Wednesday, June 26, 2024

ANS -- HCR --June 23, 2024 (Sunday)

Here is a very informative piece from Heather Cox Richardson. It's somewhat in preparation for the debate Thursday, but it's also about real economists evaluating Trump's and Biden's plans.   Read it. 

June 23, 2024 (Sunday)
On Thursday, Moody's Analytics, which evaluates risk, performance, and financial modeling, compared the economic promises of President Joe Biden and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. Authors Mark Zandi, Brendan LaCerda, and Justin Begley concluded that while a second Biden presidency would see cooling inflation and continued economic growth of 2.1%, a Trump presidency would be an economic disaster.
Trump has promised to slash taxes on the wealthy, increase tariffs across the board, and deport at least 11 million immigrant workers. According to the analysts, these policies would trigger a recession by mid-2025. The economy would slow to an average growth of 1.3%. At the same time, tariffs and fewer immigrant workers would increase the costs of consumer goods. That inflation—reaching 3.6%—would result in 3.2 million fewer jobs and a higher unemployment rate.
Trump's proposed tariffs would not fully offset his tax cuts, adding trillions to the national debt.
Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said that Trump's tariff policy "would be bad for workers and bad for consumers." Chief Economist of Moody's Analytics Mark Zandi said: "Biden's policies are better for the economy."
In the New York Times today, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the president of the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management, debunked the notion that corporate leaders support Trump. Sonnenfeld notes that he works with about 1,000 chief executives a year and speaks with business leaders almost every day. Although 60 to 70 percent of them are registered Republicans, he wrote, Trump "continues to suffer from the lowest level of corporate support in the history of the Republican Party."
Among Fortune 100 chief executives, who lead the top 100 public and private U.S. companies ranked by revenue, Sonnenfeld notes, not one has donated to Trump this year.
While they might not be enthusiastic Biden supporters, unhappy with his push to enforce antitrust laws and rein in corporate greed, the president has produced results they like: investment in infrastructure, repair of supply chains, investment in domestic manufacturing, achievement of record corporate profits, and transformation of the U.S. into the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world.
In contrast, they fear Trump. The populist plans that thrill supporters—like hiking tariffs and taking financial policy away from the independent Federal Reserve Board and putting it in his own hands—are red flags to business leaders. Such positions have more in common with the far left than with traditional Republican economic policies, Sonnenfeld says. Those policies reflect that Trump has surrounded himself with what Sonnenfeld calls "MAGA extremists and junior varsity opportunists," while the more senior voices of his first term have been sidelined.
On Saturday, Trump spoke in Philadelphia with a message that The Guardian's David Smith described as "light on facts, heavy on fear." He appears to be trying to overwrite his own criminal conviction with the idea that Biden's immigration policy has brought violent undocumented migrants to the United States, creating a surge of crime. He told rally attendees that murders in their city have reached their highest level in six decades, while in fact, violent crime in the city is the lowest it's been in a decade.
In February, Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to reject a strong bipartisan border bill so he could use immigration as his primary issue in the election. That focus on immigration was key to the rise of Hungary's Viktor Orbán to power, and it is notable that Trump's picture of the United States echoes the rhetoric of the authoritarians hoping to overturn democracy around the world.
On Friday, during a podcast hosted by venture capitalists, Trump blamed Biden for starting Russia's war against Ukraine by calling for Ukraine's admission to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that resists Russian aggression. This statement utterly rewrites the history of Trump's support for Russia's annexation of the same Ukrainian regions it has now occupied: as Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort testified, the Kremlin helped Trump's 2016 campaign in exchange for the U.S. permitting Russian incursions there.
More significant in this moment, though, is that Trump, who is running to become the leader of the United States, is siding against the United States and parroting Russian propaganda. Mark Hertling, a retired lieutenant general of the United States Army who served for 37 years and commanded U.S. Army operations in Europe and Africa, wrote: "This statement is—to put it mildly—stunningly misinformed and dangerous."
Trump told host Sean Spicer that the U.S. is a "failing nation," claiming that airplane flights are being delayed for four days and people are "pitching tents" because their flight is never going to happen. In reality, as Bill Kristol pointed out, with 16.3 million U.S. flights, 2023 was the busiest year in U.S. history for air travel, and the cancellation rate was below 1.2%. This was the lowest rate in a decade.
Trump is insisting at his rallies that crime is skyrocketing under Biden. In reality, crime rose rapidly at the end of Trump's term but is now dropping. From 2022 to 2023, according to the FBI, the only crime that went up was motor vehicle theft. Murders dropped by 13.2%, rape by 12.5%, robbery by 4.7%, burglary by 9.8%. The first quarter of 2024 showed even greater drops. Compared to the same quarter in 2023, violent crime is down 15.2%, murder down 26.4%, rape down 25.7%, robbery down 17.8%, burglary down 16.7%. Even vehicle theft is down 17.3%.
Trump's negative picture might play well to his die-hard supporters, but portraying the U.S. as a hellscape has rarely been a recipe for winning a presidential election.
President Biden and Trump are scheduled to debate on Thursday, June 27, and Trump's team is trying to lower expectations for his performance. He became so incoherent in Philadelphia that the Fox News Channel actually cut away while he was talking. The Biden-Harris team has taken simply to posting Trump's comments, prompting Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo to note: "It's pretty bad when one candidates rapid response account just posts the other guys quote verbatim with no explanation at all."
After months of insisting that Biden is mentally unfit, now Trump and his surrogates are saying Biden will perform well in the debate because he will be on drugs. There is no evidence that Biden has ever used performance-enhancing drugs, but curiously, Trump's former White House physician Ronny Jackson (whom Trump repeatedly misidentified as Ronny Johnson last week) gave Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo a very detailed list of drugs that could sharpen attention and clarity. One of the ones he mentioned, Provigil, was on the list of those widely and improperly distributed by the White House Medical Unit in the Trump White House.
Jackson said that he was "demanding" that Biden take drug tests before and after the debate. A White House spokesperson responded: "[A]fter losing every public and private negotiation with President Biden—and after seeing him succeed where they failed across the board, ranging from actually rebuilding America's infrastructure to actually reducing violent crime to actually outcompeting China—it tracks that those same Republican officials mistake confidence for a drug."
With the evaluation that Biden is better for the economy and Trump's apocalyptic vision of the U.S. is not based in reality, it jumps out that on Thursday, a filing with the Federal Election Commission showed that the day after a jury convicted former president Donald Trump on 34 criminal counts, billionaire Tim Mellon made a $50 million donation to one of Trump's superpacs. Since 2018, Mellon has contributed more than $200 million to Republicans, giving $110 million to Republican candidates and funding committees in the 2024 election alone. He has also given $25 million to independent candidate Robert Kennedy Jr.
In a 2015 autobiography, Mellon embraced the old trope that "Black Studies, Women's Studies, LGBT Studies, they have all cluttered Higher Education with a mishmash of meaningless tripe designed to brainwash gullible young adults into going along with the Dependency Syndrome," saying that food assistance, affordable health care "and on, and on, and on" had made Americans on government assistance "slaves of a new Master, Uncle Sam." "The largess is funded by the hardworking folks, fewer and fewer in number, who are too honest or too proud to allow themselves to sink into this morass," he wrote.
It is this trope that the Biden administration has smashed, returning to the idea that the government should answer to the needs of all its people. The last three years have proved the superiority of this vision by creating a roaring economy; rebuilding the country's infrastructure, supply chains, and manufacturing; cutting crime rates, and reinforcing international alliances.
As Dan Eberhart, a Republican donor and chief executive officer of the energy company Canary, told Wall Street Journal reporter Tarini Parti about Mellon: "He's clearly terrified of Biden remaining the president."


Monday, June 24, 2024

Fwd: Green tidbit



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joyce Segal <joyceck10@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 8:48 AM
Subject: Green tidbit
To: Kim Cooper <kimc0240@gmail.com>



Eli Electric Vehicles

Micro-EVs are being hailed as the "next big thing" in urban transportation, with McKinsey projecting a whopping $470b market. That's just one of many reasons why 3,700+ investors have invested in Eli Electric Vehicles.

Eli's award-winning EVs are 70% smaller than sedans and twice as energy efficient as regular EVs. Hundreds of these micro-EVs have already been sold in Europe, and they're now gearing up to launch in the US this year.

If you missed out on investing in Tesla while it was private, now there's a chance to invest in "the Tesla of micro-EVs" by joining Eli's latest private raise.

Only five days remain to invest in Eli's current round before it closes on June 27.

--
Joyce Cooper
CEO SunSmartPower
650-430-6243
SunSmartPower.com

Sunday, June 23, 2024

ANS -- on work and AI

I found this on Facebook.  read it.  
--Kim


There's an interesting meme going around where the general concept is that AI should be the thing doing the laundry and dishes, while the humans get to do the art and recreation, but instead it's the other way around. What I love about this meme is that I'm not sure people realize just how old of a problem this is for humans.
In Bertrand Russell's short essay, "In Praise of Idleness" (1935) he quickly maps out how the overall strategy of these industries on the whole was to tout an idea invented under Feudalism, which is the nobility of labor as it was espoused by people who had never experienced labor in their entire lives. They then make the argument that the new technology will make our lives easier and give us more time for other things. But then when the technology gives us more time for other things, that time gets filled with more work in a celebration of high productivity.
This all gets carried down to the birth of AI, and while it's being claimed that it will help us in every aspect of our lives, one can't deny the obvious of what it's already doing, which is taking some of the jobs most meaningful to humans, the arts, while making more time for us...to do more work. It's part of the cycle of technology where the people get shafted on their end, from the long standing justification of technological development.
Russell argues that we now (over 90 years ago) have a right to be idle. Humanity has built upon itself a lineage of technological advances that have given us great power, and yet instead of understanding what it takes to truly have meaningful lives, the demand for more work and more productivity has increased with the development of new tech.
So I think people have every right to be outraged by AI, it is the intelligent accumulation of the great long con invented by medieval royalty, that without hard work you would have no purpose, and so to be a true and good citizen you must dedicate your life to serving at the whims of the overlords, and you should be thankful because it's never been so great.

Thursday, June 13, 2024

Fwd: it's not easy being green!



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joyce Segal <joyceck10@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 7:20 AM
Subject: it's not easy being green!
To: Kim Cooper <kimc0240@gmail.com>


If the government doesn't spend money to make EV's cheaper, what will they spend that money on? War?

A trade war's a-brewin', and the EU just sailed right into its path. The bloc announced plans yesterday to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in a gambit that could upend a global automotive market increasingly reliant on China.

The tariffs, which will range from 17.4%–38.1% on top of an existing 10% duty, are a push by politicians to prevent ultra-cheap and popular Chinese EVs from flooding the market, echoing a move made by the US last month. Last year, an EU investigation found Chinese EV-makers benefited unfairly from government subsidies allowing them to sell cars for cheap, pricing out European-made EVs.

Unlike their US brethren, European carmakers didn't want this. Despite what may seem like relief from competition, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Volkswagen, and others oppose the tariffs because they need China more than they fear it. Many European auto companies either rely on the Chinese market for gas car sales or have crucial production plants in China, which would be threatened if the Chinese government follows through on its vow to retaliate.

The only thing green may be Europe's envy…critics of the tariffs have questioned the EU's decision considering its commitment to a carbon emissions-free future that necessitates a move away from gas-fueled cars.—CC


--
Joyce Cooper
CEO SunSmartPower
650-430-6243
SunSmartPower.com

Monday, June 10, 2024

ans -- The Worst Idea Ever And how it rules our lives.

Here is a good summation of what is wrong with our economy and our society.  It does offer a bit of a solution.  Read it. 
--Kim


We go to a great deal of time and trouble to live together. We sacrifice a lot to the common good. The hope is that we can cooperate to make things safer, to build communities and together to create better lives and greater possibilities for everyone.

To do this, we have to give up some absolute freedoms. You're not free to dump your sewage in the public waterways, store explosives in your apartment, or do any number of other things that might endanger or inconvenience your neighbors. There are rules, that exist so that we can build and maintain a society.

But what if I propose a different idea – that society doesn't exist for the good of everyone? What if it exists only to enrich a few far beyond what they could ever need or reasonably use, at the expense of the vast majority of the citizens who give their time and labor to the society? What if I told you that some people say that the only thing that matters is how much a very few people have, and that everyone else should be willing to suffer, even die so that the already rich could gather personal wealth beyond any horde of any emperor in all of history?

On the face of it, you'd say that the idea that society exists only for the benefit of a few at the expense of almost everyone else is bonkers on the face of it. Why would the majority agree to live that way? Why would those who are already insanely bloated with wealth want more than they could ever possibly spend?

But that's how we live. And most of us think that's just the way it should be.

Somehow, and I'm not entirely clear on how, as a culture we adopted the idea that acts done in pursuit of money are entitled to some sort of moral exception. "It's just business" is an absurd idea on the face of it. If someone decided to ruin the lives of a group of people just out of spite, to get them fired from their jobs, or to steal their businesses, we'd think that person was a sociopath.

But if they do the exact same thing to gain a nickle on their stock price, or to pay the owners a totally unearned bonus, we call that person a financial genius.

If you schemed to cheat someone out of their home out of personal malice we'd think that you were a monster. But if you exploit some loophole in a lease so that you can make money on the deal, well, that's just "good business."

There is an idea that the law is the only limitation on what one can do to others in business, regardless of the imbalance of power between a consumer, or a worker and a billion dollar corporation with a staff of lawyers, a herd of lobbyists to shape the laws to their liking, and a very inconsistent standard of enforcement of the laws we do have.

It's absurd to argue that an act done for financial gain – plundering the public treasury through lobbying for tax advantages, or moving an already profitable company to move it somewhere that workers can be routinely exploited, or buying the company and burdening it with an insupportable amount of debt and selling off the assets for a quick buck is somehow less morally culpable than other sorts of robbery.

Some part of the blame for this can be blamed on the rise of "shareholder capitalism," the idea that a business exists only to pay its stockholders (and executives) as much as possible as quickly as possible. The company's role in the community, and the impact its behavior makes on society is simply not their concern. They publicly state this as a moral maxim – as if the maximization of their profits, regardless of the social cost is a moral duty.

If a company refuses to pay its employees a living wage, and they are forced to collect public assistance, we pay for that. We are forced to subsidize their greed. If they close a factory because they can maximize profit elsewhere, the sudden wave of unemployment, the loss of jobs, not just at the factory, but at the businesses peripheral to that factory, create massive social disruption. And we suffer for it. The loss of tax revenue impacts public services, education, infrastructure and the entire civic life of that community.

The results of this unsupportable model of public behavior are plain to anyone who has visited vast stretches of the American Midwest, impoverished and economically devastated by businesses playing off municipalities, states and even nations against each other for tax breaks, subsidies and decreasing protections for workers and communities.

The rise of automation and globalization has depressed wages, while profits have skyrocketed. And the risks of these innovations, and the entire burden of adapting to them has been placed on the worker. It is you who must retrain, usually at your own expense, beginning at the bottom of the ladder again, and hoping that the job you are retraining for doesn't become obsolete as soon as you've finished retraining for it.

A company that takes the corporate form, which allows the individual owners to avoid liability for their actions, asks for a charter from the government to do so. It is a privilege, and with that privilege should come a degree of social responsibility.

A company that goes public, offering shares on a public market also takes certain privileges for granted – we regulate and support that market, and spend public money to do so.

The infrastructure – the roads, the rails, fire and police protection, even the printing and regulation of the money they so covet is done at public expense. And these concerns constantly agitate for lower and lower taxes, holding communities hostage, threatening the jobs that are the lifeblood of the community if they aren't subsidized with even more public funds.

Of course, most of us remember 2008, where the financial industry's gambling, treating the futures market like a gigantic casino, ruined the financial future of a generation of workers. Then, those same firms were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds, while those who lost their jobs, their homes, and their hopes were assisted not at all.

It has become common practice for corporations to break their pension obligations by simply declaring bankruptcy, and reforming, often with the exact same corporate structure, while leaving the old company drained of all assets, and forced to default. Again, these impoverished retirees, with nothing but empty promises to show for their years of labor, become our problem to support.

I submit that a public corporation is properly held responsible for its actions, and the effect those actions have on the community. But our political and regulatory systems are captive to them, addicted to campaign money.

I want to emphasize that this essay is not an attack on capitalism, per se. It is an indictment of irresponsible, sociopathic capitalism. The cure is not public ownership of the means of production, it is using the public licensing – the corporate form, to hold these multibillion dollar firms responsible for the damage they do, and to restrain them from doing it with such impunity.

Those who profit from this exploitation consistently try to present us with a vicious false dichotomy. The only choices, they'd have us believe, are unrestrained, cutthroat corporate capitalism or communist, authoritarian collectivism. This is, and always was, a false choice. It is perfectly possible to restrain the power of what a great American once called "malefactors of great wealth," without confiscation or economic repression.

The key, I think, lies in giving stakeholders real power within the corporate structure. A public company that distributes stock should be required to give their workers a significant portion of the voting shares. Seats on the corporate board should be allocated to, and elected by the workers. In addition, the communities in which these corporations operate should be able to sue corporations for predatory behavior, such as threatening to relocate or cut jobs if they do not receive subsidies or tax breaks. There is an implied contract, by every standard of equity, between a community that has provided a company with infrastructure, educated its workforce at public expense, and protected its property. If you want to move to what you think are greener pastures, fine. But you should have to pay that community, and those workers for the harm you do in pursuit of ever greater profit.

Likewise, if you lay off workers, it should be your responsibility to relocate or train them for new positions.

But before any significant reform can be done, we will have to break the power of money over our politics. No one should be allowed to contribute to a campaign outside their electoral residence, all contributions must be publicly made by individuals, and strictly limited to curb the power of wealth. Due to the capture of our court system by corporate money, we will have to make fundamental changes to our basic legal structure.

But first, we must change the way that we, as citizens, think about how business is done. We do not exist as a society for the sake of the billionaires. We have to stop thinking of the pursuit of ever greater profits as some sort of moral exception.

Unlimited growth and consumption regardless of the health of the body as a whole is the "morality" of a malignant tumor. It has poisoned our economic lives for a generation. It's time to put a stop to it. Or we will continue to see our economic and social lives relentlessly degraded.

We are on a road to serfdom. Not the one envisioned by Austrian economists, but one in which ever greater greed, power and wealth takes more and more from us until their whole short-sighted, selfish scheme collapses, as it has in the past. And every time, we, the workers, the retirees, and the young trying to find their footing on an ever-steeper slope are left holding the bag.

We must end the idea that if you're not "too big to fail," you're too small to matter.

Subscribe to Kit's Substack

By Kit Thornton · Launched a year ago

Essays about Philosophy, Music, Literature, Theater, Wine, Love and Politics. Philistines and Pharisees need not apply.