Hi Ray,
Thanks for posting this interesting article. While you and I will
most likely never agree, politically, we are, I believe, brothers in
the never ending struggle for equal opportunity and independence for
the Blind of America. One small part of this long article troubles me
when I think of what it might say about the ACB, and our collective
efforts to move social attitudes. The author wrote, "...This new
administration
hates weak, unproductive, socialist people..."
While most of us would simply shrug and say, "We're not Socialists",
we overlook the broader implications of this language. In the minds
of these, "strong, can-do, profit makers" any collection of people
trying to influence their goals will be labelled Socialist, and will
come under attack. This includes the American Council of the Blind.
We are a People's Movement, a democratic, grass roots organization
working together to change attitudes and to promote certain
legislation that will enhance our opportunities, often calling for
limits on the free hand policies of government and private
corporations. At times our needs cause us to take actions that impact
the abilities of corporations to freely compete by ignoring our needs,
as insignificant.
We have even been forced to resort to suing our Federal Government
over their failure to make our money accessible to blind people.
If the author of this article is correct, who is going to watch our
back? Who will defend us when we make reasonable demands, and are
shoved aside as if we were pesky little gnats...pesky little blind
gnats.
Of course the solution is a simple one, if it could only come true and
in "...believing that "it's glorious to be rich," we granted each
American a million dollars.
Anyway, the days and years ahead will be interesting, to say the
least. Any further comments on what I consider errors in this
article, are not for discussion on this list. But whether we agree or
not, we blind members of the ACB need to roll up our collective...but
not our socialist...sleeves and stand together...not collectively, but
as a strong people.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/21/16, Ray Campbell via acb-l <acb-l@acblists.org> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> Sharing for your information. Got this forwarded to me via Linked In.
>
> =====start article text=====
>
> Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Published on
> December 19, 2016
> Featured in:
> Economy
> ,
> US Politics
> Like Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Like
> 3,557
> Comment
> Comment
> 514
> Share Reflections on the Trump Presidency, One Month after the Election
> Share
> 986
> Ray Dalio
> Ray Dalio
> false
> Follow Ray Dalio
> Chairman & Chief Investment Officer at Bridgewater Associates, L.P.
> Now that we're a month past the election and most of the cabinet posts have
> been filled, it is increasingly obvious that we are about to experience a
> profound, president-led ideological shift that will have a big impact on
> both the US and the world. This will not just be a shift in government
> policy, but also a shift in how government policy is pursued. Trump is a
> deal maker who negotiates hard, and doesn't mind getting banged around or
> banging others around. Similarly, the people he chose are bold and
> hell-bent
> on playing hardball to make big changes happen in economics and in foreign
> policy (as well as other areas such as education, environmental policies,
> etc.). They also have different temperaments and different views that will
> have to be resolved.
>
> Regarding economics, if you haven't read Ayn Rand lately, I suggest that
> you
> do as her books pretty well capture the mindset. This new administration
> hates weak, unproductive, socialist people and policies, and it admires
> strong, can-do, profit makers. It wants to, and probably will, shift the
> environment from one that makes profit makers villains with limited power
> to
> one that makes them heroes with significant power. The shift from the past
> administration to this administration will probably be even more
> significant
> than the 1979-82 shift from the socialists to the capitalists in the UK,
> US,
> and Germany when Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Helmut Kohl came to
> power. To understand that ideological shift you also might read Thatcher's
> "The Downing Street Years." Or, you might reflect on China's
> political/economic shift as marked by moving from "protecting the iron rice
> bowl" to believing that "it's glorious to be rich."
>
> This particular shift by the Trump administration could have a much bigger
> impact on the US economy than one would calculate on the basis of changes
> in
> tax and spending policies alone because it could ignite animal spirits and
> attract productive capital. Regarding igniting animal spirits, if this
> administration can spark a virtuous cycle in which people can make money,
> the move out of cash (that pays them virtually nothing) to risk-on
> investments could be huge. Regarding attracting capital, Trump's policies
> can also have a big impact because businessmen and investors move very
> quickly away from inhospitable environments to hospitable
> environments. Remember how quickly money left and came back to places like
> Spain and Argentina? A pro-business US with its rule of law, political
> stability, property rights protections, and (soon to be) favorable
> corporate
> taxes offers a uniquely attractive environment for those who make money
> and/or have money. These policies will also have shocking negative impacts
> on certain sectors.
>
> Regarding foreign policy, we should expect the Trump administration to be
> comparably aggressive. Notably, even before assuming the presidency, Trump
> is questioning the one-China policy which is a shocking move. Policies
> pertaining to Iran, Mexico, and most other countries will probably also be
> aggressive.
>
> The question is whether this administration will be a) aggressive and
> thoughtful or b) aggressive and reckless. The interactions between Trump,
> his heavy-weight advisors, and them with each other will likely determine
> the answer to this question. For example, on the foreign policy front, what
> Trump, Flynn, Tillerson, and Mattis (and others) are individually and
> collectively like will probably determine how much the new administration's
> policies will be a) aggressive and thoughtful versus b) aggressive and
> reckless. We are pretty sure that it won't take long to find out.
>
> In the next section we look at some of the new appointees via some
> statistics to characterize what they're like. Most notably, many of the
> people entering the new administration have held serious responsibilities
> that required pragmatism and sound judgment, with a notable skew toward
> businessmen.
>
> Perspective on the Ideology and Experience of the New Trump Administration
>
> We can get a rough sense of the experience of the new Trump administration
> by adding up the years major appointees have spent in relevant leadership
> positions. The table below compares the executive/government experience of
> the Trump administration's top eight officials* to previous
> administrations,
> counting elected positions, government roles with major administrative
> responsibilities, or time as C-suite corporate executives or equivalent at
> mid-size or large companies. Trump's administration stands out for having
> by
> far the most business experience and a bit lower than average government
> experience (lower compared to recent presidents, and in line with Carter
> and
> Reagan). But the cumulative years of executive/government experience of his
> appointees are second-highest. Obviously, this is a very simple, imprecise
> measure, and there will be gray zones in exactly how you classify people,
> but it is indicative.
>
>
>
>
> Below we show some rough quantitative measures of the ideological shift to
> the right we're likely to see under Trump and the Republican
> Congress. First, we look at the economic ideology of the incoming US
> Congress. Trump's views may differ in some important ways from the
> Congressional Republicans, but he'll need Congressional support for many of
> his policies and he's picking many of his nominees from the heart of the
> Republican Party. As the chart below shows, the Republican members of
> Congress have shifted significantly to the right on economic issues since
> Reagan; Democratic congressmen have shifted a bit to the left. The measure
> below is one-dimensional and not precise, but it captures the flavor of the
> shift. The measure was commissioned by a National Science Foundation grant
> and is meant to capture economic views with a focus on government
> intervention on the economy. They looked at each congressman's voting
> record, compared it to a measure of what an archetypical liberal or
> conservative congressman would have done, and rated each member of Congress
> on a scale of -1 to 1 (with -1 corresponding to an archetypical liberal and
> +1 corresponding to an archetypical conservative).
>
>
>
>
> When we look more specifically at the ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees,
> we see the same shift to the right on economic issues. Below we compare the
> ideology of Trump's cabinet nominees to those of prior administrations
> using
> the same methodology as described above for the cabinet members who have
> been in the legislature. By this measure, Trump's administration is the
> most
> conservative in recent American history, but only slightly more
> conservative
> than the average Republican congressman. Keep in mind that we are only
> including members of the new administration who have voting records (which
> is a very small group of people so far).
>
>
>
>
> While the Trump administration appears very right-leaning by the measures
> above, it's worth keeping in mind that Trump's stated ideology differs from
> traditional Republicans in a number of ways, most notably on issues related
> to free trade and protectionism. In addition, a number of key members of
> his
> team—such as Steven Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, and Wilbur Ross—don't have
> voting records and may not subscribe to the same brand of conservatism as
> many Republican congressmen. There's a degree of difference in ideology and
> a level of uncertainty that these measures don't convey.
>
> Comparing the Trump and Reagan Administrations
>
> The above was a very rough quantitative look at Trump's administration. To
> draw out some more nuances, below we zoom in on Trump's particular
> appointees and compare them to those of the Reagan administration. Trump is
> still filling in his appointments, so the picture is still emerging and our
> observations are based on his key appointments so far.
>
> Looking closer, a few observations are worth noting. First, the overall
> quality of government experience in the Trump administration looks to be a
> bit less than Reagan's, while the Trump team's strong business experience
> stands out (in particular, the amount of business experience among top
> cabinet nominees). Even though Reagan's administration had somewhat fewer
> years of government experience, the typical quality of that experience was
> somewhat higher, with more people who had served in senior government
> positions. Reagan himself had more political experience than Trump does,
> having served as the governor of California for eight years prior to taking
> office, and he also had people with significant past government experience
> in top posts (such as his VP, George HW Bush). By contrast, Trump's
> appointees bring lots of high quality business leadership experience from
> roles that required pragmatism and judgment. Rex Tillerson's time as head
> of
> a global oil company is a good example of high-level international business
> experience with clear relevance to his role as Secretary of State (to some
> extent reminiscent of Reagan's second Secretary of State, George Shultz,
> who
> had a mix of past government experience and international business
> experience as the president of the construction firm Bechtel). Steven
> Mnuchin and Wilbur Ross have serious business credentials as well, not to
> mention Trump's own experience. It's also of note that Trump has leaned
> heavily on appointees with military experience to compensate for his lack
> of
> foreign policy experience (appointing three generals for Defense, National
> Security Advisor, and Homeland Security), while Reagan compensated for his
> weakness in that area with appointees from both military and civilian
> government backgrounds (Bush had been CIA head and UN ambassador, and
> Reagan's first Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, was Supreme Allied
> Commander of NATO forces during the Cold War). Also, Trump has seemed less
> willing to make appointments from among his opponents than Reagan was
> (Reagan's Chief of Staff had chaired opposing campaigns, and his Vice
> President had run against him).\
>
>
>
>
> By and large, deal-maker businessmen will be running the government. Their
> boldness will almost certainly make the next four years incredibly
> interesting and will keep us all on our toes.
>
> =====end article text=====
>
> Ray Campbell
> Ray153056@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> acb-l mailing list
> acb-l@acblists.org
> http://www.acblists.org/mailman/listinfo/acb-l
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment