Political Roundtable Part XII

[tontoz]

When the Swedish daily Aftonbladet visited the country in 2013, 61-year-old Fatima told the paper what it is like to be a woman in Afghanistan: “What happens if we do not obey? Well, our husbands or sons beat us of course. We are their slaves.”

To expect men from a culture that views women as men’s slaves to behave like Swedish men is not just stupid – it is dangerous, Carlqvist said.

Mr. Azizi, the manager of a large hotel in Kabul, told Carlqvist how an average Afghan man sees sexual attacks on women:

“What the Afghans are doing is not wrong in Afghanistan, so your rules are completely alien to them. Women stay at home in Afghanistan, and if they need to go out they are always accompanied by a man. If you want to stop Afghans from molesting Swedish girls, you need to be tough on them. Making them take classes on equality and how to treat women is pointless. The first time they behave badly, they should be given a warning, and the second time you should deport them from Sweden.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/swedish-rape-crisis-boils-over-as-media-stays-silent/#Fept6tWe4zKT2tFM.99

[closg00]

Haha, Putin cashing in chips.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/02/us-eases-some-economic-sanctions-against-russia/97399136/



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[sfam]

Nonsense. I am pretty sure they had poor people in Sweden before they were hit with a wave of Muslim migrants, but they didn't have a rape problem until recently.

Its amazing how data works for talking about the Wizards, but not science or even social problems, but whatever.

I'm actually somewhat familiar with the problem and have even been invited to speak in conferences in Europe on this. The problem again is one of doing the hard work of integration, which really is not possible when there is a massive pipeline of refugees fleeing a number of war torn countries. We don't have that problem in the US. The scale of the refugee crisis in Europe is enormous, but honestly, the problem is far worse in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. I could give you links on this, but I doubt you'll care much.

Bottom line, there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims on earth. To think that they have a natural or religious propensity for raping white women, or whatever the current conspiracy theory just doesn't have any real facts behind it. Those leaving war torn situations have lost direct family members and have suffered horrific life experiences. Young men, having just gone through this and are now completely divorced from their support structures and in poor circumstances in Europe have absolutely done rotten things there including rape. But we understand now both how to both screen integrate refugees to become productive members of society, just as we know how to alienate them and fill them with grievances needing resolution.

The head scarves just aren't the problem, any more than their religious book. Muslims have fought for the US in every war since the founding of the country. They are an ingrained part of the fabric of our society, and thank God this is the case. They're wonderful folk!

In fact Muslims are just as wonderful in the countries they are majority. I've never met a more personally wonderful and caring folk than Palestinians - this is after all the horrific stuff they have endured for years. Here's a shot of me last year partying with some of the most wonderful kids in the world (well, 20-something kids) in Old Town Cairo till odd hours of the morning - well, partying with hooka, tea and strange pizza, but still!



To say Muslims as a people are objectively worse people than Christians is really more a sign you haven't spent time with them.

[tontoz]

Nonsense. I am pretty sure they had poor people in Sweden before they were hit with a wave of Muslim migrants, but they didn't have a rape problem until recently.

Its amazing how data works for talking about the Wizards, but not science or even social problems, but whatever.

I'm actually somewhat familiar with the problem and have even been invited to speak in conferences in Europe on this. The problem again is one of doing the hard work of integration, which really is not possible when there is a massive pipeline of refugees fleeing a number of war torn countries. We don't have that problem in the US. The scale of the refugee crisis in Europe is enormous, but honestly, the problem is far worse in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. I could give you links on this, but I doubt you'll care much.

Bottom line, there are more than 1.6 billion Muslims on earth. To think that they have a natural or religious propensity for raping white women, or whatever the current conspiracy theory just doesn't have any real facts behind it. Those leaving war torn situations have lost direct family members and have suffered horrific life experiences. Young men, completely divorced from their society and in poor circumstances in Europe have absolutely done rotten things there including rape. But understand now both how to both screen integrate refugees to become productive members of society, just as we know how to alienate them and fill them with grievances needing resolution.

The head scarves just aren't the problem, any more than their religious book. Muslims have fought for the US in every war since the founding of the country. They are an ingrained part of the fabric of our society, and thank God this is the case. They're wonderful folk!

In fact Muslims are just as wonderful in the countries they are majority. I've never met a more personally wonderful and caring folk than Palestinians - this is after all the horrific stuff they have endured for years. Here's a shot of me last year partying with some of the most wonderful kids in the world (well, 20-something kids) in Old Town Cairo till odd hours of the morning - well, partying with tea and strange pizza, but still!



To say Muslims as a people are objectively worse people than Christians is really more a sign you haven't spent time with them.

More head in the sand nonsense. I notice you continue to ignore the way Muslims treat their own women. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an integration problem, they aren't at war, but women are treated like property as they are in many Muslim countries. But i know you won't touch that.

You would be right at home in Sweden. The Swedish police won't identify criminals as Muslims for fear of offending them. The media won't identify criminals as Muslim for fear of offending them. Their open door, appeasement policy towards Muslims has led to their rape epidemic.

[dckingsfan]

I agree. Parental involvement is essential to student success. I've seen it up close and personal at my daughters' DC public schools where the highest achieving students come from those families where the parents are most involved in the child's school and schooling. They are also the families most capable of taking advantage of the school choices that are available to them.

Okay, so we don't want to deprive those parents and their kids of choice.

Problem is that far too many of our kids, especially low-income inner-city kids, come from families where the parents are not involved. And, in many cases, the parent or parents are illiterate and not capable of helping their kids with their schoolwork even when they want to. Those are the kids I'm most worried about. My kids will be fine.

Those are the very kids that benefit most from schools that can cater to them. That can adjust the curricula based upon their needs.

This is where those who think competition is the answer are dead wrong. It is a big mistake to abandon neighborhood schools for charter schools and school vouchers in the name of "choice or competition," because our most difficult to educate kids will remain behind in our lowest-performing schools, which will have only gotten worse when the involved parents leave.

I think competition is the answer (from above and from many studies). The point is our schools are failing - we shouldn't double down on a failed system.

For the sake of all of our kids, we have to do the hard work and thinking that it takes (and sometimes that means more money) to fix our failing schools. And truly leave no child behind.

Two things here - we don't have anymore money - see entitlements - the federal government is strapped. Second, states are even more strapped then the federal government. And we have spent and spent and spent and got nothing back. I have yet to hear a solid liberal plan to fix our education system other than spend more.

[mhd]

I agree. Parental involvement is essential to student success. I've seen it up close and personal at my daughters' DC public schools where the highest achieving students come from those families where the parents are most involved in the child's school and schooling. They are also the families most capable of taking advantage of the school choices that are available to them.

Okay, so we don't want to deprive those parents and their kids of choice.

Problem is that far too many of our kids, especially low-income inner-city kids, come from families where the parents are not involved. And, in many cases, the parent or parents are illiterate and not capable of helping their kids with their schoolwork even when they want to. Those are the kids I'm most worried about. My kids will be fine.

Those are the very kids that benefit most from schools that can cater to them. That can adjust the curricula based upon their needs.

This is where those who think competition is the answer are dead wrong. It is a big mistake to abandon neighborhood schools for charter schools and school vouchers in the name of "choice or competition," because our most difficult to educate kids will remain behind in our lowest-performing schools, which will have only gotten worse when the involved parents leave.

I think competition is the answer (from above and from many studies). The point is our schools are failing - we shouldn't double down on a failed system.

For the sake of all of our kids, we have to do the hard work and thinking that it takes (and sometimes that means more money) to fix our failing schools. And truly leave no child behind.

Two things here - we don't have anymore money - see entitlements - the federal government is strapped. Second, states are even more strapped then the federal government. And we have spent and spent and spent and got nothing back. I have yet to hear a solid liberal plan to fix our education system other than spend more.

But why is it the school's/teacher's fault for low performing students? That's what I don't understand. What magic formula is there to cause a student to want to learn? It has to come from home. I went to public schools my entire life. By the 2nd grade, my parents pretty much left me to my own devices. They knew I could be trusted to do my homework every day (which I did). It came because there was an entrenched understanding that excelling in school was mandatory. They never really "helped" me with my studies. I did it on my own.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room. If education isn't prioritized at home, then no "charter school", law, policy is going to make one iota of difference. We are expected our schools to perform the job of our parents.

[FAH1223]

Bottom line, among most Muslims and many brown skinned foreigners, since the election, white men have now become the "other". This didn't use to be the case, but clearly is now. Apparently we look pretty scary. This has the chance of becoming a real driver of instability. Self-fulfilling prophecies will follow.

Ever been to Sweden? If you ever go there be sure to ask the women how they feel about Muslim immigration. You might get a different side of the story.

Tontoz is right.

The false premise is that if we continue to allow unrestrained immigration, all the new immigrants will be so happy that they will live in harmony with the white people already here. It sounds like a wonderful idea and I'm sure most of you fervently believe that this can happen. Unfortunately, it has never been the case anywhere in history. Ask Europeans how nice the new immigrants are in return despite Europe being so nice to admit them. There's mass rape, terrorism, and no-go zones there. There is no reason to think that won't happen here once the Muslim percentage of the population exceeds 5% or so. Indeed, it's probably going to happen here with Latino immigration as there will eventually be conflicts in southern California, New Mexico and Arizona.

The unpleasant fact is, multiculturalism doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere in history. Multicultural societies that lack a dominant majority descend in balkanization, low public trust, high crime, and eventually civil war and/or secession every single time. What ALWAYS happens is that, as the dominant culture loses electoral power, it has no choice but to transition to identity politics in self defense to combat the identity politics understandably employed by minority groups. Once both sides resort to identity politics, government becomes paralyzed and ineffective.

We have two choices. We can continue with the same mass immigration we've sustained for the past 50 years, which will force whites into identity politics and ultimately lead to civil war/secession. Or we can put a stop to immigration and try and digest the 60 million new Americans we've invited over the past 50 years into one common polity. It took about 40 years of no immigration to digest the wave of immigration between 1880 and 1920, and most of those immigrants were English speaking and could pass for white themselves. It will probably take even longer this time around as the new Americans don't look like the old ones and have a more dramatically different language and culture.

Lol is this Nate or Steve Bannon talking?

I think what unites people is class consciousness. That trumps identity politics.

[dckingsfan]

I agree. Parental involvement is essential to student success. I've seen it up close and personal at my daughters' DC public schools where the highest achieving students come from those families where the parents are most involved in the child's school and schooling. They are also the families most capable of taking advantage of the school choices that are available to them.

Okay, so we don't want to deprive those parents and their kids of choice.

Problem is that far too many of our kids, especially low-income inner-city kids, come from families where the parents are not involved. And, in many cases, the parent or parents are illiterate and not capable of helping their kids with their schoolwork even when they want to. Those are the kids I'm most worried about. My kids will be fine.

Those are the very kids that benefit most from schools that can cater to them. That can adjust the curricula based upon their needs.

This is where those who think competition is the answer are dead wrong. It is a big mistake to abandon neighborhood schools for charter schools and school vouchers in the name of "choice or competition," because our most difficult to educate kids will remain behind in our lowest-performing schools, which will have only gotten worse when the involved parents leave.

I think competition is the answer (from above and from many studies). The point is our schools are failing - we shouldn't double down on a failed system.

For the sake of all of our kids, we have to do the hard work and thinking that it takes (and sometimes that means more money) to fix our failing schools. And truly leave no child behind.

Two things here - we don't have anymore money - see entitlements - the federal government is strapped. Second, states are even more strapped then the federal government. And we have spent and spent and spent and got nothing back. I have yet to hear a solid liberal plan to fix our education system other than spend more.

But why is it the school's/teacher's fault for low performing students? That's what I don't understand. What magic formula is there to cause a student to want to learn? It has to come from home. I went to public schools my entire life. By the 2nd grade, my parents pretty much left me to my own devices. They knew I could be trusted to do my homework every day (which I did). It came because there was an entrenched understanding that excelling in school was mandatory. They never really "helped" me with my studies. I did it on my own.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room. If education isn't prioritized at home, then no "charter school", law, policy is going to make one iota of difference. We are expected our schools to perform the job of our parents.

Okay, then why continue to throw more and more dollars after the public schools if we aren't going to get anymore out of them? If the schools and policies don't make a difference - minimize the spending.

[dckingsfan]

I think what unites people is class consciousness. That trumps identity politics.

Yep, all identity politics suck...

[AFM]

I believe this is called "The Streisand Effect".

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-02/berkeley-blowback-milo-book-sales-soar-12740-overnight

[nate33]

I think what unites people is class consciousness. That trumps identity politics.

Yep, all identity politics suck...

Yes, but it's destined to happen if the current patterns continue.

[sfam]

More head in the sand nonsense. I notice you continue to ignore the way Muslims treat their own women. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an integration problem, they aren't at war, but women are treated like property as they are in many Muslim countries. But i know you won't touch that.

You would be right at home in Sweden. The Swedish police won't identify criminals as Muslims for fear of offending them. The media won't identify criminals as Muslim for fear of offending them. Their open door, appeasement policy towards Muslims has led to their rape epidemic.

Valarie Hudson, who runs womenstats.org is doing wonderful research showing pretty solid correlations to instability in society to the status of women. She has 8 correlates, and religion is not one.

Totally agree with significant problems with women in many Muslim countries. In others, not so much. In Indonesia, for instance, I can say from experience that the women pretty much run most ad-hoc work groups.

To your example in Afghanistan, yes, really rough issues with women there. Unfortunately, they are more centered in power dynamics at this point than religion.

If you're really interested in what to be afraid of, its not Islam, its Salafi Jihaddism. This is what Ansar Al Sharia, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, ISIS and most most of the other truly abhorrent armed actors subscribe to. Unfortunately the US public and congress members still can't figure out the difference between Sunni and Shia, let alone a bizarre offshoot of wahhabism, which is in itself a minor Sunni sect. This came out of Saudi Arabia, was funded by Saudi wealth in schools in many countries, and has a number of viral beliefs that create real attraction from at risk youth. It has a bizarre "Make Islam Great Again" vibe that calls for a return to a nonexistent 7th century set of beliefs. This is simply not what 1.6 billion Muslims believe.

And if you actually look what's happening in Mosul and other cities controlled by ISIS, there's really nothing doing with religion in most cases. Its pure thuggery dressed up. They do truly horrific stuff to Shia Muslims, for instance. Not just Yazidi Christians.

Weirder still, if you look at armed actor dispersion across Syria and Iraq, what you find is the entire region is tribal. You really have smaller armed groups - with the men in each of the tribal areas bartering to decide which higher Sunni armed group to join based more on protection and compensation. Its totally not about ideology for them. They change alliances all the time. Its about survival of their tribe.

[tontoz]

Somehow i doubt Salifi Jihaddism is the reason why women in Europe are afraid to go to public pools.

[nate33]

Weirder still, if you look at armed actor dispersion across Syria and Iraq, what you find is the entire region is tribal. You really have smaller armed groups - with the men in each of the tribal areas bartering to decide which higher Sunni armed group to join based more on protection and compensation. Its totally not about ideology for them. They change alliances all the time. Its about survival of their tribe.

Tribalism is one of the primary problems with Middle Eastern culture. And it's one of the reasons they've fallen so far behind the West. Christianity stamped out tribalism in Europe by prohibiting cousin marriage. Islam did not.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Random thought: Sure seems to be a lot of leaks in the Trump administration.

[verbal8]

I agree. Parental involvement is essential to student success. I've seen it up close and personal at my daughters' DC public schools where the highest achieving students come from those families where the parents are most involved in the child's school and schooling. They are also the families most capable of taking advantage of the school choices that are available to them.

Okay, so we don't want to deprive those parents and their kids of choice.

Problem is that far too many of our kids, especially low-income inner-city kids, come from families where the parents are not involved. And, in many cases, the parent or parents are illiterate and not capable of helping their kids with their schoolwork even when they want to. Those are the kids I'm most worried about. My kids will be fine.

Those are the very kids that benefit most from schools that can cater to them. That can adjust the curricula based upon their needs.

This is where those who think competition is the answer are dead wrong. It is a big mistake to abandon neighborhood schools for charter schools and school vouchers in the name of "choice or competition," because our most difficult to educate kids will remain behind in our lowest-performing schools, which will have only gotten worse when the involved parents leave.

I think competition is the answer (from above and from many studies). The point is our schools are failing - we shouldn't double down on a failed system.

For the sake of all of our kids, we have to do the hard work and thinking that it takes (and sometimes that means more money) to fix our failing schools. And truly leave no child behind.

Two things here - we don't have anymore money - see entitlements - the federal government is strapped. Second, states are even more strapped then the federal government. And we have spent and spent and spent and got nothing back. I have yet to hear a solid liberal plan to fix our education system other than spend more.

But why is it the school's/teacher's fault for low performing students? That's what I don't understand. What magic formula is there to cause a student to want to learn? It has to come from home. I went to public schools my entire life. By the 2nd grade, my parents pretty much left me to my own devices. They knew I could be trusted to do my homework every day (which I did). It came because there was an entrenched understanding that excelling in school was mandatory. They never really "helped" me with my studies. I did it on my own.

No one wants to address the elephant in the room. If education isn't prioritized at home, then no "charter school", law, policy is going to make one iota of difference. We are expected our schools to perform the job of our parents.

It maybe true that there isn't the ability to spend significantly more overall on public education. However I think there are areas where more spending probably is the answer. I think part of the solution for communities where learning is encouraged at home is having the school more involved with students than just the typical school day. In theory a charter school could take this approach. However most of the impartial studies don't show charter schools able to do this consistently.

[DCZards]

Two things here - we don't have anymore money - see entitlements - the federal government is strapped. Second, states are even more strapped then the federal government. And we have spent and spent and spent and got nothing back. I have yet to hear a solid liberal plan to fix our education system other than spend more.

Money is tight no doubt. But I refuse to believe that we can't find the money to improve our failing schools if we really want to. Problem is that the families whose kids attend those schools are usually our poorest families, living in our poorest neighborhoods. They also happen to be probably our nation's most politically impotent group, lacking the influence or political clout to insist that our federal or state governments prioritize and fully fund their kids schools.

As far as possible fixes for low-performing schools, here are a just a few. All of which, btw, have long been advocated by teacher unions.

1. Community schools with wraparound services -- This may be the single most important initiative when it comes to helping disadvantaged students and their schools. Connecting social services providers directly to schools would give kids--as well as their families--access to psychological and mental health services, eye and hearing exams, and other services. These schools also often have after-school tutoring, SAT Prep and enrichment programs for students whose parents can't afford it like many upper- and middle-class parents. I've been in community schools with GED courses for parents. DC has increased its number of Community Schools (I think there are 6-8 now), but these schools take money, space and coordination. Community schools, btw, have also been known to increase parent involvement.

2. Improved pre-service and in-service training for teachers -- I can't tell you how many teachers I've heard say that their college education did not really prepare them for the classroom, especially inner-city classrooms. In addition, ongoing professional development is essential and it doesn't hurt if the teacher has some culturally literacy when it comes to the students that they are teaching.

3. Less emphasis on testing and more emphasis on teaching and learning -- Again teachers repeatedly complain about "teaching to the test," which is often what they are increasingly forced to do as tests have become the Holy Grail of education. Testing is good for diagnostic purposes, but far too often test scores are used to punish schools, students and educators, which was especially the case under No Child Left Behind. Fortunately, the Every Student Succeeds Act signed into law by the Obama Administration last year calls for a reduced emphasis on testing.

4. More Career and Technical Education programs (CTE) -- This used to be the old vocational education. There's a school in NYC where kids learn how to repair subway cars. The work is all technology-based and the students in that school have to learn a high-level math in order to operate the computers, etc. used by the subway system and the tools to repair them. NYC has a some great CTE programs. They are a model for the nation.

5. School infrastructure improvements-- Many of our inner-city schools are more than a century old, and a lot of them are crumbling and falling apart. Some lack the wiring and capacity needed to provide access to the latest technology on the scale that's necessary. Most of us on this board would NEVER send our kids into some of the rundown school buildings that I've visited here in DC and elsewhere in the country. And, guess what, it's expensive for cash-strapped school systems to rebuild these buildings--or even keep up with the repairs of these old school buildings. The Dems going back to the Clinton Administration have tried to get funding for school infrastructure improvements but the Repubs have consistently shot it down.

6. Better pay for teachers -- I know that this is a nonstarter for some people who have this wrongheaded impression that teachers have cushy jobs with long summer breaks. But if we're going to attract the best and brightest into our classrooms--and keep them there--we need to pay them. Pure and simple.

These are just some possible solutions. And, yes, most of them will mean more money or, at a minimum, the reallocating of monies currently spent on public education. But, as they say, "if you think education is expensive, try ignorance."

[payitforward]

But that still misses the point. Manufacturing jobs are trending toward needing "smarter" individuals and the other industries are going the other way.

Manufacturing jobs are decreasing.

Individuals with lower intelligence can be pigeon holed into the new economy more easily. For example some that test high with Q-factor emotional intelligence might test low with IQ testing. Perfect sales people.

So, even if we accept the premise, it doesn't matter.

Yup, all this is entirely beside the point. The issue isn't what kind of people are available, it's what kinds of jobs. A useful 4 part matrix divides jobs into manual vs. cognitive & routine vs. non-routine.

That's 4 kinds of jobs:

1. routine/manual -- e.g. assembly line manufacturing jobs
2. nonroutine/manual -- e.g. low level healthcare, personal service, cleaning, etc.
3. routine/cognitive -- a huge swath of jobs fit here; keeping all the products in a warehouse organized & easily available would be one example.
4. nonroutine/cognitive -- planning an advertising campaign; building a successful NBA team, writing novels, doing science, much of teaching, etc.

When we talk about "automation" in e.g. manufacturing, mostly we are talking about robots & robotic systems. Basically, all category 1 (routine/manual) jobs are capable of being done robotically -- of being automated. As soon as it's cheaper to do them that way, they'll be automated. The pace of that accelerates all the time & will continue to accelerate for as long as Moore's Law holds -- & it shows no sign of going away. This is as certain as the events of the Industrial Revolution: the moment it was cheaper to do just about anything with a machine rather than by hand (weaving, knitting, setting type for a book), that's what happened.

Category 3 jobs (routine/cognitive) can and will be automated; some already are (think about robotic warehouses). Most routine business process jobs are now automated (payroll department, accounting, etc.).

Category 2 jobs (nonroutine/manual) are the lowest-paid jobs in existence: emptying bed-pans....

Category 4 jobs (nonroutine/cognitive) OTOH are the highest paying jobs. But comparatively they are very few in number.* They can't be automated. We could replace Ernie with a better GM, but it couldn't be a robot! Note that "cognitive" does not imply a reduced or constricted idea of what cognitive skills are. Companies won't be replacing their sales forces with robots any time soon!

(* Curiously to some perhaps, I think being an NBA player fits into the nonroutine/cognitive category. Waaay more guys have the required athleticism than have the cognitive skills (imagination, creativity, ability to work cooperatively, etc.) required for success in the game. Nor will we be watching robots hit 3-pointers any time soon!)

Just as the Machine Age, or Industrial Revolution, completely changed human work, we're seeing a 2d version of that now, & it's moving very fast -- esp. in those routine/manual contexts that make up manufacturing. For that reason, even if protectionist policies force manufacturing to return here, that's not going to help the disaffected "white working class" part of Trump's core.

In fact, given the US is the largest market for manufactured goods, automated manufacturing is the most powerful motivation for returning manufacturing to this country. If a robot is making something you're going to sell here, why have the robotic work done in China? All that does is add cost to transport, complicate supply chain management, etc.

China got all that manufacturing work because labor was cheap there. Right now, however, they are concentrating on automating their factories. Reducing the labor component. I assume anyone reading this understands that for the US economy to prosper, we have to be the leaders in that automation.

edit: i.e. no we won't be creating lots of new manufacturing jobs.

Good post, PIF. Well articulated.

I don't disagree with much, except I think there is progress to be made on the margins. Manufacturing jobs in the aggregate are in decline, but appropriate protectionism policies can increase our share of total manufacturing jobs more than what would otherwise be the case if protectionism policies were not in place.

Thanks, nate. Without getting way into it right now, I think that is essentially impossible. I.e. I believe this is subject to entropy. You can skew things in a way to make it appear that some benefits are gained, but you only do it by hiding costs that are incurred to do so. I'd think of it as akin to the way certain kinds of camera lenses can make one or another part of a picture seem large out of proportion to reality -- but only by misrepresenting other parts as smaller than they are.

As well, & in a way this is the key point, perpetuating economic artificialities by setting up protection for inefficiencies has always punished the economies where it happens. I could provide many examples, & I'm sure Zonk could provide way more than I could -- & I hope he does. There would have been no benefit in the long run, to take one obvious example, to protecting American automobile companies when Japanese cars started showing up that were better made, cost less to buy, cost less to run & lasted longer.

The pain felt by the unhappy mass of US factory workers who make up part of Trump's base is real pain. It's not invented. But it's a pain caused by the transformation I described -- and caused as well by of a one-time-only, never-to-return period of domination of global economic production by the US in the decades after WWII. That phenomenon came about because the (so-called) "populist" & primitive-ly nationalist (and, yes, protectionist) regimes that emerged in Europe in the 1st 1/3 of the XXth century managed to destroy one another's productive capacity -- not to mention some enormous percentage of their male population between the ages of 18-35 (work of this sector of humans produces a large part of economic production).

As the direct result of their attempts to "be great again," they got the opposite. In 1946, the USA had (if I remember the number right) 48% of the entire economic production of the planet!

Regimes (or at least parties) of that tendency (tho no direct comparison should be made) are on the rise again in Europe -- to my complete shock! And whatever you may like about Trump from the POV of his ability to be "effective" (i.e. to get himself elected -- we don't know whether he can/will be effective going forward, and I wouldn't say his first weeks are evidence that he will be), that's his mantra - "America First", right out of the playbook of that (failed, thankfully) American Fascist Charles Lindbergh (again, no direct comparison is intended: this is just what has showed itself so far).

Alas, there is much more danger to the US down the road he seems to want to take this country than you or most of his fans seem to realize. To the US & eo ipso to the rest of the world. Nor is this a new story. H*ll, you can read it in Thucydides. It was old news 2500 years ago, and what happened then -- and has happened over and over since then -- will happen again ceteris paribus.

I'm an old man, I've seen a lot, but for a long time I thought we'd left that kind of "history" behind us. I.e. that the cost of the XXth century in brutality, death & misery had driven home a lesson that would have way more legs, as it were, than it turns out it does. Well, no, I was wrong, I was a fool to think that.

You know, if you are carrying a lit torch, an open flame, and you outflank your opponents because you are willing to go closer to the big tanks of gasoline than they are, that doesn't make you smart. Even if you get past the tanks a few times. There are a whole range of things that only have to happen once to cause disasters the cost to recover from which exceed what's possible to pay. Risk things like that for a while, and it's a given that "once" will occur.

I don't know if that's where we are right now. But I do know what that looks like, and where we are now is what that looks like.