so your one year old miracle baby has used up a quarter of their lifetime limit. I don’t have a 25 year old in college still on my plan … hope you don’t either. Bonus, there’s no limit on how much overhead and profit the insurance company can include in their rates. I’m sure that will lower the plan cost.
And that just assumes things go back to the bad state they were in before — Republicans advocate allowing inter-state competition for insurance plans. I see that going the way of credit cards — there’s no federal usury rate. A state could ensure themselves a couple thousand jobs and a some corporate income tax money by setting their usury rate higher than any other state. And then the banks would locate there, issue cards using the local jurisdiction usury rate, and there are a load of 23% interest cards. So now states will compete to have the lowest standards for insurance – and all of the insurance companies will go there. If we’re lucky, there will be the equivalent of a credit union — a company HQ’d locally that follows YOUR state laws that you’ve got a little chance of changing (i.e. I write the state congresspeople in ND and ask them to lower the usury rate, they don’t care. I write my local representatives about Ohio’s rate … well, at least I’m a constituent).
The recent “saved” jobs announcements, name-dropping Trump even when the decision had been made months earlier bother me. But the bigger picture is more troubling. There are a lot of off-shored jobs that cannot be threatened with tariffs. What retaliatory action can be taken when a company off-shores their customer support call center. Or data processing. Or coding. A vast majority of American jobs are not in manufacturing.
But, sure, let’s not focus on the bigger sectors being off-shored. As a manufacturer, you can go where the labor costs (as well as, I suspect, real estate / regulatory requirements / etc) are cheap and face a 35% import tariff. You can hire Americans and increase your prices … but unless *all* foreign imports get taxed, that just makes you noncompetitive. You can hire Americans and reduce your profit … notwithstanding investor revolt, there’s a point at which you lose money on each product you sell. Or you build out an automated factory in the US – real estate and such may cost more, but your labor costs are REALLY low.
It might not have been cost effective to build a robotic manufacturing line in the US compared to overseas labor. Overseas labor – 35% tariff though … may well make automation cost effective without actually increasing manufacturing employment in the country. Learning how to program and maintain robots, though, may be a growing market.
Like the bank executives who got incredible bonuses while writing dodgy mortgages … in the short term, this does mean jobs are saved. A couple years from now, as the robotic manufacturing replaces those workers … they’re still unemployed.
I was talking with my father-in-law a few days ago about zero-sum power (old white dudes have been giving up power for a long time as minorities and women were allowed to vote) and he asked why women kept voting for the same old white dudes when they were allowed to vote — obviously the old white dudes were doing a good job, or the women would have voted them out.
I vote for men because that’s the option. There’s a township Trustee position here for which I’m not going to apply because between work, house stuff, and Anya … do I really want MORE work? Is there something I want to change badly enough to give up my non-existent free time?
For some reason, even with both parents working … the male has a default of “free time” and can volunteer to give some up to cook/clean/entertain kids. I have to say what it is I want to do (‘just be alone’ or ‘not listen to CONSTANT NOISE’ aren’t good enough … what are you doing). How badly does a country need to be run before a statistically reasonable (i.e. if 50.8% of the population is female, then the percent of women running for any office should be around 50% too)?
So women gained the right to vote, but have to settle for “and I’ll vote for you if you halfway pander to my concerns”.
A friend of mine sited the The Economist/YouGov Poll December 17 – 20, 2016 – 1376 US Adults that says 58% of Trump voters agree that what is good for Donald Trump’s business is good for the country. Charles Wilson said much the same thing about General Motors back when he was the CEO/president/whatever they called him. I understand the sentiment (a rising tide and all that), but where I disagreed with the statement about GM is half of what I fear from Trump.
What’s good for the country *may* benefit GM/Trump/Whomever, but it could also harm them. And what’s good for them may or may not benefit the country. Relaxing safety regulations on construction would be good for Trump’s business and bottom line, but *really* suck for the people buried under a collapsed tower.
My other fear is that Trump made an amazing amount of money screwing over other people. He may make another amazing amount of money screwing over the country. My father-in-law says Trump is going to be a boon for the country because he screws over other countries to “our benefit” … which, viewed in a short-term and one-sided fashion could be considered awesome (to me a bit like stealing food from a homeless dude ’cause you get a little hungry on the way home from work, but I acknowledge that some people would like to benefit our country to the detriment of others). I just don’t see it as a sustainable policy, and I think history backs me up. The sun never set on the British Empire … until it did. Even if you’re not trying outright colonialism, I’ve seen enough of South and Central America to know how welcome American exploitation was — “yankees go home”, “fuera yanquis de America Latina”, etc. I remember seeing Michael Franti not long after Spearhead was touring Iraq and he said the message he got from speaking to Iraqis was “thank you for getting rid of a really horrible guy, now get the fuck out of my country!”. I don’t see countries being screwed over as particularly happy with the situation, nor do I expect them to express their discontent with sternly worded letters to the editor. And that’s REALLY bad for the country.