Maybe McCain was having a 'senior moment' during his confusing line of questioning of former FBI Director James Comey. In fact, I don't know if it's fair to call it a "questioning" since it appeared we were really just witnessing an elderly man with dementia digress into an irrational, child-like temperament and complain to anyone who would listen about how unfair it was that evil Hillary got away with 'it' while poor Trump was being unfairly targeted....
Then again, hasn't this been Republican strategy for a quarter century: making
non-existent connections between the Clinton's and all things
nefarious?
Think
about all those vague comments we heard from the Hillary doubters
running up to the election? Very few could ever say exactly what they
didn't like about her. And those who did would say things like she's "unapproachable" and "distant" but seems very "wonkish" and "intelligent." (You know, basically the exact kind of person we want leading our country: someone who has a clue and doesn't roll over at the first sign of flattery.)
This display by McCain should give rise to discussions about what steps might be necessary to remove him from office. (Do we need two doctors' signatures to declare him mentally incompetent?) But in these interesting times, his insanity was barely noted because it was essentially in alignment with everything said and implied by every other representative questioning Comey. Just shove Hillary's name in whenever and wherever you can, and you will gain points with the general populace--Republicans and Democrats--who've been trained to unconsciously distrust Clinton through years of effective conservative propaganda.
McCain's moment reveals the thoroughness of the brainwashing: even out of his mind, McCain toes the line.
Friday, June 9, 2017
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
Will Trump's Policies Give Us Chinese or Thai-Style Growth?
But Trump believes it's possible.
Drop all the regulations meant to protect us (air, water, food, construction standards, gas exploration rules....) and then throw tons of taxpayer money at bridges, aircraft carriers, a 'yuge' wall between our arch nemesis Mexico... and we too can have China-style growth.
Many economists question such rosy forecasts, but I say they're using Obama-era "logic." We can always build things we don't need. "Growth" is easy if you're willing to spend money. Trump's already incurring extra security costs for Trump Tower in New York, has the enforcement agencies working full tilt to round up 'illegals,' has military contractors salivating and construction companies hiring....
Could the same Republicans who wouldn't support funding to fight the Zika virus, now be willing to underwrite a federal spending spree? Maybe. It's been quite amazing to watch Republicans abandon all of their moral principles as well as many of their long-held political philosophies to support Trump.
But even if they rediscover their fiscal roots, there remains the undoing of important regulations and pulling the rug out from under millions of Obamacare enrollees. In which case, another Asian country comes to my mind: Thailand. I have spent over four weeks in Thailand over the past seven years, broken up into three different visits. Some of the time was spent at resorts, but most of it in and around Bangkok. From my perspective, Thailand illustrates what happens when you have a corrupt, conservative political leadership (currently a military junta) combined with a relatively "free" economy (low taxes and limited--or unenforced--regulations). Based on my observations, the results appear as one might have expected: the rich have gotten richer, the poor have stayed roughly the same... and the air is much dirtier.
I hung out with Bangkok's elite at trendy new restaurants, drove with them in their fancy new cars and checked out their new high-priced lofts. I drove around Bangkok and saw artsy skyscrapers springing up everywhere.
Bangkok's legendary air conditioned shopping malls continue to flourish. (American mall owners should really take note; Thailand malls are the best.) Upper class Bangkok has all the usual amenities. And the Thai stock market agrees. Since my first visit in June of 2010 to my most recent visit in February, the Thai stock market's up nicely.
At the same time, all of this is taking place in an environment under siege. On most days, Bangkok smog limits high rise views to a few miles. This has been true for some time, but recent trends in so-called PM 2.5 pollution concur with my observations that it has gotten a lot worse since 2010:
While economic growth favors the already-haves, pollution weighs on everybody. And at 68 million people, Thailand is bulging at the seams. Like many Asian cities, they have no where to go but up. Traffic is brutal and no one can drive their fancy new cars any faster than the ubiquitous moped hauling a family of five. The glorious Chao Phraya เจ้าพระยา watershed appears unsafe to swim.
Over development and poor planning has turned a super food generating estuary into a trash-distributing, food-tainting, man-made flood zone.
They choose not to fix telephone cables or repair sewage lines or pick up trash or perform other functions of government that us supposedly over taxed, heavily-regulated Americans expect, yet the Thai government finds time to pass a law against Buddha tattoos!
![]() |
"Disrespect to Buddha is Wrong by Law." |
The American parallel is the American Flag, our sacred object of national pride. While Trump is attempting to unwind rules to protect our land, air and water, he will stand for no flag disrespect:
The U.S. stock market has been on a tear since Trump was elected. A company's stock price should forecast its future earnings. Stock bulls believe American companies will have greater earnings because they will face fewer regulations going forward (or for at least a few more years). Companies that pollute will have less pollution control costs to worry about. Financial companies no longer need to be concerned about doing things in their client's "best interest." The cumulative effect of regulation reduction should mean higher profits for corporations, hence the stock market should rise.
Unfortunately, there's no free lunch. This rise comes at all of our expense. And this fact has long befuddled me. It appears many wealthy folks simply do not "believe in" the harmful effects of air pollution, water pollution, etc. These are the same folks who believe that "God" is in charge and only "faith" matters. A large contingent of conservatives believe God decides what harm comes your way based on your present or past behavior. The religious conservative worldview remains stubbornly consistent. A half millennium ago during the Bubonic plague era, no one understood that organisms existed that are invisible to our eyes.
More commonly, though, I wager many rich folks do in fact fully understand that they're hurting themselves, their families and the planet in the long run. I acquiesce myself; I know my non-vegetarianism and wastefulness are chewing up this ever growing planet. But isn't it nice living in a material world? I see most of us succumb when saving the future demands even the slightest reduction to our present standards of living. And "what's a little extra pollution in the whole scheme of things" and my own mortality haunting me. "Why not make a boatload of money" even if it means a few less years for us all on average? This is the vibe I get from Trump.
It's always the same for the greedy rich. Obama's post-recession steady and solid growth and doubling of the stock market, all while providing health insurance for millions of low income families, was not enough, of course. Republicans continuously beat the drum that Obama's recovery has been the "slowest" recovery, never attempting nuanced coverage and never acknowledging that their prescription for the financial downturn was to dramatically cut government spending, the same strategy that flopped for Europe, who eventually came around to the Keynesian cure, a debt load that we should be unwinding today against the backdrop of a strong economy.
Now Republicans seem to have flipped (quite possibly at exactly the wrong time again!). Debt is no longer immoral. (Of course, to be fair, spending for tax cuts and military have always been worth the interest charges for Republicans).
With a Republican congress, Trump will have his way. But even without Congress, Trump can do some damage. Basically we're stuck between Trump moving us in a Chinese-style super growth mode if Congress acquiesces on infrastructure spending, or something more akin to a laissez faire Thailand-style growth model. Either way, expect more government corruption, censorship, civil rights violations... and more trouble breathing.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
King Trump
Trump
doesn't strike me as a deep thinker, so I'm hard pressed to believe he's
orchestrating this takeover completely of his own imagination. Popular opinion has it that Putin is pulling the strings. However it is coming about, the performance has been masterful. He's offering a real time example of how to take control of a democratic nation.
To be up front, I'm not concerned that Trump will actually become a true "Dictator" a la Adolf Hitler.
I don't, for example, expect Trump to burn down the Capitol or round up Muslims. I'm not saying that he wouldn't like to, it's just that it is not necessary. Putin has amply demonstrated that a nation can maintain the façade of democracy while being controlled by a small group of elites, perhaps led by a crafty "strong man" or merely headlined by a morally flexible con man such as Trump. So far, Trump could have taken his script directly from The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. As the authors note...
Trump removed the "projected" incumbent, the likelier candidate Hillary Clinton, through skillful campaigning. It serves as a classic example of how to campaign toward a specific aggrieved voting bloc. Trump tricked people who have never seen a Mexican into thinking they were swarming our sourthern border to come rape their wives and daughters. He engaged their religious righteousness by suddenly becoming staunchly anti-abortion. He played like he was the defender of the downtrodden as he implied wealthy industrialists were unpatriotic to offshore jobs. Trump fueled their latent misogyny by showing that he doesn't have to take it from a woman--"it" being honest and straightforward questioning from female reporters like Megyn Kelly. At one point in a debate he called Hillary a "nasty woman." Yet liberals found themselves scratching their heads when it turned out that a majority of white women voted for Trump. This is the "bubble" belonging to liberals who thought it was fait accompli for Clinton to garner the female vote. But Trump understood there is tremendous self-loathing subconsciously ingrained in Trump-supporting women long subjected to patriarchal "Christian" religiosity. Ok, to be fair, maybe Trump didn't understand this, but his campaign managers understood it well, and then Trump spoke the words well and won.
Of course, Russia hacking DNC servers and releasing emails may have helped Trump. And certainly newspaper headlines reading "FBI Investigating Clinton" hurt Clinton. But unless Russia hacked actual ballots or James Comey admits his investigations were politically driven, it will never be possible to know how much Russia and certain traitors in the U.S. government helped elect Trump. But, he won, so that's that. On to challenger step number two: seizing "the apparatus of government."
One key "apparatus of government" is the military and other security agencies, especially the more secretive and therefore initially more dangerous services such as the CIA. (They have the ways and means to make your death look accidental, at least I assume so....). One of Trump's first moves was to ask West Point graduate but otherwise outsider to the security apparatus Stephen A. Feinburg to do a "review" of the intelligence agencies. It remains to be seen how much independence the agencies can maintain, but Trump has definitely set his sights on quelling the large, powerful and loosely monitored national security apparatus.
There remains the "media" and the Judicial Branch of our government to "check" Trump's ambitions. And it appears the courts survived their first test, having intervened and sidetracked Trump's efforts to block refugees and immigration from certain war-torn regions. But the open Supreme Court seat which he's sure to fill (it's hard to imagine the Democrats sustaining a 4-year filibuster) and the 118 judicial vacancies (as of 2/20/2017), give Trump and Co. tremendous power to pack more authoritarian-friendly thinkers into the judicial system. Again, Trump does not need to burn down the Supreme Court to get his way. If you can get the laws and results you seek while maintaining the appearance of a functioning and fair judiciary, all the better. There are numerous legal moves Trump can attempt to improve conservative representation in the courts, from top to bottom. There's no need to get radical.
What about the "Fourth Estate?" Every kid in America is taught about the all-important "media" and its role to keep an eye on our greedy politicians--from both parties. But now Trump has taught us that the media can't be trusted.
In the past, the media consisted of journalists and buildings, both of which could be physically seized and silenced or intimidated. This still goes on, but the war doctors have conjured new means of "psychological" warfare requiring only frequent, tantalizing, lies:
At the same time, Trump appears to be working every angle to ensure he can reward his key backers and establish a "coalition of supporters" who can help him sustain power. Again, it's not necessary he maintains the Presidency if he can achieve great wealth post-Presidency. Helping out the already rich and powerful is a time-proven strategy.
One example, Trump's second executive order gave the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the ability to fast track major infrastructure projects deemed "high priority." The chairman supposed to consider "...the project's importance to the general welfare, value to the Nation, environmental benefits, and such other factors as the Chairman deems relevant." It's not hard to imagine how this order might play out in a Trump administration. Infrastructure projects involve big bucks and are ripe for facilitating corruption. The CEQ seems like a dream conduit through which to reward the key members in his "coalition of supporters." After first trying to whisk away healthcare for millions with the stroke of a pen, Trump's very next move was to give a White House appointee vast powers. More ominously, we don't even know what is happening at the CEQ because Trump and Company took the website down: "Check back soon for more information."
So here we find ourselves with a President who came to power despite losing the popular vote and who appears to be doing everything he can to become a dictator, who serves with majority party support in congress, a tenuous court system and a private sector "media" in shambles or in cohoots. While this is not a traditional coup d'état, the resulting public policy that flows forth will resemble that which we see from most dictatorships: strict rules around freedom of speech and personal choice, tough rhetoric against an existential threat ["radical Islamic terrorism"], and protecting/rewarding wealthy backers ["eliminating regulations" and "lowering taxes"].
To be up front, I'm not concerned that Trump will actually become a true "Dictator" a la Adolf Hitler.
I don't, for example, expect Trump to burn down the Capitol or round up Muslims. I'm not saying that he wouldn't like to, it's just that it is not necessary. Putin has amply demonstrated that a nation can maintain the façade of democracy while being controlled by a small group of elites, perhaps led by a crafty "strong man" or merely headlined by a morally flexible con man such as Trump. So far, Trump could have taken his script directly from The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. As the authors note...
"...a challenger need only do three things. First, he must remove the incumbent. Second, he needs to seize the apparatus of government. Third, he needs to form a coalition of supporters sufficient to sustain him as the new incumbent."
Trump removed the "projected" incumbent, the likelier candidate Hillary Clinton, through skillful campaigning. It serves as a classic example of how to campaign toward a specific aggrieved voting bloc. Trump tricked people who have never seen a Mexican into thinking they were swarming our sourthern border to come rape their wives and daughters. He engaged their religious righteousness by suddenly becoming staunchly anti-abortion. He played like he was the defender of the downtrodden as he implied wealthy industrialists were unpatriotic to offshore jobs. Trump fueled their latent misogyny by showing that he doesn't have to take it from a woman--"it" being honest and straightforward questioning from female reporters like Megyn Kelly. At one point in a debate he called Hillary a "nasty woman." Yet liberals found themselves scratching their heads when it turned out that a majority of white women voted for Trump. This is the "bubble" belonging to liberals who thought it was fait accompli for Clinton to garner the female vote. But Trump understood there is tremendous self-loathing subconsciously ingrained in Trump-supporting women long subjected to patriarchal "Christian" religiosity. Ok, to be fair, maybe Trump didn't understand this, but his campaign managers understood it well, and then Trump spoke the words well and won.
Of course, Russia hacking DNC servers and releasing emails may have helped Trump. And certainly newspaper headlines reading "FBI Investigating Clinton" hurt Clinton. But unless Russia hacked actual ballots or James Comey admits his investigations were politically driven, it will never be possible to know how much Russia and certain traitors in the U.S. government helped elect Trump. But, he won, so that's that. On to challenger step number two: seizing "the apparatus of government."
One key "apparatus of government" is the military and other security agencies, especially the more secretive and therefore initially more dangerous services such as the CIA. (They have the ways and means to make your death look accidental, at least I assume so....). One of Trump's first moves was to ask West Point graduate but otherwise outsider to the security apparatus Stephen A. Feinburg to do a "review" of the intelligence agencies. It remains to be seen how much independence the agencies can maintain, but Trump has definitely set his sights on quelling the large, powerful and loosely monitored national security apparatus.
There remains the "media" and the Judicial Branch of our government to "check" Trump's ambitions. And it appears the courts survived their first test, having intervened and sidetracked Trump's efforts to block refugees and immigration from certain war-torn regions. But the open Supreme Court seat which he's sure to fill (it's hard to imagine the Democrats sustaining a 4-year filibuster) and the 118 judicial vacancies (as of 2/20/2017), give Trump and Co. tremendous power to pack more authoritarian-friendly thinkers into the judicial system. Again, Trump does not need to burn down the Supreme Court to get his way. If you can get the laws and results you seek while maintaining the appearance of a functioning and fair judiciary, all the better. There are numerous legal moves Trump can attempt to improve conservative representation in the courts, from top to bottom. There's no need to get radical.
What about the "Fourth Estate?" Every kid in America is taught about the all-important "media" and its role to keep an eye on our greedy politicians--from both parties. But now Trump has taught us that the media can't be trusted.
In the past, the media consisted of journalists and buildings, both of which could be physically seized and silenced or intimidated. This still goes on, but the war doctors have conjured new means of "psychological" warfare requiring only frequent, tantalizing, lies:
This is the scary part of the Trump victory. By discrediting, obstructing and feeding lies to the media, Trump has effectively seized the Fourth Estate.
At the same time, Trump appears to be working every angle to ensure he can reward his key backers and establish a "coalition of supporters" who can help him sustain power. Again, it's not necessary he maintains the Presidency if he can achieve great wealth post-Presidency. Helping out the already rich and powerful is a time-proven strategy.
One example, Trump's second executive order gave the chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) the ability to fast track major infrastructure projects deemed "high priority." The chairman supposed to consider "...the project's importance to the general welfare, value to the Nation, environmental benefits, and such other factors as the Chairman deems relevant." It's not hard to imagine how this order might play out in a Trump administration. Infrastructure projects involve big bucks and are ripe for facilitating corruption. The CEQ seems like a dream conduit through which to reward the key members in his "coalition of supporters." After first trying to whisk away healthcare for millions with the stroke of a pen, Trump's very next move was to give a White House appointee vast powers. More ominously, we don't even know what is happening at the CEQ because Trump and Company took the website down: "Check back soon for more information."
So here we find ourselves with a President who came to power despite losing the popular vote and who appears to be doing everything he can to become a dictator, who serves with majority party support in congress, a tenuous court system and a private sector "media" in shambles or in cohoots. While this is not a traditional coup d'état, the resulting public policy that flows forth will resemble that which we see from most dictatorships: strict rules around freedom of speech and personal choice, tough rhetoric against an existential threat ["radical Islamic terrorism"], and protecting/rewarding wealthy backers ["eliminating regulations" and "lowering taxes"].
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Get Ready to Rumble
Now that Donald Trump has been handed command, how soon and in what manner will he repay Vladimir Putin? There are sundry ways Trump could help Putin: relaxing/eliminating sanctions, 'turning the other cheek' on Putin's future transgressions against his political opponents, tacitly or openly abandoning support for Ukraine....
There are many ways Trump can help Vlad, but what Putin really wants and needs is higher oil prices. The collapse in oil has devastated the Russian economy. Some estimate oil needs to climb as high as $90 to reverse this trend. U.S. Oil closed at $52.42 on Inauguration Day ($55.49 Brent).
How will Trump bump oil? Heavy duty deficit spending to spur U.S. economic growth could help. But it is hard to imagine how increased government spending would drive a nearly 70 percent increase in oil the simple fact that frackers, sidelined now for a few years, stand eagerly awaiting the $60 range before ramping up in big numbers. The frackers should act as a cap on prices (if not another catalyst for a big drop again.)
War, on the other hand, could definitely spark a rally. And Trump just promised a big fight:
There are many ways Trump can help Vlad, but what Putin really wants and needs is higher oil prices. The collapse in oil has devastated the Russian economy. Some estimate oil needs to climb as high as $90 to reverse this trend. U.S. Oil closed at $52.42 on Inauguration Day ($55.49 Brent).
How will Trump bump oil? Heavy duty deficit spending to spur U.S. economic growth could help. But it is hard to imagine how increased government spending would drive a nearly 70 percent increase in oil the simple fact that frackers, sidelined now for a few years, stand eagerly awaiting the $60 range before ramping up in big numbers. The frackers should act as a cap on prices (if not another catalyst for a big drop again.)
War, on the other hand, could definitely spark a rally. And Trump just promised a big fight:
"We will... unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the earth."
His first target? Iran seems a likely candidate. His potential undersecretary of State, John Bolton, has already publicly declared his desire to bomb them (either directly or via our proxy Israel). But it doesn't really matter who so long as they have oil. It would also help if the country had a "proven" link to "radical Islamic terrorism...."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)