Walter Williams, still wrong!

       “Professor” Walter Williams, in a recent column, asserts that Capitalism is superior to Socialism because more people have died under Socialism than Capitalism. This brutally simplistic and demonstrably wrong statement is unworthy of a man with a PhD in Economics and would almost be laughable if not for its being read and believed by many who know no better.

        Laying the deaths inflicted at the behest of dictators (like Hitler or Stalin) at the feet of either economic system is sophomoric.  Williams alleges that all the deaths in Soviet Russia (15 million or so of which were inflicted by Germans under a Capitalist Dictator) were the direct result of Soviet Communism. Likewise, he omits blame for the 6 million Jews killed on the orders of Adolph Hitler.

        The original of this essay is limited to 300 words, because I sent it to the local paper, but for information and amplification this will be longer. What is missing from Williams’ list of death by political system is:  

·       Every Famine of the last 150 odd years

·       Every preventable disease of the last 100 odd years

·       Every death caused by poverty.

·       *Almost every violent death in Africa. Since independence, and before.

* This last deserves amplification. From 1876 until the early 20^th century, Belgium, a “free market” Capitalist monarchy, exploited the Congo and its inhabitants to a degree of savagery which might have made Hitler blush if he were capable of it. Estimates are that 10 million Africans died to serve the capitalist interests of one tiny European state. King Leopold II, in a public speech in 1883, said the following:

        “Teach the niggers to forget their heroes and to adore only ours. Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you. Don't give him more than one cigarette. Never invite him for dinner even if he gives you a chicken every time you arrive at his house…… Your action should be directed essentially to the younger ones, so they won't revolt when the recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent's teachings. The children must learn to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul. You must singularly insist on their total submission and obedience, avoid developing the spirits in the schools, teach students to read and not to reason. Evangelize the niggers so that they stay forever in submission to the white colonialists, so they never revolt against the restraints they are undergoing. Recite every day - "happy are those who are weeping because the kingdom of God is for them."

         This shameless, exploitative and disgusting melding of Capitalism with Christianity isn’t atypical and tragically it exists today in America.  Ask Hawaiians or Native Americans.

        Additionally, Williams lists only the good that has been accomplished by Capitalism (he insists on using the term “free market” which is not really what any civilized nation has universally today). He then attributes all the human misery inflicted by Communist dictatorships to “Socialism.”  Both assertions are gross exaggerations and demonstrably false.

        In truth, most have been taught that there is a sliding scale of economic systems with Communism at the extreme left and Capitalism at the far right. Reality, as proven by world history, is that the economic “line” is much more like a circle. The farther right into unregulated market capitalism one goes, into Oligarchy, or unregulated market Capitalism (like Russia today) the closer one comes to Dictatorship by single party, or (Communism) as in Russia, mid-20^th century. In each, the wealthy at the top own the nation, reap the benefits, and dictate policy. In each, opposition is crushed, media controlled, and opportunity limited to the favored and powerful.

        The larger picture in America is that those who promote the current trend toward Oligarchy, justify their machinations by heralding the “horrors of Socialism,” equating it to State Socialism or Communism. In truth, there has never actually been a true Communist society for very long, principally because if power corrupts, absolute power (Lenin, Stalin, Kim, Castro, Mao) corrupts absolutely. On the other hand, to be fair, Ho Chi Minh, who guided modern Viet Nam despite of the US’s worst efforts, was an avowed Marxist, too.

         In practice, a truly communal social organization is limited to about 20 people and then, only until they run out of beer or weed, whichever happens first. Exceptions occur only when religion dulls the judgement far worse than beer or reefer ever could.

          No one of political consequence in American has even suggested the adoption of State Socialism, as those of the far right would have us believe. What has been suggested is that under-restricted free market capitalism is leaving more and more working poor behind. As to claims of disavowing all things socialist, Medicare and Medicaid are living examples of the inverse. Problems, such as there are with these two social programs are traceable back to unregulated free market policies forced on us all by drug companies which spend more on advertising in every instance (and in some instances, lobbying) than on research. It is the result of bad legislation (Medicare part D), which allows drug companies free reign to charge what they will.  

        A regulated market economy, such has evolved in the USA, can achieve great things for people. A “free market” economy, however, has allowed the current unabated drug and health care cost surge in America. A regulated democratic socialist system, maintaining market mechanics but limiting abuses, by Oligarchs, offers some hope of better life for the 99% of Americans who are not rich and the roughly 1/3 of those who have no hope other than Powerball of ever being even economically comfortable.

        We learn and forget hard economic lessons. Cats respond to maltreatment by leaving or fighting back. Economically, we in the USA are more like dogs, who tolerate abuse multiple times, assuming it’s all our fault and the owner knows best. The various “Panics” of the mid to late 19^th century, the recession of   1920, the Great Depression of 1928-1939  and the Great Recession of 2009-14  caused by the 2008 housing bubble collapse, should have been seen as evidence of the flaws inherent in unregulated human greed, yet as the Trump administration continues eroding the market strictures enacted in Dodd-Frank, it is obvious that, like our loyal canines, we have not learned and continue blindly assuming that it was all for the best and somehow we deserved it. We glory in the rare comeuppance rendered to an upper 1% financial criminal such as Bernie Maddoff simply because it happens so rarely. 

        In summary: Comparing Democratic Socialism to Soviet/Sino era Communism is roughly analogous to equating the loathsome Westboro Baptist Church hate group to a Quaker meeting.  Walter Williams, per usual, remains unhampered by facts.           

A Book, Some Crooks, And a Fraud

        I sometimes make book recommendations based on my belief that others might simply enjoy the book. Sometimes my recommendation is also based on the belief that the book might also have something instructive to offer. Such a book is John Kenneth Galbraith's "The Great Crash 1929." In this case, I would like to offer the suggestion that this book, first printed in 1955 and continuously in print (deservedly so) and with periodic updates ever since, is instructive in its analysis of market and economic conditions then and now.

         Unlike "the Big Short" which, while a great read, (also my recommendation) could sometimes make the reader go to a reference source for a definition or explanation, Mr. Galbraith gives an even handed, clearly stated analysis of conditions leading to the Great Crash and subsequent economic collapse. What is especially interesting is that in his analysis, he discusses conditions which are not temporally isolated, but which have repeated cyclically both before and after the late 20s. 

       Anyone reading this book in 2008, with its analysis of wealth concentration (worse today), speculation and leverage based solely on the illusion that growth is infinite, should have looked at the housing bubble, exclaimed, "Oh shit!" and gotten out of the market. Alas, we don't learn or, perhaps more appropriately, those who control monstrous sums of other people's money continue to hope we don't learn from history, driven instead by the illusion that something can be created from nothing indefinitely. One simple (not “shining”) example: Galbraith discusses at length the massive problems at Goldman Sachs. I know, we all saw that in 2008-9, but I'm referring to the same greed and lack of sense exhibited 80 years earlier by the same investment bank.

        On December 4, 1928, the firm launched the Goldman Sachs Trading Corp, a closed-end and hugely speculative fund. The fund failed during the Stock Market Crash of 1929, amid accusations that Goldman had engaged in share price manipulation and insider trading. Professor Galbraith is gentler than the company probably deserves in his detailed analysis.

        Another financial crisis for the firm occurred in 1970, when the Penn Central Transportation Company went bankrupt with over $80 million in commercial paper outstanding, most of it issued through Goldman Sachs. This huge bankruptcy resulted in numerous lawsuits, many based on accusations of manipulation for Bank gains even though they should have known the issue was suspect. Notably, suits filed by the SEC threatened the partnership capital, life and reputation of the firm. As a personal aside, I think it unfortunate that Goldman Sachs survived.

        During the 2007 Subprime mortgage crisis, Goldman was able to profit from the collapse in subprime mortgage bonds in the summer of 2007 by short-selling subprime mortgage-backed securities. Two Goldman traders, Michael Swenson and Josh Birnbaum, are credited with being responsible for the firm's large profits during the crisis. The pair, members of Goldman's structured products group in New York City, made a profit of $4 billion by "betting" on a collapse in the sub-prime market and shorting mortgage-related securities.

        By summer 2007, they had persuaded colleagues to see their point of view and convinced skeptical risk management executives, most of whom had marginal understanding if any, (see “The Big Short”) of the issue.  G-S avoided large subprime write-downs at first, even turning a net profit due to significant losses on non-prime securitized loans being offset by gains on short mortgage positions. The firm's viability was later called into question, however, as the crisis worsened in late 2008.

        On October 15, 2007, as the crisis had begun to unravel, Allan Sloan, a senior editor for Fortune magazine, wrote:

   “So, let's reduce this macro story to human scale. Meet GSAMP Trust 2006-S3, a $494 million drop in the junk-mortgage bucket, part of the more than half-a-trillion dollars of mortgage-backed securities issued last year. We found this issue by asking mortgage mavens to pick the worst deal they knew of that had been floated by a top-tier firm – and this one's pretty bad. It was sold by Goldman Sachs – GSAMP originally stood for Goldman Sachs Alternative Mortgage Products but now has become a name itself, like AT&T and 3M. This issue, which is backed by ultra-risky second-mortgage loans, contains all the elements that facilitated the housing bubble and bust. It's got speculators searching for quick gains in hot housing markets; it's got loans that seem to have been made with little or no serious analysis by lenders; and finally, it's got Wall Street, which churned out mortgage "product" because buyers wanted it. As they say on the Street, "When the ducks quack, feed them."

        So, did G-S fold their tents and get out of town? Of course not, we (the US Government) loaned them $10 billion of our tax dollars under the TARP program (you remember “W” referring to G-S, AIG and others as being “Too big to fail?” As yet one more slap at reason, consider Goldman's decision to pay 953 employees year end bonuses of at least $1 million each after it received TARP funds in 2008. Yep, just under 10% of the TARP bailout was to go to some of those who were involved in the “bad mortgage” fraud. Fortunately, then New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, called “bullshit”, and when he shone the light on them, the larger G-S roaches decided it might not be all that good an idea.

        In the aftermath of the bubble collapse and the long slow recovery, President Obama and key advisers introduced a series of regulatory proposals in June 2009. The proposals addressed  consumer protection, executive pay, bank financial cushions or capital requirements, expanded regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives, and enhanced authority for the Federal Reserve to safely wind-down systemically important institutions, among others. Then U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified before Congress on October 29, 2009. His testimony included five elements he stated as critical to effective reform:

·       Expand the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) bank resolution mechanism to include non-bank financial institutions;

·       Ensure that a firm is allowed to fail in an orderly way and not be "rescued";

·       Ensure taxpayers are not on the hook for any losses, by applying losses first to the firm's investors and including the creation of a pool funded by the largest financial institutions;

·       Apply appropriate checks and balances to the FDIC and Federal Reserve in this resolution process;

·       Require stronger capital and liquidity positions for financial firms and related regulatory authority.

        The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010, addressing each of these topics to varying degrees.

         A similar directive, and to my lights almost as basic as regards fair dealing, is the Obama-era Labor Department rule requiring brokers to act in a client’s best interest when providing retirement advice. That rule is not explicitly part of Dodd-Frank. Understand this, Trump has stated his desire to void this regulation, even though doing do would allow a broker to place their own fiduciary interests above those of the client. This constitutes license for brokers to gamble with retirees’ life savings!

        So, we fixed those other issues, though, right? Not so much, perhaps. Enter the Trump administration, headed by a man not only not “too big to fail”, but who has “failed” (declared bankruptcy) six times! Among other things, Mr.  Trump has stated: “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that had nice businesses, they can’t borrow money,” Mr. Trump stated during a 2017 meeting with business leaders. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow it because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.” These "rules" of course are silly things like collateral, ability to repay, etc.

        These intentions, publicly stated early in 2017, constitute an extensive effort to loosen regulations on banks and other major financial companies, even though the Mr. Trump campaigned as a champion of working Americans and as a critic of Wall Street elites. While speaking from both sides of his face Mr. Trump then made some interesting (you may use another word) appointments.

        Steven Mnuchin became Treasury secretary; Gary Cohn, the chairman of his national economic council; and the since disgraced Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist. The common thread?  All had worked at Goldman-Sachs, Mnuchin as CEO.

In summary: Read J.K. Galbraith’s "The Big Crash 1929." Consider Galbraith’s evaluation of conditions and attitudes in the investment banking industry which eroded market and economic stability then, 2008, and (?). Then note Trump’s continuing erosion of Dodd-Frank. Finally, be afraid, be very afraid!

Why is this Happening?

         The local paper recently ran an op-ed entitled “Israel has no friends in Democrats.” The author, Adrianna Cohen, has a point of view made predictable by her surname. She rails about Palestinian response to the relocation of the Israeli capitol to Jerusalem and singles out the negative response to it by many prominent Democrats. In truth, this is another example of Donald Trump acting not in the interests of any broad group, but rather, sucking up to American Jewish and Evangelical interests.

        Trump isn’t the first political figure to make Jerusalem a pawn on a larger game of power and territory. That would extend all the way back to the late 11^th century, when, on 27 November 1095, Pope Urban II made perhaps the most influential, and largely self-serving, speech of the Middle Ages, giving rise to the Crusades by calling all Christians in Europe to war against Muslims in order to reclaim the Holy Land, insisting "Deus vult!("God wills it!")

        The larger picture was far more complex and revolved around increasing violence in Europe, renewed efforts to drive the Moors out of Iberia, and the idea that nobles engaged and dying in the “Holy land” were not likely to be killing their peers and vying for conquest, potentially upsetting the Church’s political hold in Christendom.

        This met with favor in several groups for widely divergent reasons. Second, third, fourth, etc., sons of nobles who were not likely to inherit title or land under the prevailing European rules of Primogenitor and Salic succession, saw an opportunity to seize their own domains in the Levant. Peasants and serfs, bound to feudal masters and having little hope of betterment, saw in the call to Crusade a chance to “get out of town” and maybe return either rich, free, or both. No one who left France or Germany for the Crusades had an inkling of what lay in store but, in the German states, it was gruesome ere it began.

        The preaching of the First Crusade inspired an outbreak of anti-Jewish violence. In much of France and Germany, Jews were perceived as just as much an enemy as Muslims: they were held responsible for the crucifixion, and they were more immediately visible than the distant Muslims. Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.

        It is also likely that the crusaders were motivated by their need for money. The Rhineland Hebrew communities were relatively wealthy, both due to their isolation, and because they were not restricted as Catholics were against money lending. Many crusaders had to go into debt in order to purchase weaponry and equipment for the expedition and, since Western Catholicism strictly forbade usury, many crusaders inevitably found themselves indebted to Jewish moneylenders. Having armed themselves by assuming the debt, the crusaders rationalized the killing of Jews as an extension of their Catholic mission.

        This is little different that what had transpired in England almost 2 centuries later.  The Edict of Expulsion was a royal decree issued by King Edward I of England on 18 July 1290, expelling all Jews from the Kingdom of England. The expulsion edict remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages. It stemmed from most of the same reasons as the atrocities in the Rhineland – debt of wealthy Christians. The difference was that Edward stopped short of locking them in synagogues and setting fire to them, as happened in several German states.

        A sub-text more germane to today’s situation was that the Pope had received a letter from the Byzantine Empire asking for assistance in removing Muslims from the “holy” sites on the premise that they were interfering with Christian pilgrims.  The letter not with-standing, several alternate motives for Crusade become apparent.

         Primary among these was the fact that, following the Fall of Rome and the establishment of the Eastern Roman Empire with its locus in Constantinople, the Pope in Rome had seen increasing competition (for want of a better word) with the Patriarch (Bishop) of Constantinople, who was appointed by the Byzantine Emperor rather than by a church council, as in Rome. 

      Additionally, the acceptance by Charlemagne of the title of Holy Roman Emperor had the effect of a Western de-emphasis of the role, if any by then, of the Byzantine Emperor. This eventually led to the mutual excommunication of the Patriarch by the Pope and vice versa. (schism of 1054) This mutual excommunication remained in force until 1965, believe it or not.

        Pope Urban saw the plea for help from Constantinople as a chance to reunite, perhaps even by force, the split Church under the primacy of the Pope, who he happened to be. It is certain that the Byzantines had hoped for simply military aid, but what followed was a flood of western Europeans bound for the Holy land, determined to be nation builders as well and none too keen on their quasi co-religionists, now Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic. In fact, when the First Crusaders reached Jerusalem, where most of the inhabitants dressed in similar fashion, they indiscriminately killed Jews, Christians, Muslims and anyone else so garbed.     

       Jumping ahead a bit, the Fourth Crusade never reached the Levant, as the “noble knights” decided instead to simply sack Constantinople. As a result, some of the finer art pieces now on display in Germany and Italy were stolen from the Byzantines! So much for religious discipline.

        An additional hope of Pope Urban was that by endorsing the founding of these “Crusader Kingdoms” he would encourage loyal political supporters on the eastern side of the Byzantine Empire. This would have, he hoped, the effect of limiting the spread of Easter Orthodoxy. 

       Urban probably had very little (make that "no") understanding of just how unrealistic that already was, due to the missions in the 9^th century of two Byzantine monks, Cyril and Methodius, in taking the Eastern Orthodox dogma to the Slavs. In the process, because Slavic languages were spoken, but not literary, they created an alphabet (Cyrillic) unknown to the Latins, insuring that as the Slavs became literate, they would do so in the language of local (as in  Russian, eventually) Orthodox Christianity.

         Finally, Urban assured the common folk, many of whom who followed men such as Peter the Hermit, even unto their deaths, of immediate welcome to heaven should they die in the cause. This smacks of the “77 virgins” promise made to young, pliable Muslims who die in what they view as similar efforts.

        Meanwhile, Jerusalem and the Levant had already been under Muslim rule for more than 450 years at the time. It is worthy of note that, at that time Jerusalem, in fact the entire region now called Israel, had not been independent for, at the most generous estimate, 1350 years. In fact, the independent Israel of David and Solomon had lasted a mere 70 years.  

        Yeah, I know, so why the history lesson? The reality of the current Israel situation is so deeply rooted in myth, political intrigue and simple fiction that an understanding of the past is critical if one is to make sense of the present.  So, here’s a condensation of the significa discussed above:

·       The region has always been a bone of political contention. 

·       Religion has frequently been used, generally spuriously, to justify political adventures in the region.

·       As a Jewish State Israel was historically a minor player, at best, in the region.

·       Claims to the Divine donation of Israel to the Hebrews are based on an itinerant Arab herdsman’s claim to his tribe, nothing more.

·       Political players in the USA, many of whom in reality pay religion short shrift, have abused the naivete of American Evangelicals on the Israeli state issue as they have on the abortion issue.

        For brevity (I know, too late!) I’ll elide over  more recent and, I hope, more familiar early 19^th and 20^th century political intrigues. These neo-colonialist machinations and their inevitable disintegration resulted in a post WW II “free world guilt fest” and refugee crisis in 1948. The fledgling United Nations’ partition of Palestine and subsequent disenfranchisement and ultimate expulsion of over a quarter of a million Muslims, with familial roots in the region extending back many generations, created scars which bleed today as surely as they did then.       

        The (then) current uproar in the region stemmed from the relocation of the American consulate to Jerusalem. This of course angered Muslims, for whom it has also been designated holy city. Muslims have inhabited Jerusalem as an ethnic majority for a span of more than a thousand years since the establishment of Islam and more than 2700 years since the last independent Jewish state existed. 

       For several generations, since the expulsion of Palestinians in the climax of Zionist efforts, Jerusalem has been considered a capital city to both Arabs and Jews. While moving the Embassy had been a hot button issue for years, Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama all, once elected, decided that the blowback of such a move would outweigh any positive aspects.

       So, what changed? Principally it is the ongoing attempt by Donald Trump to curry even more favor (votes) with US Evangelicals and to a similar degree, some, but not all, American Jewish groups. What would be laughable if people weren’t dying in the process is this: US Evangelicals spout platitudes about “treating Israel like all other states", while maintaining that this really shouldn’t apply to Islamic states.  Ms. Cohen (author of this essay?) even cites Israel’s treatment of “women’s rights” as a plus. Most of Trump’s Republican Evangelical sycophants have precious little concern for women’s rights, especially where reproduction is concerned. Ms. Cohen is massaging the message to justify her position which stems from her faith, not her concern for women.

        So why do Evangelicals love this move? Is it that they love Israel and Jewish persons? If it were true, it would reflect a sea change in the hearts of American Evangelicals, who in the too recent past called Jews “Christ killers” and restricted clubs and organizations. A simplified explanation of the somewhat “unholy” Trump/Evangelical alliance goes something like this:

·       Many Evangelicals believe that the establishment of Israel as a state fulfills some Biblical myth (my word, but accurate for all scriptures worldwide) regarding the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem as a precursor to the return of Jesus.

·       These naifs have, apparently, overlooked the fact that the predicted time that Jesus himself said he’d be back with the pizza elapsed about 1950 years ago at a minimum.

·       Trump, whose actions throughout his life have been singularly un-Christian, knows this, and consequently sees in the situation a chance to earn the gratitude and votes of American Evangelicals. while currying political favor with some American Jews.

·       This attitude is reflected in his Anti-choice stand, a hot button Evangelical concern only in recent years.

·       Applying all the rationale being trotted out to justify the relocation of the US Embassy is somewhat akin to maintaining that we ought to move the capitol of Illinois to Cahokia, since it was, for over 300 years, the historic seat of the Mississippian Native American civilization for centuries before Coronado brought flu and smallpox to them as a gift from the Spanish crown.

·       In the meantime, American Jews, who have a somewhat more legitimate cultural concern in the matter, just smile, write op-ed drivel, and pump money into pro-Israeli rhetoric.          

A Tale of Two Billionaires Part Deux

A Tale of Two Billionaires (part deux)

        Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family, due to his immigrant grandfather and grandmother’s sound business sense. Following Fred the elder's death in 1918, his grandmother co-ran Elisabeth Trump and Son, the family’s profitable real estate business. His father, Fred, initiating what has apparently become a family tradition also married an economic immigrant, Mary Anne (McLeod) who worked as a maid until she married Fred, who, following his parent's footsteps took over the reins and became wealthy as a builder/developer.

        Consequently, young Donald was privileged to attend the exclusive Kew-Forest School at around $20k per year (adjusted to today’s prices) he was, however, forcibly moved by his dad to the New York Military Academy (NYMA) following one too many unauthorized excursions in Manhattan. In NYMA he asserts he received “More military training than most of those guys in the military.”  Apparently, this included turning a blind eye to hazing, which in 1964 got him relieved of immediate supervision of cadets. He calls it a “promotion,” but several others (fellow students and staff) who are hesitant to speak out, privately remember it another way.

        Four draft deferments later and with a degree from Wharton, Donald, with “A small loan” of $1 million from Daddy,  was on his way. The only job he had ever held to that point was, at his father’s insistence, picking up bottles at the family construction sites.

        Jeff Bezos’ mom, Jacklyn Gise was 16 and still in high school when she became pregnant with Jeff. His father, Ted Jorgensen, was a bike shop owner who soon added alcoholic and spouse abuser to his resumé. Four years later, having had enough, Jacklyn divorced him and soon married Mike Bezos, a Cuban immigrant, who adopted her four-year-old son.

         Jeff attended public schools from 1st through 12th grades. Following his adoptive father’s college graduation, the family moved to Florida, where Jeff attended Miami Palmetto High School. While in high school, Jeff worked at McDonald's as a short-order line cook during the breakfast shift. He attended the Student Science Training Program at the University of Florida where he received a Silver Knight Award in 1982 and was high school valedictorian and a National Merit Scholar. 

        In 1986, he graduated from Princeton University with a 4.2 grade point average and Bachelor of Science degrees in electrical engineering and computer science and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. While at Princeton, he was also elected to Tau Beta Pi and was the president of the Princeton chapter of the Students for the Exploration and Development of Space.

        This then is how each man entered the post-collegiate world of work- Trump rich, funded by dad, Bezos bright, armed only with intelligence and useful college degree.

        From here on out I will use comparatives rather than straight narrative until we get to "taxes".

Business “jump start:”

 Trump about $450 million, Bezos, his intellect.

Marriages:

Trump 3, Two of them to immigrants, like his mother, who (immigrants) apparently, he now cannot abide unless he marries them

Bezos 1, same woman 25 years, recently amicably divorced

Children:

Trump 5, by three different women - Two daughters, one he rarely mentions, one married to a financial rascal. Three sons, one his mother works hard to keep safe and, seemingly, away from his father, two older sons cut in their father’s arrogant hedonistic self-aggrandizing mode, neither very bright.

Bezos 4, same mother, three sons and one daughter none in the public eye. Until 2013, MacKenzie Bezos still drove their four kids to school and then dropped Jeff off at work in their Honda. Family friend Danny Hillis told Vogue that the Bezos’ “…are such a normal, close-knit family, it’s almost abnormal.” The family also adheres to a fairly normal routine. The Bezos family reportedly starts off the day with a healthy breakfast. To spend more time with the family, Jeff never schedules early-morning meetings at Amazon.

Taxes:

Note, this is about personal taxes, not corporate taxes. Both Trump and Bezos are wizards at not paying corporate taxes. Bezos does it legally by basing Amazon in Belgium. Trump does it by, among other things, serial bankruptcies, while shielding personal assets. 

       Domestically, Amazon avoids most corporate taxes by plowing essentially all profits into the company. This is legal, regardless of what Trump would have us believe. Bezos sells both domestic and foreign made products on Amazon without favor. Trump manufactures most of what he sells under his brand in China. By the way, Walmart uses exactly the same tactic to avoid a lot of tax load, but being Walmart and the Walton spawn uber conservative, Trump is mute on the issue.  

       Amazon's corporate income tax bill is so small, though, because its corporate income (aka profit) is so small. Wal-Mart's pretax income since 2008 has totaled $209 billion, Amazon's less than $11 billion.  Most of the hoo-hah re: Amazon’s, and Jeff Bezos’ wealth, revolves around a paper profit – the share price of Amazon stock. Stock is only money if you sell it. Donald Trump would love to see his corporate stocks rise, but…..?

Trump -  refuses to release personal income tax documents as all his Presidential predecessors have. Claims he’s “brilliant” for not paying any in some years.

Bezos – pays personal income tax on salary and benefits. Doesn’t release the numbers because, like most of us, there is no expectation of his doing so.

Coda: There are many eager to lambast Bezos, when they should be more concerned over the tax code which allows a brilliant businessman to legally do what Bezos has done. Bezos, likewise has been criticized because he stops contributing to Social Security at $128,700, just like every other single American who earns more than that. Don’t like it? Urge your elected representatives to change the law.

        A typical story goes: “CEO Jeff Bezos may have had an income of $100.3 billion on 24 November 2017, because of his company’s ridiculous stock price. What’s truly outrageous is that Bezos might pay just $7,979.40 in Social Security taxes next year.” He is following the law, moron!  

        A note in critical thinking here, while we’re at it: In the brief quote above note the value of stock equated with income. That’s mistake number one. Only the increase in the price is income (capital gains). 

       Next the phrase “ridiculous stock price” reflects an opinion, and any market economist would simply point out that while there are ways to value stocks and corporations (price to earnings (P/E) ratios, for one), there are other factors which are at play in Amazon’s case:   Amazon’s stock price in August 2017 was $334.38 with a P/E ratio of 511.06. One of the reasons Amazon’s P/E is so high is that it had been sacrificing profits in order to expand aggressively on a wide-scale, thus, keeping earnings suppressed and the P/E ratio very high. A low P/E ratio doesn’t automatically mean a stock is undervalued, just like a high P/E ratio doesn’t necessarily mean it is overvalued. 

       Calling the stock “ridiculously” overpriced is Faux News worthy in its thinly veiled bias.  If as the quote implied Bezos’ income was $100.3 billion in November, that was a really, really, good month huh? Perhaps persons who cannot distinguish between net worth (the $100 billion) and income, should have paid better attention in high school economics class.

        Finally, the term “outrageous” is applied to Bezos’ SS contribution, but the criticism is based on the law which applies equally to us all. Sour grapes anyone?

More to come

A Tale of Two Billionaires, Part 1

       Unless one lives under a rock, we’ve all heard the current president’s constant carping about Jeff Bezos. It seems that all things Bezos are “bad, terrible, disgraceful," (or any of the litany of Trumpish childish negatives here), in Donald Trump’s eyes. Of course, with Trump’s history of “everything envy” we must examine the validity of the tiny handed one’s carping.

      Due to the more complex nature of the issue, we’ll address the Amazon/USPS claim first and separately. Five times recently, Trump has pointed his Twitter poison arrows at Bezos’ company, Amazon, over what he insists is a bad deal for the United States Postal Service. Writing recently that the agreement, which sets what Amazon pays the Postal Service for many orders, costs American taxpayers billions of dollars, he claimed, “I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy.” Available evidence suggests that, on the contrary, Amazon’s business has been a boon to the Postal Service.

       As we Americans increasingly, and predictably, eschew snail mail for electronic information delivery, the USPS has experienced a steady decline in the amount of mail it ships. The total pieces of mail it shipped last year was 149 billion, down from 212 billion a decade earlier. If this were the case for parcels as well, things would be far worse than the admittedly poor state of financial affairs in which USPS currently finds itself. There is, however, a bright spot — its business of package shipping, including Amazon orders, has grown by more than 40% over the same span (5.7 billion packages in 2017, up from 3.3 billion in 2008). Without Amazon’s business, the financial picture at the Postal Service would most likely be far bleaker, most analysts say.

        As with all large private shippers, USPS negotiates a “volume discount” for volume shipping. Unlike many of these shippers, Amazon helps lower USPS costs by organizing the packages it takes to the Post Office by destination ZIP code in over 35 sorting centers around the country, leaving less work that must be done by postal workers. The company then relies on the Postal Service strictly for last-mile delivery to customers, short trips that further limit the cost of delivering each package.
 
      Here’s a shocker: Mr. Trump’s figures appear to have come from an opinion piece published last year in The Wall Street Journal and written by an investor whose firm held shares in FedEx.  Coincidentally, Amazon Prime shipping packages are mostly (preferentially) shipped via UPS, not FedEx. Who’d have thought a Fedex stockholder might be less than objective? On the other hand, Kevin Kosar, vice president of policy at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit conservative-leaning (my italics) think tank, who has studied the Postal Service, said he considered it “wildly unlikely” that Mr. Trump has reviewed the Postal Service’s contract with Amazon and that the president is “kind of talking through his hat.”

      Clearly, while Trump screams “foul,” USPS, its employees, and even conservative third-party analysts tell a different tale. So, what’s new? Trump is simply ignorant, which has never stopped him and probably never will. I wonder if the fact that Jeff Bezos also owns the Washington Post has anything to do with Trump’s unbridled rants? Just sayin’.

In the Pursuit of Better Discourse

Ok, new rule of linguistics: In order to restore the significance of legitimate uses of certain words, their use in everyday, mundane circumstances is suspended for the next year, at least. I am sick ("and tired") of being besieged via all media with claims, descriptors and other inappropriate adjectives relating to events, persons or things which simply don’t merit the hype. I will give several examples, just so you know where I’m going with this.

“Legendary” - Some synonyms include : famed, romanticized, storied; chimerical. None of these words or the word legendary itself can rightly be applied to, say, a club’s happy hour drinks. I don’t give a shit if you kill the last living Agave and mix the Tequila you make from it with virgin’s blood and lime juice, it still ain’t a “Legendary Margarita special!” Even if you have Condoleeza Rice in a thong on stage, your club doesn’t have “Legendary dancers.” Now if you had King Arthur or Guinevere, that would be legendary. Even a topless Sasquatch or Yeti qualifies. Period.

“Hero” – We are so apparently starved for legitimate heros ( defined: a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one who shows great courage) that we will now accord the title to anyone who simply does their job well instead of backing away from responsibility. In all fairness, when the media, thirsting for a soundbite tries to pin the “hero” title on such a person, some of them actually refuse the title. The kid who calls 911 on his cell phone to report a crash isn’t a hero, the firefighter who reaches into the burning car to save a child probably is. “Sully” Sullenberger is/was a hero, since water landings aren’t an everyday thing, and everyone surviving them even rarer. Kanye West isn’t a hero, neither is Donald Trump, they are “sellebrities”, which is my word for persons in the public eye who are waaaay too full of themselves. No one in “Duck Dynasty” is a hero. One problem is that “Hero” should be defined by deeds, not by what other people think of a personality. And lastly, military personnel who go wherever they’re assigned and do their jobs to the best of their ability half way around the world are heros for that commitment; while mercenaries are simply violence junkie whores.

“Brilliant”/”Awesome” – Not only are they overused, they are also frequently misused. Brilliant - “Extremely intelligent : much more intelligent than most people.” This fits Steven Hawking and Albert Einstein, and Grace Hopper, but it certainly doesn’t fit most ordinary or even really, really neat everyday occurrences. Our British friends use brilliant almost the same way as Americans use OK. I have heard “brilliant” used to describe athletes, some of whom are barely literate, because of their physical coordination and skill. Stop it. “Awesome” is equally overused. Awesome is supposed to be used to express a show of force or majesty. When your friend comes back with a six-pack of beer, responding with this reprehensible utterance just doesn’t match up to the awe of a powerful tornado or when viewing one of the top 10 American landmarks. Nice try, though. Unfortunately, those who misuse “awesome” when they really mean “better than average” are not struck dumb, as, say by an event which really is awesome.

“Literally” - Literally is another word that has been misconstrued into a bastardized form. When the exact reason to use the word is to express a non-exaggeration or a realistic degree of accuracy, why do people do the exact opposite? Literally is now used as a general intensive, and its very meaning has become lost and meaningless. Literally is meant to only be used when describing something verbatim, or for a correct technical explanation. It is not a synonym for figuratively or virtually. Let’s keep it as such. “I was literally blown away……!? One can only hope!


Let’s end this with some phrases which are almost as egregious in their contortion of meaning as the above single words:

1. “At the end of the day”: Usually this means “whenever we’re finished”, might be in five minutes, maybe a month, but almost certainly not at midnight!

2. “Fairly unique”: Ain’t no “fairly” about it, unique means “being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.” So “fairly unique” I guess that’s perhaps “Well, it was really cool, but there was this other shit sorta like it, so …….!”

3. “I personally”: How else can You do something? This is maybe the most redundant phrase since “Fat, stupid addict -Rush Limbaugh””

4. “At this moment in time”: Really Bunky? You mean “now?”

5. "With all due respect”: As I’ve said before, this is misused more in application than syntactically. You actually can show all due respect, but in usage today, generally it is the phrase immediately preceding an assault on the target’s character. Respect is the last thing that will characterize the words which follow that opening line. And yes, sometimes the amount of respect "due" is nada.

6. “Absolutely”: Frequently used as an alternative to “Yes,” the definition is far more restrictive “with no qualification, restriction, or limitation; totally.” There are relatively few circumstances where this overused word is truly applicable.

7.”It’s a nightmare”: No, it might be a “f*****g mess”, or a job badly done, but unless you were asleep and dreamt it it probably wasn’t a nightmare.

8. “Shouldn’t of”: Oh no, Jethro, you shouldn’t have said shouldn’t of.

So, kids, like let’s give these usages a fantabulously well earned rest and maybe someday, we can like resume talking good English as it was meant to be spoke.

Malkin Strikes Again

        The hideous Michelle Malkin did it again in her Sunday op-ed piece, and I’m still trying to figure out if she is aware of how low she went or simply doesn’t care anymore.

        The general tenor of the column was to bitch slap anyone of any cultural or ethnic subgroup who dares to object to the hijacking of their traditions by others for any reason.  This has become known by those on the extreme edge of the debate as “cultural appropriation.”   She does, to be fair (a concept with which she is relatively unfamiliar), cite some extreme examples of overreacting such as an Asian objecting to a non-Asian wearing a Chinese style silk dress to a prom. There is some truth to the old adage that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. She also, however goes on to essentially chastise any and all cultural/ethnic groups who object to wholesale ethnic mockery, which is what in many instances, some celebrations have become.

        To Malkin, anyone objecting to such shenanigans is just a whiner. I will use a Cinco de Mayo inspired quote from a friend and former student, a Navy veteran of Mexican descent: “Do me a favor; don't pretend to be hip to Mexican Culture today, when I have seen you the rest of the year bash on Dreamers, deported Veterans, cry about food rotting, yet bitch about "jobs being taken" from someone. Go choke on a ****** (use your imagination) instead, because the other 364 days a year, you are a bigot.”     

       St. Patrick’s Day is rife with much of the same tom-foolery by persons who the rest of the year are anti-Catholic and xenophobic in general. What hit me a moment after I finished the article was the realization that Michele Malkin would probably have seen blackface minstrel shows as just “good clean fun honoring the Black tradition” instead of the crude, insulting parodies they actually were.

         Malkin, a spoiled, “anchor baby” herself, lives in a world where almost no one is really raped, instead just makes false accusations; where because she is above it due to her relative wealth and position, discrimination doesn’t exist, and where Ann Coulter is just one niche below Joan of Arc in the Pantheon of female heroes. As a person of color, she lives under the delusion that since she “made it” in America, everyone else can. Walter Williams and Ben Carson have similar delusions, minimizing the fact that they were blessed with opportunities that many - far too many - others will never have. Instead of giving back, effecting positive change, they just hurl invective at anyone to the political left of Genghis Khan.      

"Within Their Means?"

        Heard a comment last night which I just couldn’t let slide. It was regarding conditions in Puerto Rico post Hurricane Maria, and it went something along this line; “I don’t know what more we can do; ‘those people’ just won’t help themselves.”  As we all know, “those people” is an upper class (or so they believe themselves to be) euphemism for (insert personal bias here) Brown, Black, Asian, Female, Gay, Jew, Muslim, impoverished…whatever.

        After the comment lay there a second, I said, “Oh like those places in Kentucky where entire villages are on welfare, but ex-miners refuse to learn a new trade?  Or Flint, where the water still isn’t safe. How about Western PA where the mills have shut down and the coke factories are cold?"  To this person’s credit, of a sort, they allowed as how that was a valid question too.

       What I let slide was the fact that far more per capita was spent in Texas (lots of Red State voters!) post Harvey, than in Puerto Rico. Within six days of Hurricane Harvey, U.S. Northern Command had deployed 73 helicopters over Houston, which are critical for saving victims and delivering emergency supplies. It took at least three weeks after Maria before it had more than 70 helicopters flying above Puerto Rico. While the Houston region has about twice as many people as Puerto Rico, the severity and nature of the damage caused by Maria overshadowed that of Harvey, yet nine days after the respective hurricanes, FEMA had approved $141.8 million in individual assistance to Harvey victims, versus just $6.2 million for Maria victims. That’s 2200% more funding for less damage if you need the math.

        It is true that Puerto Rico has had financial issues related to various origins, from lack of industry, to Caribbean tourism competition to antiquated infrastructure. Of course, Puerto Rico, neither fish nor fowl, politically, is unique in several aspects. The island was “taken” (there simply is no better word) from Spain following the Spanish American War. Like the Filipinos, the   Boriqueños were judged by William McKinley and his jingoistic advisors as "incapable of self-government", a sort of code for, “We want an excuse to seize this territory.”

  

       The Puerto Ricans were relatively helpless, unlike the Filipinos, who promptly called “bullshit” on the idea, and resisted.  The Philippine-American War lasted three years and resulted in the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants. As many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease. After US Army genocide calmed the islands, the Philippines, like Puerto Ricans, were helpless and were offered a special “protectorate” status. This was a bit similar to Guam and other Pacific islands, including the Hawaiian archipelago, which the US seized as coaling stations as we continued building a two- ocean navy.

        During the first decades of the 20th century, the sugar industry continued to develop and reached its peak. Despite the establishment of huge sugar trading businesses, some mills backed by Puerto Rican capital also showed considerable production capacity. The underlying fact, however, was that while sugar was profitable, it was so, essentially only for the owners and mill operators, the average sugar worker remaining uneducated and under paid, creating a replica of the Spanish dominion era, but created with American investment to a significant degree. This was little different than the current exporting of manufacturing jobs to China where labor is cheaper (for now).  By 1930, United States investors had replaced many of the established European investors on the island and there were 44 sugar mills in operation. In the 1940s, however, the mills began to weaken, due to various factors. The fall in the price of sugar, mismanagement by some administrators, the restriction of credit to independent farmers, as well as strikes by workers, who labored almost as serfs, created conflict and conditions that led to the decline and eventual closure of many of the mills in the subsequent decades.

       Following a record sugar cane harvest of 1952, the industry experienced an accelerated deterioration. Additionally, the production of sugar took a lower priority as the government undertook to industrialize the island. Even though the government had become the principal sugar producer in Puerto Rico, the mills, both privately and publicly funded, were shut down, one by one. In 2000, operations ceased at the last mills still functioning. Some of those mills also included refineries and packaging operations whose refined white sugar, with its fine grain, had in the first third of the century, built the reputation of the Puerto Rican sugar producers as true artisans. So, sugar dead, population largely uneducated, and those who were (educated) emigrating. Puerto Rico approached its current economic status.

       Unlike the Philippines, which were promised political freedom when they “earned?” it by their good behavior, which included US Naval basing in perpetuity, Puerto Rico has a status which affords relatively little political clout. In fact, it also has little clout compared to actual states with votes in Congress.  Puerto Rico, as a U.S. territory rather than a state, has just a single, nonvoting delegate in Congress, compared with the 36 representatives and two senators from Texas who loudly demanded proper resources for their state, post Harvey. Likewise, victims of Superstorm Sandy had six senators and dozens of U.S. representatives in the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to demand extra disaster relief, including powerful lawmakers like Chuck Schumer, then the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate.  

       So, with no real lobbying power to entice industry, a feverish cruise line competition from the rest of the Caribbean, and essentially subsistence agriculture in many areas, Puerto Rico has a dilemma. Hurricane Maria was a storm, not a famine, but the response of some to her frantic pleas was reminiscent in the extreme cases to that of British MPs during the late 1840s. When Progressives in Parliament proposed measures to alleviate the incredible suffering the Potato blight had inflicted on Ireland’s poor Catholic peasantry, Conservatives blustered that, “By God, Sir, The Irish simply must learn to live within their means!” When “means” are non- existent, as they were in Ireland and as they are still approaching in some of Puerto Rico’s rural areas, that argument has no merit, regardless of statements like: “[They] want everything to be done for them and it should be a community effort. 10,000 Federal workers now on island doing a fantastic job.”  Any guesses who “tweeted” that?

The Nastiest Person in the World?

        Born Michelle Malatang to Filipino parents here on work visas, Michelle Malkin (her married Anglo name) is the archetypical “anchor baby.”  While I rarely use that term, I do so here because Ms. Malkin frequently derogates others by its use. She grew up in America, brought here, in-utero, without (obviously, but I’m making a point here) her knowledge or consent. Raised in the USA and benefiting from education through college here, she has, nonetheless, been a constant and harsh  critic of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA.)  

        So, what? So, these “Dreamers” are persons who, like her, came here, not of their own volition but because they were brought here, not born here, as Malkin wouldn’t have been had her parents waited just three months to emigrate. She violently opposes their being offered some of the same privileges she had, and has, due simply to timing. Much has been written about DACA and its provisions have been conflated by many on the right as an endorsement of unfettered illegal immigration, when in fact, restrictions have set in stone the number of persons already here who can qualify for Dreamer status.  

 To even qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval. To even apply, an individual must have:

Come to the United States before their 16th birthday

Lived continuously in the United States since June 15, 2007

Been under age 31 on June 15, 2012

Been physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making their request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS

Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces, or are enrolled in school

Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety

        These folks are here, succeeding in America at a higher rate than their native-born peers, regardless of race! Yeah, really - 72% of college age are enrolled and on track for citizenship in the country they were brought to, the vast majority as small children. Get this straight, had Michelle Malkin been born 5 months earlier, she would have fallen into the exact same status!

        This alone should be sufficient for any American of character to turn their backs on her but, “Wait”, as they say in those annoying commercials, “There’s more.” Although Malkin touts her parents’ and her own background as “Reagan Republicans” she has even polluted that well.

       It was, of course Ronald Reagan, who, in one of the few truly humane gestures identifiable in his presidency, formally apologized to Americans of Japanese descent for the internment of their families and ancestors during WWII. Speaking with regard to Executive Order 9066, he said, “We must recognize that the internment of Japanese-Americans was just that: a mistake. For throughout the war, Japanese-Americans in the tens of thousands remained utterly loyal to the United States.” The Civil Liberties Act also compensated more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. The legislation offered a formal apology and paid out $20,000 in compensation to each surviving victim. (ed. note: In most cases this was a pittance compared to the cost adjusted value of property seized and resold to Anglos in the process without compensation). The Act was passed after a Congressional Committee determined after exhaustive study of previously classified documents, that the incarceration was a "grave injustice" motivated by "racial prejudice, war hysteria and the failure of political leadership."

        So, what can she find fault with here, after all Ronnie was her idol, right? It seems, though, that Ms. Malkin thinks internment of American citizens was perfectly fine, even though even that hard-right guy, J. Edgar Hoover, condemned it at the time. In “Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror” Malkin stops just short of calling for internment of Arabs and other Muslims, but maintains that E.O. 9066 was justified, claiming to have done exhaustive research into declassified MAGIC transcripts, MAGIC being the name applied to the top-secret results of having broken both the Japanese Naval and “Purple” codes.

       

        Real historians who have spent decades trying to do what Malkin claims to have done in just under a year, have almost unanimously derided the book and her conclusions, in statements such as, “Ms. Malkin’s book represents a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness." I am hardly surprised. There are reams and cases of documents involved here, many which can only be reviewed in situ and with credentials in the original. This brief screed has no space for that, but I would like to proffer one small excerpt from a transcribed and decoded intercepted MAGIC transmission from the Japanese consulate in San Francisco to Japan:

             “We (Japanese embassy personnel) are doing everything in our power to establish outside contacts in connection with our efforts to gather intelligence material. In this regard, we have decided to make use of white persons and Negroes, through Japanese persons whom we cannot trust completely. (It not only would be very difficult to hire U.S. (military?) experts for this work at present time, but the expenses would be exceedingly high.)"

        The underlined text makes it clear that, regardless of what the motherland demanded of embassy persons, they felt that native born American citizens (“White persons and Negroes”) were better spy material than Nisei (Japanese born immigrants) or Issei (American born ethnic Japanese). So, it seems that Malkin’s real agenda here is the process of analogizing Japanese in 1941 to Muslims in 2004. Yet, lest we think of her as simply the mean spirited second generation immigrant ingrate shrew that she really is, she prefaces her book with a short introduction ("A Time to Discriminate"), in which Malkin tells us to "Make no mistake": she is "not advocating rounding up all Arabs or Muslims and tossing them into camps." She's not?

       I find Michelle Malkin  to be a particularly loathsome creature, inconsistent, a poor researcher, mean spirited and as a woman of color, a discredit to her gender, her ethnicity, and her country.