Donald Trump is socialist swine

A good businessman knows how to manage his or her resources to get the highest returns. Trump supporters often use the “he’s qualified because he’s a businessman” argument when defending their vote for him. But how effective is that argument?
According to a Bloomberg News poll, Mrs Clinton has a nine-point lead over the real estate developer and former casino operator. Mrs Clinton, who, to my knowledge, has never run her own law firm much less any other business, seems to be showing much better organizational skills, and having amassed a $110 million shared net worth with her husband, Bubba aka Bill Clinton, seems to be better at making money since she’s not good at making much of anything else (especially cookies while standing by her man).
Mr Trump’s fall in the polls seems to lack from a good marketing game. His brand is questionable, some would say downright deplorable, among women. The black and Latino vote is like a cruise ship that decides to bypass an unpopular port of call.
If publications in The Economist provide any worthwhile indication, it is that he rest of the globe may not be finding him in the highest regard, with the exception of far right politicians like Marine Le Pen.
And let’s not forget the analysts expectations regarding volatility in Mexico’s peso. Talk of screwing around with NAFTA would drive that currency into the pits.
What I find particularly disturbing is his disproportionate focus on labor. He continuously calls for getting American jobs back, which is what one would expect from someone courting the popular vote. He ignores capital, displaying little knowledge about capital markets or the role investment banks, private equity, or venture capital play in finding entrepreneurial opportunities that provide investors with high returns, the kind of activity that attracts domestic and foreign direct investment into our markets.
Americas deeper foray into the knowledge economy is going to call for big ideas, innovation, and capital formation. The labor that Mr Trump courts may be good for votes but not for economic growth. 
Maybe Mr Trump’s bromance is more with Bernie Sanders and less with Vladimir Putin.
Posted in capital, Donald Trump, economics, Economy, Election2016, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Trump may be more narcissist than anarchist, but ….

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have upset the political elite’s apple cart. They both remind me of these lines uttered by the late Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight”:

“It’s the schemers that put you where you are. You were a schemer, you had plans, and uh, look where that got you. I just did what I do best. I took your plan and I turned it on itself. Look what I did, to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets. Hm? You know what, you know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying. If tomorrow I tell the press that like a gang banger, will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all, part of the plan. But when I say that one, little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”

Yep. Trump says your elections are rigged and the President of the United States along with House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, spend time addressing Mr Trump’s few drums of gas and a couple of bullets.

Posted in Donald Trump, Election2016, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Putin 2 Obama 0

Looks like the Obama administration is being outmaneuvered (again) by Vladimir Putin. Russia is seeking stronger relations with India and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. The U.S. has long touted a special relationship with India because it is the world’s largest democracy. Last time I checked, Great Britain should share more of the dubious credit of bringing India’s democratic status about.

Meanwhile, the U.S. had to back down on its tough stance on including Russia on all of today’s talks regarding Syria. Hell. Why would Putin need Trump as a friend? He seems to be doing what he wants with Obama as an adversary, and if Mrs Clinton is going to be the continuation of Obama, then a Clinton victory will do Vlad the Impaler just fine.

Posted in Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

United States, Russia, Syria: Cold War 2.0

The United States has long wanted to get Syria out of Russia’s satellite of control. Syria, geographically, puts a check on Israel. Ukraine, which is barely mentioned versus two years ago, is the alternate land bridge from Russia to western Europe.

The United States will be involved in talks over the weekend regarding air strikes against Aleppo and the need to get humanitarian aid into the beleaguered city.

Aleppo is another red flag patterned after Berlin post World War II. Get Americans crying and worked up about the spread of communism which successfully snookered Americans into answering the draft and fighting in Korea and Vietnam; proxies for the cold war fight between Russia,the United States, and China.

Syria offers the same boom rah-rah as Berlin did. This time it is worse because the cheer leading will offer something more personal and tangible versus political-economic ideology; it will offer up religion. The package, driven by American media acting as mouthpieces for the Obama administration, will play up abuses against Christians. This should be enough to get Louis Gohmert to get on C-SPAN and finally deflect our attention away from Kim Kardashian to persecution of Christians.

Hillary Clinton will be faced with her first major test, but she will be able to pass it with flying colors. She was a part of the team that got Osama bin Laden and Moammar Qaddafi. Taking out Assad while pushing Vlad the Impaler Putin back into the Caucuses will establish her as an ass kicker, much to the chagrin of her sister head of government, Angela Merkel who will then have to explain to the rest of Europe the increase in attacks from the likes of ISIS and probably from Russian operatives crossing into western Europe via, you guessed it, Ukraine.

Laurel and Hardy would appreciate the comedy and the other fine mess another peace loving Democratic president will keep the United States in.

Posted in Crimea, Election2016, foreign policy, Syria, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

No. Vladimir Putin does not want Donald Trump to be president.

Mr Putin needs a predictable factor in the White House; he needs Hillary Clinton in the White House. In any negotiation where Mr Putin can achieve an advantage, he needs the person across the table from him to be smart enough to know when their backs are against the wall; when they are facing checkmate.

Donald Trump is too inexperienced, too dumb, too arrogant to ever admit when he has been outmaneuvered. Who the hell wants an adversary that you like? You want one that you know and respect.

Posted in Donald Trump, Election2016, Vladimir Putin | Tagged , | Leave a comment

You didn’t prepare for global trade. I shed no tears.

During the 2016 election cycle in the United States, Americans have been expressing concern over international trade. Candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have discussed trade matters such as the Trans Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mr Trump fanning flames on China’s alleged currency manipulation and immigration of workers from Mexico. He has less than artfully but effectively tapped into the fears of average Americans on the issue.
The problem is that the fears of average Americans are unfounded because the average American, in my opinion, has no dog in this hunt.
Unless the average American is pitching her own individual ability to produce and sell goods and services cross border on a regular basis; to sell and promote their own individual professional brand across borders, then they have no skin in the global trade game. Individual wage earners may express resentment, anger, and fear over a former employer deciding to move its capital and other resources to Mexico to take advantage of human capital and other capital in that nation-state, but that is a firm’s decision as to what to do with its resources.
When individuals gripe about trade, they indicate tome that they are unwilling or unable to take their knowledge, skills, and abilities across border to follow new opportunities. As individuals Americans, unlike their European cousins living in the European Union, are simply not capable selling their value across border.
Americans never properly prepared themselves for international trade because they were under the mistaken notion that the world of international commerce begins and ends with them. Citizens and policy makers apparently forgot to consider that the ability of human capital to move itself freely and willingly across borders is just as important as a firm’s ability to move itself across border. Policy makers never drove home the importance of individual Americans preparing themselves for global trade by ramping up their educations, getting a passport, and learning a new language. For this reason it is hard for me to shed a tear for someone aggrieved by the impact of global trade.
Posted in Donald Trump, economics, Economy, Election2016, foreign policy, free markets, globalization, Hillary Clinton, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Social welfare’s lack of equity

Government’s role in a democratic, market based nation-state is to secure political wealth for the political class while creating an ecosystem within which private capital receives a positive return. Social welfare and safety nets are the least of government’s concerns. Social welfare institutions are the result of agitation on the part of those who are locked out of capital ownership.
Ironically, the agitation that creates social welfare programs is based on rules promulgated by the political class. In a number of cases, for example food stamps, these very programs are administered by private, profit seeking firms. By creating these programs, the political class creates another justification for increasing taxes and employing more members of the political class.
In addition, the social welfare programs created serve to replace access to real capital by the poor with transfer payments designed to simply maintain their existence. The programs serve to keep the wealth class in charge of capital.
Unbeknownst to the millions of voters heading to the polls to vote to sustain social programs is that they are in essence supporting a wealth class that is allegedly opposed to the well being of the poor.
Supporters of these programs may argue that social welfare is a condition of America’s social contract. But if the poor are not enjoying access to real productive capital, can we say that the social contract is equitable?
Posted in capital, Economy, Election2016, libertarian, libertarianism, Political Economy, poverty, Uncategorized | Tagged , | 2 Comments

You want diversity in the boardroom but not on the ballot? Really? #Election2016

A recent piece in The Huffington Post describes corporate America’s failure to include more women of color in the C-suite. According to a report cited by The Huffington Post, women of color make up just three percent of executives in the C-suite of 132 major firms. It has been argued that a more diverse board room or executive suite will foster greater insights into markets and enhance a firm’s productivity. The overall sentiment is that with racial or gender diversity comes a diversity of thought and ideas. That sentiment, however, does not seem to hold when it comes to diversity of thought and ideas during political campaigns, particularly during debate season.
The main argument that I have heard against including third party candidates on the debate stage is because their chances of victory are so small that it would be a waste of the public’s time to listen to them on a debate stage. The statistics support the conclusion that third-party chances are slim to none. For example . according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released today, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is polling at 42%; Republican candidate Donald Trump at 41%; Libertarian Gary Johnson is at 7%; and Green Party candidate Jill Stein pulls up the rear at two percent.
An L.A. Times poll, also released today, does not include Governor Johnson or Dr. Stein. It has Donald Trump polling at 47% while Hillary Clinton polls at 43%.
But if numbers alone should be the deciding factor for including alternative voices in a political forum, why shouldn’t that criteria be used for diversity of voices in the C-suite? Are we saying that insights on product market penetration, brand development, or wage levels are more important than insights on national defense, social safety nets, and gross domestic product? My friends on the left would say no, but their actions, like having Tim Kaine and Barack Obama dissuade people from voting for a third party candidate, says otherwise.
I propose resolving the issue of a lack of diversity in debates by doing the following. Using the L.A. Times polling numbers, there appears to be 10% of eligible voters who have not yet made up their minds. Since Governor Johnson and Dr. Stein are on multiple state tickets are polling at more than one percent, go ahead and include them. The 10% of voters who have not decided are signaling that they would like to hear an alternative viewpoint, you know, have a little diversity on the stage. Requiring that candidates poll at 15% when there are only 10% of eligible voters indicating that they have not yet decided and the remaining 90% of eligible voters are supporting the two major candidates makes no sense. To flip around the view a bit, it’s like saying that if 15% were undecided, then their voices would matter, but since it’s only ten percent undecided, we’ll just write them off.
I propose resolving the issue of a lack of diversity in debates by doing the following. Using the L.A. Times polling numbers, there appears to be 10% of eligible voters who have not yet made up their minds. Since Governor Johnson and Dr. Stein are on multiple state tickets are polling at more than one percent, go ahead and include them. The 10% of voters who have not decided are signaling that they would like to hear an alternative viewpoint, you know, have a little diversity on the stage. Requiring that candidates poll at 15% when there are only 10% of eligible voters indicating that they have not yet decided and the remaining 90% of eligible voters are supporting the two major candidates makes no sense.
To flip around the view a bit, it’s like saying that if 15% were undecided, then their voices would matter, but since it’s only ten percent undecided, we’ll just write them off. That wouldn’t go down well with minority voices speaking to business and the economy. I don’t see why that should be acceptable for voices speaking to politics.
Posted in Election2016, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Universal service doesn’t encourage #capital for #entrepreneurs

Regulating commerce is one thing. Failing to encourage capital formation and distribution of capital to entrepreneurs cannot be acceptable. Section 214 of the Communications Act demonstrates how out of touch current law is with today’s technology and the entities that deliver that technology. The 115th Congress and the next Administration need to revamp universal service such that funding actually encourages new entrants into the broadband market and the innovations that come along with that entry.

Under section 214 of the Act, common carriers designated as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETC) qualify for receiving universal service funds. A common carrier is engaged in providing foreign or interstate communications by wire or radio.  The Federal Communications Commission revamped its 20th century based support program, originally designed to subsidize voice services, to now support deployment of broadband services in high cost areas, areas where broadband providers argue it is cost prohibitive to provide high-speed access services.

Among the criticisms of the program is its inefficiency. Specific concerns have been raised about funds supporting services in areas where competition already exists. On reflection why is this a problem? If a carrier sees the opportunity to take a single-digit percent of market share where garnering such a share covers her fixed and variables costs while generating a profit, so what if other choices already exists? New entrants enter the fray when they believe that they have an innovative way of providing services and eventually taking market share. This is part of the adventure of applying venture capital; digging in for a period of time a generating returns based on new ideas.

The Commission’s concerns about funding services in areas where there is already competition also stems from locking itself into an approach that results in common carriers being funded as opposed to wireless internet access providers. Again, current law paints a box where only common carriers can play. Wireless internet access providers may not want to build infrastructure for the purpose of being common carriers. It is too expensive and unnecessary to duplicate existing networks where instead their focus is rightfully on bringing value to those networks and consumers alike by providing alternative methods of accessing them. The Commission speaks of innovation too frequently to then turn around and pass up an opportunity to put its money where its mouth is.

Until the Commission decides to recognize the value that non-common carrier innovators bring to broadband deployment, the universal service fund as currently constructed will continue to be a pool of capital unavailable for use by certain new entrants.

Posted in broadband, broadband access provider, capital, entrepreneur, Federal Communications Commission, technology, Title II, universal service fund | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

There is nothing wrong with #gentrification. Just make sure you call it what it is.

Gentrification takes on a nasty meaning for residents in mostly black neighborhoods. Years of no investment, high unemployment, and low wages take their toll on communities where high crime and stagnation becomes the brand. Proposed influxes of infrastructure and other forms of capital near the top of the list of remedies for these neighborhoods. I’m all for these remedies.

In my vision, no neighborhood in any city should have to endure urban blight. I get tired of seeing young men walking around looking idle and unproductive. The optics send a signal that the mindset of some residents is one of resignation to a life of no big ideas, no growth, no pursuit of opportunity. It is depressing.

Yesterday, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai put out a proposal to create gigabit opportunity zones where local and state lawmakers would provide incentives to attract broadband deployment. Any area where average household income falls below 75% of the national household median income would qualify. Tax credits are expected to make up a part of the enticement for broadband providers to deploy facilities and provide services over them.

Commissioner Pai also wants to see job growth and to meet this goal proposes tax incentives that offset payroll costs for entrepreneurs. I also appreciate the additional shout out the Commissioner gave to entrepreneurs by discussing access to capital. Government, according to the Commissioner, should promote access to capital by increasing the appeal and availability of crowdfunding.

Again, I applaud the Commissioner’s initiative to not only promote more broadband deployment but to get more capital into the hands of entrepreneurs. My concern is that we simply call this what it is: gentrification. Why is this correct nomenclature necessary? Because accurately identifying the policy by what it does gives policymakers and lawmakers better insights into how best to sell this package to current constituents who, under this proposal, will pay for it with their property and sales tax dollars. Individual entrepreneurs already existing in these neighborhoods will want to know whether the price of capital will start increasing when word gets out about potential new deployment of broadband infrastructure. Will those entrepreneurs who were holding the line in these neighborhoods using slower speed internet access find themselves having to move to cheaper areas?

The plan would have more teeth if there were a way to guarantee low cost capital flowed to existing entrepreneurs that use broadband as part of their business models. Otherwise, the people this plan is intended to help will find themselves being cleared out, ironically, by people who already have capital.

Posted in broadband, broadband access provider, capital, entrepreneur, Federal Communications Commission, gentrification, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment