Archive

Uncategorized

Today, the Mexican President took the highly unusual step of cancelling a meeting with Donald Trump. The amazing, but not wholly unpredictable result of 18 months of bellicose blather by the new President. But what does this mean for the world?

Well, I think it’s fair to speculate that any unilateral action Trump takes will elicit a reaction by Mexico and affect trade in a negative way for American consumers and businesses, which is obviously bad for the US.

Trump’s twitter rants are no way to renegotiate NAFTA, and his bullying of Mexico is not endearing – to we Americans and Mexicans alike. A better approach would have been to announce a renegotiating of NAFTA and work through the issues at the table.

That said, the wall Trump wants to build is a separate issue from NAFTA. For one thing, Trump’s been insulting towards our Southern neighbor, arrogantly proclaiming that he’s going to make them pay for his grand idea. He speaks about them like someone in high school that you can beat up and manipulate, and at this point I’d be surprised if their national mood was anything but SCREW TRUMP, even if it costs jobs and money.

So, the result is that Trump has embarrassed himself internationally and created animosity with our third largest trading partner. And it’s only week 1. This is going get really interesting. It’s like watching a semi-slow motion train wreck.

Even before I became a business owner the concept of trickle down economics never made sense to me. The fact that Republicans have so successfully been able to push this concept decade after decade, well let’s just say I find it astonishing.

On its face, trickle down economics makes no sense. Lowering income taxes on the wealthy won’t create jobs. First, employers don’t hire simply because they have money. They hire when they have a need – that is when they have demand for their product or service and they need people in order to accommodate that demand. Why for example would someone who only needed five dishwashers hire more if he had no need for more people? Having the money to hire is beside the point. Either you need people or you don’t.

There’s usually a point where you have spent as much as you can on your business and now it’s time, as a business owner, to take the rest for yourself. Well, if the rest happens to be $50 million, then that is money that is being taken out of circulation for the benefit of the person who made it. So lowering taxes on people who already make hoard-worthy piles of cash is just a give-away in the end, since that’s just extra profits for the business owner to keep.

Also, tax breaks on wealthy income earners means they pay less personal taxes, not corporate taxes. This is money that’s paid to them as a salary. If they were planning on hiring people with that money, they wouldn’t be paying themselves money to begin with. They would leave the money in the business. All an income tax reduction does is let wealthy people keep more money from their paychecks.

Also, while rich people do generate jobs by spending their millions, those paltry numbers pale in comparison to the job growth that would come if that same tax break were given to far less advantaged people who need that money to pay bills. Those people would spend the money, and in so doing, stimulate the economy. A tax break to a wealthy man is worth less economic stimulation than that same tax break being given to lower income earners who actually need the money to pay bills and buy things.

This is the most confusing thing to me about the trickle-down crew. If a millionaire makes more millions, he’s basically going to put it in the bank or buy toys. If a poor or middle class person makes more money via a tax break, he’s probably going to spend it. So it becomes fairly obvious who’s going to stimulate the economy more – the small guy who immediately puts the money back into circulation, not the rich guy with the impressive bank account.

If I got a tax break, all I would end up doing is pocketing the money. If I were rich, it would just make me richer.

Why is giving money to a candidate considered free speech? Free speech means you can say or write whatever you want without fear of imprisonment or worse. That’s free SPEECH. It doesn’t mean you can DO whatever you want. You can’t rob a bank, for instance. Why does donating to a politician somehow qualify as ‘speech’? This isn’t speech. This is clearly a financial transaction. Giving money to politicians isn’t necessarily saying anything at all. It might be a kickback, bribe, or just a donation with no particular issue in mind. Making donations a first amendment issue is like making sales a first amendment issue. Both are financial transactions. One says you support a candidate, the other says you support a product. Why is one speech and the other not? You could then argue, for instance, that the government must allow me to purchase C4 explosives or that fully automatic rifle with extended clip and silencer – you know, because of free speech.

This is absurd for a number of reasons. First of all, if donations are a form of free speech, then wouldn’t rich people have more of a ‘voice’ than the poor? Would that not give the rich more opportunities to ‘speak’ than the poor? I’m not sure that’s what the framers of the constitution had in mind. But in practice, this is what happens. The rich spends millions while the average person can’t afford to donate anything substantial to politicians in the first place. I think everyone can understand speech isn’t something that you should need to be able to afford. The rich shouldn’t have a larger voice with which to speak.

Financial transactions are not ‘speech’ and should not protected by the constitution like actual speech is. What we’re really protecting here is the ‘right’ of the rich to have more influence on our politicians and our lives than the majority of citizens. We’ve handed them the keys to the kingdom and called it a ‘right’. Good work, all you idiots who made this happen. When the ‘wrong’ people have all the money to spend, then what will you think of your success?

When Donald Trump signed his pledge not to run as an independent, it was worthless. Worth less than the paper it was written on, to be specific. Let’s be honest. Does anyone believe that Donald Trump wouldn’t invent a reason to walk away from his pledge as easily as he might stiff a waiter on a tip?

The reality is that Donald is used to doing EXACTLY what Donald wants to do. As a billionaire, he knows no rules, no boss, and there are no exclusion zones. He has a wife, which generally governs the activities of a man, but he’s traded in his wife twice already, so it’s clear that even interpersonally, Donald Trump is willing to do whatever he wants without limitation.

So can we trust Trump to do what he says?

This week while simultaneously calling out Ted Cruz as the single biggest liar in the Republican race (a tacit admission that they are all liars?) Trump also managed to accuse the RNC of breaking its pledge to treat him fairly by not condemning the negative ads run by Cruz’s campaign. So in Donald’s view, negative ads and personal attacks are his providence only, and if he’s not defended by the (supposedly) impartial RNC, they are in violation of their impartiality. I wonder if this is Trumps negotiating style we keep hearing so much about? Demonize the other party while simultaneously accusing the other party of unfairly demonizing you. Then threaten then judge or moderator if they don’t support you.

I’m not sure I’d call that great negotiating, but Donald probably would. Still, let’s think this through. First, he’s backing himself into a corner. Obviously the RNC would never condemn an attack ad unless it crossed a line of decency so egregious that they had no choice. Otherwise they’d be condemning virtually every ad from every candidate. Let’s face it, attack ads are the meat and potatoes of our current political environment.

So by insisting the RNC condemn said advertisements and by further insisting the RNC is packing debate halls with detractors, the Donald is essentially guaranteeing himself a loophole by which he can run an independent campaign without losing face. Logically, he would have to leave the Republican party if this were true, but don’t believe it. Nothing Donald Trump says really matters. He’ll make up whatever excuse he wants and do as he pleases.