Skip to main content

Trump is wrong



Trump is wrong.  In his Detroit message, he offered to the American people more jobs and more wealth to all, yes all. He believes, as do the Republicans, that such a promise will gain votes and hopefully adoration of the potential voter. Moreover, it will attract to the ballot box their endorsement of his offer.  This is his promise, and I believe it is sincere.  It is possible, though it would be difficult to achieve. The promise should be a winner!  So they think.  This was the pitch of all the Republican candidates of this cycle and last; it was the promise and pledge of Romney.  Trump discussed the TPP at length*.  

How can Trump be wrong?  Those millions of people out of the workforce and the smaller number listed as unemployed (current 4.9% unemployment rate) have no belief anything will happen in their favor.  This includes even those who believe he is sincere.  However, there is another mechanism at foot. It is the notion of equity.  Those who are downtrodden by economic circumstances have come to accept their condition.  They have learned to live without income and without hope.  Their expectations are slight, with their only compensation is that those above them economically are brought down - a peg or two or three.  Cut them down to size is the message heard.  This implies any pitch that seeks to tax the rich further, reducing their take-home pay, is welcome.  

We are discussing belief versus logic.  Belief is by far a stronger human system for making decisions.

Consider your own situation.  Should your upper management tells you that we will give YOU more  if only we can give more resources and opportunity to your managers - including salary.  You don't believe it, nor do I. This is the fundamental flaw of these plans. 

Republicans opposing Trump will determine technical reasons why Trump's plans are flawed.  Democrats opponents to Trump will relax.  Their mantra of chipping away at "those with more than you" can wait it out for the November win.  Even still, some Republicans understand the Trump pitch has “have vs have not” flaws.  

If the Reps want to win, they must not advocate lowering taxes for those making a bunch too much because you, the poor, will be the winners in the end.  Too trickle-down.  If the Dems want to win, they should just stay on their message of class warfare. The more folks on food stamps and welfare, the stronger their case.  They should avoid even mentioning Keynesian economics or other extant theories. 

The Reps have one case: Ms Clinton’s dishonesty.  The Dems have two: Trump and class warfare.   I recommend those hedging their bets begin to consider hedging their hedge.

* How many of even experts the can possibly understand a piece of legislation involving 30 chapters and running 2000 pages. If passed, it will support battalions of lawyers plummeting its depths and provisions.  It is almost certainly loaded with internal conflicts.  The President indicated in a press conference last week with Singapore Prime Minister Lee that his view of the TPP was that the USA would be merely a partner in a EU-like association of Pacific trading partners and would benefit us like all the other partners.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...