The question as to whether we should believe anything Donald Trump says is largely settled. He lies so routinely and so obviously, that the surprising things is to find something he has said is actually true. That should seem a shocking indictment of anyone, but is particularly unnerving when it's about the president of the United States.
The more substantive question is whether he knows he is lying. Could he conceivably not himself be able to tell the difference between fiction and imagination, between what is true and the way he would like the world around him to be? It that's so, then he is in a truly delusional state of mind; and that should be deeply worrying to everyone.
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Trump's distorting mirror
Donald Trump claims that US consumers won't be hurt by the tariffs he is imposing because Chinese firms (and US firms that use Chinese made parts) will eat the cost and not pass the cost of the tariffs on to consumers. Aside from the fact that depending on the concentration of the industry some may have little choice but to pass them on or make a loss (a simple piece of microeconomics that Trump apparently missed when at Wharton), he also doesn't consider that the same logic applies for goods moving in the other direction. Applying his logic, if US firms selling in China we to eat China's retaliatory tariffs, US firms would be bearing the cost, not Chinese consumers. All of which is priced into the market which is why it reacts negatively when the trade war escalates.
Sunday, August 25, 2019
A prescient insight...
"The President in particular is very much a figurehead... but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the president is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character, His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. On those criteria [he] is one of the most successful presidents the galaxy has ever had. He has already spent two of his ten presidential years in prison for fraud".
Douglas Adams, 1978
The Harvard halo
On the NPR broadcast "Hidden Brain" Shankar Vedantam had as his guest Harvard Professor Francesca Gino. She explained that the more experienced heart surgeons were leas likely to heed advice from the FDA and inexperienced ones. And that first that listened to people who weren't experts often came up with more innovative solutions. And that weaning red sneakers to teach an HBS executive education class generated more respect than wearing a more traditional "uniform". This is a classic example of the Harvard Halo. Other R1's have a similar problem; the idea the "two step leverage (Garguilo et al) is an effective strategy remains an article of faith among those who have never worked in industry but who have been patted on the cake by sycophantic wannabes all their professional lives. I'll grant that the red sneaker study was fairly nifty in its design but not something that would be considered rocket science by a brain surgeon (a Brit humor allusion there). But it's nonetheless a little nauseating to hear ideas so blindingly obvious lauded as if they were the next cure for cancer.
Any way the wind blows
An august panel of talking heads on one of this mornings Sunday political talk shows spent thirty minutes trying to divine what Donald Trump really believes. After 4 years it's a complete mystery to me why they bother; do they not yet understand that he has no beliefs? Only a tiny set of talking points that he thinks will ingratiate him with whoever he's most recently been threatened by. He is governed by insecurity and opportunism. He is for gun control when he thinks that saying so will score him points. Then he's against it when Wayne La Pierre tells him it will lose him brownie points. He's buy buying Greenland, then it was only a joke, but he won't go to Denmark because he's offended that the Danish Prime Minister was "nasty" to him for calling the idea absurd; this from the man who claims, literally, he is "the chosen one".
In anyone else, this is the kind of behavior that would at best elicit pitying condescension, but might well end up with his being committed to an institution. And yet, because of his power, the media (and the Democrats) react with horror to every one of his ludicrous utterances. It's time to stop taking him seriously; he has no convictions. His guiding principle is his own aggrandizement and enrichment. Unlike the politically engaged, mainly on the left, who are at once appalled and captivated by this carnival freak show, the vast majority of the America public are blissfully inured to his behavior. The markets are up: hurrah. They are down 800 points who cares - we don't own any mutual funds or shares. The deficit will top $1T: my pay check is still the same. We need to stop hanging on his every tweet and focus on what he does. He is a feather in the wind; and following every zig and zag will only make us tired and nauseous.
In anyone else, this is the kind of behavior that would at best elicit pitying condescension, but might well end up with his being committed to an institution. And yet, because of his power, the media (and the Democrats) react with horror to every one of his ludicrous utterances. It's time to stop taking him seriously; he has no convictions. His guiding principle is his own aggrandizement and enrichment. Unlike the politically engaged, mainly on the left, who are at once appalled and captivated by this carnival freak show, the vast majority of the America public are blissfully inured to his behavior. The markets are up: hurrah. They are down 800 points who cares - we don't own any mutual funds or shares. The deficit will top $1T: my pay check is still the same. We need to stop hanging on his every tweet and focus on what he does. He is a feather in the wind; and following every zig and zag will only make us tired and nauseous.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Bully in a China shop
Trump's trade war with China will end badly not only for the US but for the world economy as a whole. It was ill conceived from the start; a unilateral approach was never going to work especially against China which as it becomes more prosperous, is becoming less dependent for economic growth on exports. In liu of a coordinated effort, Trump chose tariffs which cause pain to both parties; bot only one has a political system that makes it vulnerable to the pain that tariffs and higher prices lead to. Because it is not a democracy, Xi is insulated to some degree from the consequences of the economic consequences of a trade war. China's political system, too, is better suited to a long game; just as ISIS and the Taliban know they can wait American presidents out, so Xi can look 2 or even six years down the road and know he will still be around after Trump has gone and the American electorate has had enough of the pain Trump's ill-thought-through economic bullying has caused.
Not the Fox
Dan Bolz made a comment this evening that caught my attention: "In China, Donald Trump has found an enemy as wily as he is". To put Xi Jin-Ping and Trump on the same level seems ludicrously over-generous. China's political system is somewhat meritocratic, at least for those the toe the party line and dogma. Xi is a meticulous, thoroughly informed strategic thinker. Trump, in contrast, has a 5 minute attention span, contemptuously ignores knowledge that would help him navigate complex issue. He is a showman, a third rate TV personality, who had the chutzpah to leverage white resentment to put him into a job for which, as he demonstrates an an hourly basis, he is completely unqualified. Trump an Xi aren't equals; and Xi I'm sure would find the comparison irritating and demeaning.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Connecting the dots
Growing up I was exposed to monthly renditions of Tom Lehrer's record "That was the Year that Was". Looking back many things are clearer now. For example, I had imagined him somewhere on the East coast, I'm not quite sure why, perhaps because my aunt lived in New York. And when I learned that he was at Harvard when began his singing career, that impression was reinforced. That was until I learned from a colleague that he had moved to Santa Cruz in the 1970s to teach at UC Santa Cruz. So when he sings "the breakfast garbage you throw into the bay, they drink at lunch in San Jose, which I had in my minds eye imagined was somewhere in Central America and the bay being the Gulf of Mexico, I now realize are actually the town in which I now teach and San Francisco Bay. Even the album title is contextualized as a play on an American NBC satire that was copied from a British show of the same name ("That Was the Week That Was" or TW3).
Noting in the opening song that National Brotherhood Week was "celebrated" with the killing of Malcolm X now makes sense in the context of the civil rights movement which, as an 8 year old growing up in England, I was unaware of. References to the use of the Marines to stabilize foreign regimes "until somebody we like can be elected" speaks to a US interventionist foreign policy. George Murphy, a Californian senator who started his career in Hollywood makes sense with some (recently acquired) knowledge of history. Jimmy Crack Corn is a reference that only a child growing up in America would understand (and still makes little sense to me). What Lehrer thought about Reagan and now Trump we will never know (at least not though his songs). "Watch Brinkely and Huntely" is a reference to two news anchors of the day who hosted the The Huntley–Brinkley Report from 1956 to 1970.
Many of the issues he sang about are still with us; pollution, racism, antisemitism, the threat of nuclear war and nuclear proliferation. Some was topical, such as the a lament for the Vice President who suffered the fate of Veep's in general, or his recounting of the life of Alma Mahler-Gropius-Werfel who died the year before. Interestingly, in "Wernher von Braun" he alludes to the rise of China seven years before Nixon's visit and long before it was clear to most commentators that China's fortunes were on the rise.
Would I have enjoyed them more in the 1960s had I known then what I know now? Hard to say, but on the plus side I get to enjoy them with fresh eyes 50 years on.
Noting in the opening song that National Brotherhood Week was "celebrated" with the killing of Malcolm X now makes sense in the context of the civil rights movement which, as an 8 year old growing up in England, I was unaware of. References to the use of the Marines to stabilize foreign regimes "until somebody we like can be elected" speaks to a US interventionist foreign policy. George Murphy, a Californian senator who started his career in Hollywood makes sense with some (recently acquired) knowledge of history. Jimmy Crack Corn is a reference that only a child growing up in America would understand (and still makes little sense to me). What Lehrer thought about Reagan and now Trump we will never know (at least not though his songs). "Watch Brinkely and Huntely" is a reference to two news anchors of the day who hosted the The Huntley–Brinkley Report from 1956 to 1970.
Many of the issues he sang about are still with us; pollution, racism, antisemitism, the threat of nuclear war and nuclear proliferation. Some was topical, such as the a lament for the Vice President who suffered the fate of Veep's in general, or his recounting of the life of Alma Mahler-Gropius-Werfel who died the year before. Interestingly, in "Wernher von Braun" he alludes to the rise of China seven years before Nixon's visit and long before it was clear to most commentators that China's fortunes were on the rise.
Would I have enjoyed them more in the 1960s had I known then what I know now? Hard to say, but on the plus side I get to enjoy them with fresh eyes 50 years on.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
Thinking ahead
Trump may be an aberration or he may be a more permanent reflection of America's cultural divide and the rightward-shift of the more rural and isolated parts of the country. Only time will tell. But whether he and his brand of politics are temporary or long-lasting, the effect of his time in office will long out-last him. As a white man, that makes me worried. Those who justifiably feel resentment at being demonized by Trump and his supporters may not distinguish between those who look like him but don't share his views and those who wear MAGA hats. I foresee a time when I will have to spend energy apologizing for being white, and for the sins of Trump-ism, even though I stand in staunch opposition to all he represents. And kudos to Susan Rice for refusing to engage with Wolf Blitzer yesterday, who was baiting her with a mention of Tucker Calrson; her simple and suitably curt reply was "He's a disgrace". Exactly!
The shadows of Nuremberg
Jews are understandably defensive when comparisons to the Holocaust are bandied about. My father, a lapsed Jew who was born in Czechoslovakia and fled just ahead of the Nazis invasion in 1939, led a medical mission to back to Czechoslovakia in 1945 and was among the first people to enter Terezin after it was liberated. He saw first hand the unspeakable horror of the Third Reich. There is nothing that compares, nor God willing is there ever likely to be, to the systematic organized slaughter of 6 million Jews. My intent here isn't to make a direct comparison to the Holocaust, but rather to examine elements of its antecedents.
Of particular concern is the use of large rallies at which xenophobia is stirred and reinforced by the excitement and affirmation of the crowd. It is the kind of collective hysteria that was on display at Nuremberg rallies that is echoed today at Trump's campaign rallies. There were thirteen Nuremberg rallies; at the largest in 1937, some estimates suggest as many as 700,000 attended though other figures suggest te number was 350,000. Trump held 186 rallies as part of his election campaign, and another 71 since taking office. While clearly some attendees will have gone to multiple events, assuming each stadium holds about 30,000 people, Trump will have had a total audience of 7.7 million, compared to 2.3 million for the Nuremberg rallies. More people are likely to have attended a Trump rally than attended all the Nuremberg rallies. As a proportion of the population, the Nuremberg rallies may have involved of the population 3.3% over 12 years while Trumps has reached 2.4% in just 4 years.
Next it is worth considering how the emotional fallout from these events is propagated. Social media didn't exist in the 1930s so propagation would be by word of mouth. The spread of the emotionally charged message would be limited by the size of the networks of the attendees. Assuming at least some dissipation along each link, it would take some time for the message to reach a bring about a sea change in culture sufficient to pave the way for the organized genocide that the Third Reich carried out. The ground was fertile anyway since Germany was still recovering from the Great depression and the strictures of reparations the countries was required to pay. That created resentment and anger, ripe for harnessing by a demagogue.
There are similarities in 21st century America. The financial crisis of 2008 and years of economic decline in middle America along with off-shoring and the creation of most value-creating employment only on the coasts have created the conditions that make the politics of fear and resentment so effective. And today, the emotional intensity of rallies like Trumps has the potential to go viral over the social media networks that are much larger than personal social networks. So those who worry that we may be nearing the critical mass needed to cause an inflection in the culture may be right to be concerned.
Of particular concern is the use of large rallies at which xenophobia is stirred and reinforced by the excitement and affirmation of the crowd. It is the kind of collective hysteria that was on display at Nuremberg rallies that is echoed today at Trump's campaign rallies. There were thirteen Nuremberg rallies; at the largest in 1937, some estimates suggest as many as 700,000 attended though other figures suggest te number was 350,000. Trump held 186 rallies as part of his election campaign, and another 71 since taking office. While clearly some attendees will have gone to multiple events, assuming each stadium holds about 30,000 people, Trump will have had a total audience of 7.7 million, compared to 2.3 million for the Nuremberg rallies. More people are likely to have attended a Trump rally than attended all the Nuremberg rallies. As a proportion of the population, the Nuremberg rallies may have involved of the population 3.3% over 12 years while Trumps has reached 2.4% in just 4 years.
Next it is worth considering how the emotional fallout from these events is propagated. Social media didn't exist in the 1930s so propagation would be by word of mouth. The spread of the emotionally charged message would be limited by the size of the networks of the attendees. Assuming at least some dissipation along each link, it would take some time for the message to reach a bring about a sea change in culture sufficient to pave the way for the organized genocide that the Third Reich carried out. The ground was fertile anyway since Germany was still recovering from the Great depression and the strictures of reparations the countries was required to pay. That created resentment and anger, ripe for harnessing by a demagogue.
There are similarities in 21st century America. The financial crisis of 2008 and years of economic decline in middle America along with off-shoring and the creation of most value-creating employment only on the coasts have created the conditions that make the politics of fear and resentment so effective. And today, the emotional intensity of rallies like Trumps has the potential to go viral over the social media networks that are much larger than personal social networks. So those who worry that we may be nearing the critical mass needed to cause an inflection in the culture may be right to be concerned.
Tuesday, August 6, 2019
"That's not who we are"
Culture is not always monolithic. Think of a cluster analysis. At some level all nodes are in a single cluster; but change the criteria for links and different cliques emerge. If the criteria for ties is language you get one picture; if similar attitudes towards foreigners and immigration is the tie a different picture will emerge. That's the clustering that has emerged, in large parts due to Fox and Trump over the last three years.
So it is worth considering the differences between two broad cliques; those who are fearful of (non-nordic / anglo-saxon) foreigners and those who aren't. They are probably more conservative, more likely to support traditional social policies and oppose liberal ones. One group (and this is just based on impressions, not data) is strongly libertarian, self-reliant, independent, deeply suspicious of outsiders, and fearful of the future. The other embraces diversity, welcomes strangers, is unafraid of change.
So, when politicians react to mass shootings, hate crimes, and white nationalist / supremacist rhetoric with the now hackneyed response of "that's not who we are", first one has to ask who are "we". If the clustering is all Americans then sadly, yes, that is who "we" are. If we weren't, this wouldn't keep happening at rates reminiscent of a "shit-hole" countries like Sudan or Zambia (adjacent to the US in the per-capita homicide league table), or seventh in the world in total annual homicides. Viewed from the perspective of these two cultural cliques, then those saying "that's not who we are may be confused about which group they belong to. It's not who the members of their cluster are, but it is who the other cluster is.
"Thoughts and prayers" the Republican equivalent of "talk to the hand", has worked well for 20 years in shutting down discussion of the antecedents of gun violence, generally coupled with "now is not the time"; and of course for Republicans that time is never. In part its because their base is largely drawn from one of these two cliques. Indeed, the divide between the two camps' values is increasingly aligned with both geography and party politics, exacerbating the disconnect between the two network cliques as opportunities for cross-cutting ties wane. That in turn leads to a hardening of extreme views that become self-reinforcing within the clique. Social media helps reinforce this process.
Perhaps this time, with two incidents separated by less than 24 hours in which 30 people were killed, perhaps this time it will be different. But if the past is any indication, it probably won't be. A chronic inability to face a serious domestic problem - that's who we are.
So it is worth considering the differences between two broad cliques; those who are fearful of (non-nordic / anglo-saxon) foreigners and those who aren't. They are probably more conservative, more likely to support traditional social policies and oppose liberal ones. One group (and this is just based on impressions, not data) is strongly libertarian, self-reliant, independent, deeply suspicious of outsiders, and fearful of the future. The other embraces diversity, welcomes strangers, is unafraid of change.
So, when politicians react to mass shootings, hate crimes, and white nationalist / supremacist rhetoric with the now hackneyed response of "that's not who we are", first one has to ask who are "we". If the clustering is all Americans then sadly, yes, that is who "we" are. If we weren't, this wouldn't keep happening at rates reminiscent of a "shit-hole" countries like Sudan or Zambia (adjacent to the US in the per-capita homicide league table), or seventh in the world in total annual homicides. Viewed from the perspective of these two cultural cliques, then those saying "that's not who we are may be confused about which group they belong to. It's not who the members of their cluster are, but it is who the other cluster is.
"Thoughts and prayers" the Republican equivalent of "talk to the hand", has worked well for 20 years in shutting down discussion of the antecedents of gun violence, generally coupled with "now is not the time"; and of course for Republicans that time is never. In part its because their base is largely drawn from one of these two cliques. Indeed, the divide between the two camps' values is increasingly aligned with both geography and party politics, exacerbating the disconnect between the two network cliques as opportunities for cross-cutting ties wane. That in turn leads to a hardening of extreme views that become self-reinforcing within the clique. Social media helps reinforce this process.
Perhaps this time, with two incidents separated by less than 24 hours in which 30 people were killed, perhaps this time it will be different. But if the past is any indication, it probably won't be. A chronic inability to face a serious domestic problem - that's who we are.
Monday, August 5, 2019
If...
If there were justice in such things, Donald Trump would be held accountable at the end of four years for the jobs he promised to bring back from China (jobs which the Chinese are themselves losing to automation according to a recent Economist article).
He would be asked why the wall isn't built, let alone paid for by Mexico.
Why are more people without health care than before Obama took office?
Why are we not funding fundamental medical research?
Why are hate-crimes up by 200%?
What about the mess in Syria? Has he cleaned that up?
Has North Korea relinquished it nuclear weapons?
Is the deficit lower?
Why are our newly paved roads and rebuilt bridges, paid for with our tax dollars, now private tolls roads / bridges?
Why are Muslim Americans being harassed, threatened, beaten and shot?
Why are police shootings on the rise?
Why is discrimination against the LGBT community now legal?
If there were justice in such things, the opposition party and the serious news media would ask these questions and not put up with the BS answers that they will inevitably elicit. But there is little hope that the world is just or fair; at least in the political realm, its just crooked.
He would be asked why the wall isn't built, let alone paid for by Mexico.
Why are more people without health care than before Obama took office?
Why are we not funding fundamental medical research?
Why are hate-crimes up by 200%?
What about the mess in Syria? Has he cleaned that up?
Has North Korea relinquished it nuclear weapons?
Is the deficit lower?
Why are our newly paved roads and rebuilt bridges, paid for with our tax dollars, now private tolls roads / bridges?
Why are Muslim Americans being harassed, threatened, beaten and shot?
Why are police shootings on the rise?
Why is discrimination against the LGBT community now legal?
If there were justice in such things, the opposition party and the serious news media would ask these questions and not put up with the BS answers that they will inevitably elicit. But there is little hope that the world is just or fair; at least in the political realm, its just crooked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)