Friday, September 30, 2016

Trump the Slumlord and Ego-maniac

No one has mentioned it at all that I've noticed during the race- maybe because it's so ridiculously moustache twirlingly awful that it barely seems real- but everyone I knew growing up in NYC thought of Trump as a fucking slumlord because of how he acted upon the acquisition of 100 Central Park South.

So he bought this building in 1981 with the intention of tearing it down and building a luxury condo tower. Just one problem- the building was filled with rent stabilized tenants.

In 1982 IN THE MIDDLE OF JANUARY he sent tenants, many of whom were older to elderly, immediate eviction notices- out in one week or their stuff was getting thrown out into the street. These were tenants in good standing who hadn't broken their leases. One woman was charged that the building wasn't her primary residence so she was being tossed out even though the only other residence she had ever had had burned down years before. She refused to leave so her water and gas was shut off. He then filed fake non-payment charges against another, which were thrown out when they were able produce documentation of Trump's management company canceling his rent checks.

So after that failed he filled the halls with garbage that attracted rats and roaches, which he then refused to have exterminated and told tenants they and their guests had to use the trash elevators to get into the building, including patients in a dentists office. He told the super to make absolutely no repairs. By the end it got so bad that tenants were able to provide pictures to the court of mushrooms growing out of the carpet in hallways.

He then told the city and tenants that he was going to house de-institutionalized homeless in all the empty units in the building, which the city refused, on grounds of danger to tenants and his intention to tear the building down. He tried to do it anyway- in typical Trump fashion he said it was because he cared so much about the plight of the homeless.

Suzanne Blackmer one of the tenants said in 1987:

“He has such an ego, he wants to be Jesus. He wants to be Hitler. He wants to be the most powerful thing in the world.”

When nothing would budge them Trump tried to sue the hold outs for extortion and his suit was dismissed with prejudice. They counter sued for harassment. The case was finally settled in 1998, when an appellate court ruled that Trump could turn the vacant apartments into condos and sell them, but the 51 remaining rent-regulated tenants could stay.

And just because it's a fun, unrelated little tidbit I stumbled across when fact checking this with sources from the 80's here's a quote from the NYT March 9, 1985:
A recent profile in The Washington Post quoted him as saying he was ready to take on new, world-sized tasks - referring to his heretofore unrevealed wish to become the nation's negotiator on arms limitation with the Soviet Union. He says he's a master negotiator, and could do a better job on arms talks than ''the kind of representatives that I have seen in the past.'' Becoming an expert on nuclear weaponry would be easy, he said. ''It would take an hour and a half to learn everything there is to learn about missiles,'' he explained. ''I think I know most of it anyway. You're talking about just getting updated on a situation.'' Maybe Mr. Trump should take the afternoon off to study up on missiles and leave the tenants of 100 Central Park South alone.

401K, Retirement, and why Americans are Fucked



I was born in 1977, it's not just millenials. And for people who are teenagers now I can say at least in my experience that YES things are worse for everyone now than they were 20 years ago.

Even my parents who grew up in the 60s say that things are quantifiably worse for working Americans.
  • In the last 30 years we have witnessed (among other things):
  • The largest economic downturn since the depression
  • Skyrocketing housing prices that lock most families out of home ownership in major urban areas.
  • Financial scandals on an unprecedented scale (Arthur Andersen, Worldcom, Tyco, Enron) and hardly anyone was punished.
  • Two major wars. We fought in Iraq for 8 years and in Afghanistan for 13 years. We lost a combined 6,000+ soldiers with tens of thousands more wounded and spent 1.7 trillion dollars with 400 billion more that will be spent in the future.
  • The cost of education is becoming all but unobtainable. Rising education costs mean that millions are locked out of home and car ownership because of student loan payments.
  • The cost of medical care is unsustainable and out of reach for most families. A single illness even with insurance could bankrupt your family and decades worth of labor.
  • The loss of both unions and pensions. You can track the decline in unions and the decline in real wages across the decades along with the loss of benefits. If you want to chime in with "well I'm ok... have..." well good for you. Most people don't. Most young Americans today simply will never retire even in their final years. A lack of social security, a lack of pensions, and a lack of viable options for saving (no 401k is not sustainable but that is a whole other rant) means that we will be able to save very little in our working lives.
For people that are curious, this didn't just come about. This is a process that has been underway for 40 years. The top 1% of the country (and really its more like the top 1% of the 1%) have actively funded lobbyists and campaigns and laws at the local level all the way to DC to fundamentally strip workers of their rights, roll back protections for working families, undermine social safety nets, reduce their tax burden at the expense of everyone else, eliminate the ability for the elderly to retire in security, and have squandered trillions of dollars to "protect American interests" which basically means the interests of a few connected corporations.

So yeah.... it's no wonder people don't trust major institutions. Especially now that we're witnessing a presidential campaign that consists of an almost Machiavellian woman running against a man who is almost literally insane.

So to start I have to tell you a bit of my background. I worked in finance which among other things included working as a pension and defined contribution auditor along with working in a bank for a time.

I'll start with my anecdotes and a bit of history. The piece of legislation that allowed the 401(k) was created in the 1970s as a way to offer more benefits to high-wage executives in lieu of additional payments. The intent was originally to create an additional way for high-earning executives to put more money aside for retirement as a BONUS to what they were already getting from their companies and from social security. It was never intended even from the start to be a replacement for pensions or social security. We have to make that very very clear from the outset.

It was designed to offer extra compensation to already well-off employees as a way to spruce up fringe benefit packages.

You can read a bit about the history of the plan here.

And you can check out the wiki here#History)

Obviously by the 80s it didn't stay that way and it soon became the norm to offer defined contribution plans to office workers.

Cut to today.

I worked as an auditor and saw the insides of plans for hundreds of companies and in my experience what I saw made me begin to question the viability and the sanctity of people always pushing the 401(k) as a way to retire. My anecdotal experience was that in a company of roughly 100 people you would have 1, maybe 2 employees who were maxing out their contributions. Those were always the higher earners, senior engineers, CFOs, assistant controllers, presidents, those types. The average account balance that I saw for employees was usually between 5 and $10,000 even after years of contributions. The average balance for executives (those 1 or 2 people) was around $100,000. My anecdotal experience seems to be a bit low according to stats because the average balance is actually all over the map.

Some figures that I've read say people have as little as $19,000 in their 401(k).

Investopedia has a decent breakdown of balances by age but point to the fact that it is always too low to sustain people in retirement.

The Economic Policy Institute says the average balance is around $34,000 but this varies widely by race, income, and age so you have to dig a big, but again the takeaway is that Americans have almost nothing saved in their 401(k) plans.

Zerohedge (which I don't consider a good source most of the time) has a fairly accurate stat in this case saying that the average contribution is a very low $2,700 a year, which is certainly not enough to retire on even with growth and dividends.

The GAO (which is a fantastic source) has a great read that is fairly dry. The tldr is that we don't have enough saved for retirement and aren't contributing enough This talks about income from all sources not just 401(k)

So we're contributing... not that much to our 401(k) plans so how will that affect us in retirement?

Well it won't give us income.

Motley fool has a decent writeup saying that at current and average saving rates, the 401(k) will provide only around $4,000 a year.

That is supplemental income that might help you pay your electric bill or buy some extra groceries, but you certainly can't live on that.

But that applies to everyone right? Everyone will at least have something in retirement right?

Not even close.

Around 50% of households in the US aren't even eligible for a 401(k) and of the people that are eligible only a portion of them contribute. So you have close to 70% of Americans NOT contributing to a plan.

This is a structural crisis that needs to be addressed at the national level because more than 2/3rds of Americans aren't putting money away for their retirement and of the ones that are, most will not have enough to do anything beyond supplement a very meager existence.

A full 30% of workers have literally zero dollars saved for retirement.

So at this point you could say, well why don't people simply contribute more or get into a plan... there are Roth IRAs there are 403(b) plans there are ways to save right? And it's because we simply don't have the money. Families cannot afford to put aside even more money because real wages aren't rising at the same time that housing, education, food, and healthcare are eating what we have left.

Most households don't even have $1,000 in savings.

Most households can't even cover an unexpected $500 bill

So how does that last part relate to my talk about 401(k) plans?

We as a nation are prioritizing the wrong way to save. The 401(k) is an addendum policy for wealthy workers that spread and became the "norm" but it simply doesn't work when implemented as a main way to save. That is why I say that it is unsustainable. Of the people that do save (and you can watch the John Oliver on this) fees are a hugely contentious issue that can destroy people's contributions.

It's a broken policy for savings that needs to be scrapped.

So what is the solution? Well... as a former financial insider, banker, analyst, and auditor my take is this... we need a legally protected, quasi-independent nationalized system that everyone contributes to.

One of the biggest issues with social security is that it IS solvent but congress keeps borrowing from the trust with limited assurances that they can pay the money back. Social security DOES work if you don't spend the money you collect for it on other things.

We need something held in trust that legally cannot be touched by Congress held in an entity similar to the Fed (quasi independent) that will hold individually numbered accounts for all of us. When we're born you get something like $1,000 put into that fund and as long as your parents are working, from birth you get another $500 or $1,000 a year put into that fund until your 18th birthday. Then it's on you and there would be 3 components. Your contributions, your employers contributions and the government's contribution.

You could use actuaries to create a pension that has money coming from tax revenues (the government portion) you could include contributions you make to the plan (your side of the contributions) and your employer would contribute to your account at a rate that they could set (so this could be part of how they compete with other employers). You have a 3 legged stool basically. Three sources of money in and one source of money out.

That quasi independent agency would then have a fiduciary responsibility to oversee all of those assets (again just like a pension) and invest in AAA rated bonds, safe municipal projects, and a broad base of blue chip stocks and an index of all the funds on the market.

You could even offer a limited range of options like "low, medium, and high" for risk tolerance where the low would invest only in things like low interest treasury bills, municipal bonds, and AAA rated projects that pay a low but dependable amount of interest, medium risk could be a blend of index funds and bonds, and the high risk could all be stocks in an index fund. This would provide for growth and investment, ensure all Americans get a fair go at retirement, and ensure that Congress can't purloin the proceeds with a promise to simply pay it back at an unforseen date.

We need to try something new and the private market is not the solution because when you try to separate people from their money you create perverse incentives. The government should ABSOLUTELY be involved in securing people's retirements and ability to provide for themselves in their old age.

I know this is a long answer but I hope this was a well-thought out response to your question and I hope it encourages you to do further reading. This is only my opinion based on my experience in industry but I feel it is a valid opinion backed by economic data and experience.

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

BoJack Horseman has Adult ADHD

I firmly believe Bojack suffers from adult ADHD. I have it myself, as well as my dad and boyfriend having it, so I am very familiar with the symptoms and presentation, but I will explain for those less familiar. What I'm gonna do is copy the info about adult ADHD from the Mayo Clinic website and explain, point by point, why I see it in Bojack.
Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a mental health disorder that includes a combination of persistent problems, such as difficulty paying attention, hyperactivity and impulsive behavior. Adult ADHD can lead to unstable relationships, poor work or school performance, low self-esteem, and other problems.
So obviously we have some commonalities already, but that's far from damning; alcoholism, depression, anxiety, etc all have similar effects.
Adult ADHD symptoms may not be as clear as ADHD symptoms in children. In adults, hyperactivity may decrease, but struggles with impulsiveness, restlessness and difficulty paying attention may continue.
I think a big reason this isn't often discussed is because few people even know about adult ADHD and would think of someone like Andy Dwyer from Parks and Rec as adult ADHD (when I would say he's just goofy!) and think of Bojack as purely depressed, when really adult ADHD can bring a lot of darkness into your life.
Many adults with ADHD aren't aware they have it — they just know that everyday tasks can be a challenge.
When Diane says "We're responsible for our own happiness" Bojack responds "That's depressing" because he "can't even be responsible for [his] own breakfast." Cut to Bojack calling out to Todd when he spills the cereal.

I know this is a silly joke and I laughed at it, but it is kinda reality for me. When you have ADHD, especiallyunmedicated, everything feels so overwhelming. I've literally cried over spilled milk because of the way everything piles up on each other in my mind. Some days when I have a lot to do I end up paralyzed by anxiety and my body just says "nope, go to sleep."
Adults with ADHD may find it difficult to focus and prioritize, leading to missed deadlines and forgotten meetings or social plans.
Remember when Bojack spent 6 hours playing with fonts? That's the most quintessential ADHD shit ever. I had to explain it to my mom like this, since my mom does not have ADHD and has trouble relating to my dad and I sometimes.

For most people, you'll come up against a task and if it's hard or unpleasant or boring, you'll be tempted to do something else, but if you remove the distractions you can will yourself into focusing on it. I literally can't will myself into focusing sometimes. Sure, sometimes I can, but even then it will be for short bursts. Sometimes I could be in an empty room, with nothing but white walls, no doors and windows, with just my homework and I would sit and stare at a wall rather than do my work. My mind just refuses to devote any energy to the task at hand. I can't "will myself" to focus anymore than you can "will yourself" to run a 4 minute mile. You might be able to do it with lots of training and practice and help and support, but you won't learn to do it in a day. And if you try, your legs will just give out.
The inability to control impulses can range from impatience waiting in line or driving in traffic to mood swings and outbursts of anger.
This one we see a lot. Bojack is very moody and, believe it or not, that is very typical of people with ADHD. He lashes out at people all the time, and he's extremely impulsive, like when he fired Princess Caroline so they could be together only to abandon that fantasy hours later.
Adult ADHD symptoms may include:
Impulsiveness
Another example is Bojack's competition with Mr. Peanutbutter, up to and including stealing the D from the Hollywoo sign. Also, almost sleeping with Penny and trying to sleep with Charlotte when her husband was literally right there.
Disorganization and problems prioritizing, poor time management skills, problems focusing on a task
The first time I thought I saw ADHD in Bojack is when he is trying to write his memoirs and yells at Todd for being loud, then decides he needs to vacuum right now, then has to go buy more vacuums to clean out his other vacuums... That's all ADHD and I find myself doing it all the time. "Well I can't start my homework with a slow computer, lemme just defrag the disk real quick... Oh and I was gonna shower, I should do that... Ooh, I need to eat too... Better go to the market...

Suddenly it's been 8 hours and I've done nothing I needed to do.
Trouble multitasking
This one hasn't been brought up a lot, I can't think of a specific example.
Excessive activity or restlessness
Keep in mind that this doesn't just mean fidgeting or being active. Bojack is "restless" in that he requires constant superficial and materialistic change. Always needs friends and a party to go to, he can't just sit and be.
Poor planning
This should be obvious. Despite planning some things well (sabotaging the Rock Opera, for instance) he's very bad at planning other, more important things (like how he was supposed to get in shape for Secretariat but instead got a shitty audio book and ran, like, once).
Low frustration tolerance
Remember when Bojack ended up on national news because of a squabble over a box of muffins? And then decided to call into the news station because he was so frustrated that the guy didn't "properly call dibs"?
Frequent mood swings
Self explanatory really
Problems following through and completing tasks
Memoirs, Ethan Around, even Secretariat to an extent are examples of this.
Hot temper
Again, pretty self explanatory. I love the line "Clean up your shit, Todd" but it's a pretty rude thing to say to a friend in reality. He also is famous for his outbursts after Diane's book, noted by one of the girls he dats ("Is this one of your famous Bojack rants?")
Trouble coping with stress
Remember when Bojack had a panic attack because someone wanted him to make a phone call? Yeah, that was way too real to me.
Risk of ADHD may increase if:

You have blood relatives, such as a parent or sibling, with ADHD or another mental health disorder
I'd be surprised if Bojack's mom or dad didn't have at least one mental health disorder.
Your mother smoked, drank alcohol or used drugs during pregnancy
I doubt Bojack's mom, who would've given birth in the 1960's, stopped smoking and drinking during her pregnancy.
As a child, you were exposed to environmental toxins — such as lead, found mainly in paint and pipes in older buildings
I know it's a bit of a stretch but he was obviously not well supervised as a kid
You were born prematurely
Nothing relevant here.

ADHD can make life difficult for you. ADHD has been linked to:

Poor school or work performance
"What are YOU doing here??" As soon as work for Bojack became challenging at all, he almost fell apart completely.
Unemployment
No one in the industry wants to work with Bojack, as noted in the scene where Princess Caroline tried to find him work in season 1.
Trouble with the law
Thank God he's famous because God knows how many laws he's broken.
Alcohol or other substance abuse
Yeah.
Frequent car accidents or other accidents
I know most of his car accidents have been due to intoxication, but remember when he was on the phone with Princess Caroline and almost hit that Armadillo, or when he was with Wanda and hit the stag.
Unstable relationships
I mean
Poor physical and mental health
Yeah Bojack is okay right now, but he's overweight, binges on food and drugs, and was out of breath at the end of his driveway.
Poor self-image
Also self-explanatory, but worth more than a passing mention. ADHD, especially when it's undiagnosed, can make you feel shitty about yourself. It feels like you're incapable of the simplest fo tasks simply because your brain works differently and you need different strategies than most people. I constantly feel like I just need to "try harder" and I'll be better, when in reality I need to approach problems with an entirely different mindset than other people do.

Suicide attempts
I think we saw that in the last season at the Oscar party.
Although ADHD doesn't cause other psychological or developmental problems, other disorders often occur along with ADHD and make treatment more challenging. These include:

Mood disorders. Many adults with ADHD also have depression, bipolar disorder or another mood disorder. While mood problems aren't necessarily due directly to ADHD, a repeated pattern of failures and frustrations due to ADHD can worsen depression.
My therapist calls this cycling, and people with ADHD are extremely susceptible to it. You feel shitty about yourself, so you change something up. Maybe you go on a diet, or buy a new planner, or start studying more rigorously. But instead of approaching it with an ADHD mindset, you approach it with a "whip myself into shape" mindset. You inevitably fail, because you can't will away a mental illness, and then you feel worse for it, and the cycle continues.

Anxiety disorders. Anxiety disorders occur fairly often in adults with ADHD. Anxiety disorders may cause overwhelming worry, nervousness and other symptoms. Anxiety can be made worse by the challenges and setbacks caused by ADHD.
Interesting side note: I suffer from PTSD and anxiety as well as ADHD. The absolute worse my anxiety is other than literally during a panic attack is a in the morning before I take my medication, even though ADHD medication should technically make anxiety worse. ADHD medication is a stimulant. In my case, my morning anxiety is caused by my ADHD. I often wake up feeling like a gun just went off in my house, with my heart pounding and my hands shaking, and it doesn't get better until I take my meds.
Other psychiatric disorders. Adults with ADHD are at increased risk of other psychiatric disorders, such as personality disorders, intermittent explosive disorder and substance abuse.
Self-medicating for ADHD combined with impulsiveness is a ripe combination for substance abuse. We see it directly when he's trying to finish the book. He tries all kinds of strategies to motivate himself, but none of them work, so he defaults to drugs.
Learning disabilities. Adults with ADHD may score lower on academic testing than would be expected for their age, intelligence and education. Learning disabilities can include problems with understanding and communicating.
Not sure if we see this in Bojack but I will say I think he's a terrible communicator.
Diagnosis of ADHD in adults can be difficult because certain ADHD symptoms are similar to those caused by other conditions, such as anxiety or mood disorders. And many adults with ADHD also have at least one other mental health condition, such as depression or anxiety.
I know it says it above, but comorbidity with ADHD is INSANELY high. I don't have the numbers in front of me but if I'm remembering correctly you're more likely to have ADHD plus something else than you are to have ADHD alone.

Anyway, I know that was super rambly, but that's my analysis.

Why Indianans Hate Mike Pence

There's a difference between being a representative and being a governor.

As a representative, you push for your special interests.

As a governor, you do what's best for your state.

Pence got the endorsement from the much-liked former Republican governor Mitch Daniels (now president of Purdue) basically with the promise that he wouldn't pursue a social agenda. Mitch Daniels was liked because he focused almost exclusively on the economy and government efficiency. He gave no fucks about social issues, and it was implied that Pence, as the successor of Daniels, would set aside the social dogmas that he was known for and govern a state that was on a very good path, economically, after Mitch Daniels' two terms.

He didn't do that.

From day one, Pence didn't govern--he played national GOP politics. Whatever the big firey debate of the day was among the national GOP, he grabbed ahold of it and pretended to be its conservative crusader, even if it had absolutely zero relevance to the state of Indiana. He spent time, money, and resources on championing issues that Hoosiers didn't care about or didn't support, because he wanted to pander to the National GOP's ultra conservative base for his future career. Essentially, he was using Indiana as a stepping stone. He never cared about being governor. He always had higher aspirations, and the governorship was a stepping stone to a higher federal office. Most Hoosiers, left or right on the political spectrum, espouse this opinion about him.

As I said before, Mitch Daniels literally gave no fucks about social issues. Indiana is generally a conservative state, but it's never been a state particularly hung up on social issues, and it's never been a state that follows the national GOP's social platform. Indiana has, for as long as I've been alive, been a business Republican state--politicians like the Bushes, Mitt Romney, etc. We voted Obama into office, and prior to Mitch Daniels in 2005, we had 16 straight years of Democratic governorship. Indianapolis, the capital and largest city in the state, routinely switched between Republican and Democrat mayors, and it has managed to have long-term plans and continue its momentum regardless of which party is in office.

So Pence, with his national conservative GOP politics, has been an aberration that has directly harmed Indiana's image and its pocket book.

In the three years since Pence took office, he:
  • Pushed through legislation making harsher penalties for drug crimes against the protests of numerous major legal organizations including the Indiana Bar Association, as well as most Hoosiers
  • Inherited a phenomenal state balance sheet from Mitch Daniels and used it as an excuse to push tax cuts so extreme (would have caused a tremendous deficit) that the Republican-controlled Congress shut him down
  • Tried and failed to amend the Indiana constitution to ban gay marriage, despite widespread polling that showed that Hoosiers didn't support it, and despite the vociferous condemnation of virtually every major business in the state
  • Since his gay marriage amendment failed, he literally, as payback (not exaggerating, the signing ceremony was invite only, no media was allowed or invited, but someone leaked a picture that showed Pence surrounded by well-known anti-LGBT extremists), came back with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a genuine political circus. It humiliated Indiana on the national stage, directly harmed Indianapolis, and was met with, perhaps, the fiercest backlash by the people of any state in the Union. The extraordinary protests of Hoosiers and businesses allowed the state GOP leaders to basically coerce--to his visible chagrin--Pence to amend the law and "fix it" (this was actually the front page of the biggest newspaper in Indiana).
  • The RFRA was such a debacle that Pence ended up hiring an expensive out-of-state public relations firm to heal Indiana's national image. He couldn't answer why he chose an out-of-state firm. He couldn't answer why he chose such an expensive firm, when there are many firms in Indiana that could have done the job. It was eventually canceled, and was yet another waste of taxpayer money. To date, the RFRA has cost Indianapolis (a city that fought against it, changed the official tourism website to rainbow colors, and hung a huge rainbow banner at the airport) $60 million, and the total cost--to the economy and reputation--to the rest of the state is unknown.
  • During the gay marriage supreme court fight, he literally sent the Indiana attorney general to other states to advise them on how to craft their laws and fight gay marriage nationally. He did this on the taxpayer dollar. He continued to spend taxpayer money fighting gay marriage in the courts and with lawsuits despite, at the time, everyone knowing what the Supreme Court decision was going to be. It was basically a political stand by Pence; an expensive political stand that Hoosiers didn't support.
  • He fought to pass a law preventing cities from passing their own minimum wage statutes. Is this "small government"?
  • He has acted like a strongman (think Turkey's ErdoÄŸan), doing everything in his power to make Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent and an elected official, quit her job, and barring that, stripping her of the power given to her by the Indiana constitute and the Hoosiers that elected her through backroom deals, conspiracy, and highly technical legal challenges. Just Google "Mike Pence Glenda Ritz." You could write a thesis on it.
  • Everyone, literally everyone, was on board for receiving a huge federal grant for preschool funding. The Indiana Department of Education was literally in the final stages of the application process--and the federal government was happy with Indiana and going to give us an especially large chunk of money--when Pence came in and shut it down for no reason because accepting money from the feds became politically untenable among the national GOP tea partier crowd. And, of course, you can't be elected president--Pence's eyes were always on the future--without support from the GOP's far right base. After shutting down the process, he has recently been opining that it would be a good idea to get federal money to fund preschools... A year after he shit all over the Dept of Education's proposal to do just that.
  • The HIV epidemic in southern Indiana is out of control and among the worst in the country. Of course, we could provide free needles for heroin addicts like has been done in many states to curb HIV problems, but that is politically repugnant to Mike Pence. He also managed to get the Planned Parenthoods in that part of the state shut down, eliminating the opportunity for poor people to get tested. The HIV epidemic, which never had to be an epidemic, continues, and Pence gets to push the problem on our future governor as he goes to join Trump on the national stage.
  • Speaking of Planned Parenthood, Pence is highly proud of his accomplishment at passing the single most restrictive abortion law since Roe vs Wade. The law, HEA 1337 is far stricter than anything even in the Deep South and is almost certainly unconstitutional. He knows that it's probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Indiana taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for our attorney general to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, just so Pence could make his political statement.
  • He literally tried to make a state-run news agency that he would then give exclusive interviews and access to. I don't even know if that's legal, but he tried to do it and was promptly crucified by the media and even his own party.
  • He asserted authority to ban Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He has no authority. No governor has. He knew that, but he was planning to be a GOP presidential candidate, and he needed to show that he was strong and anti-Muslim refugee to appease the national GOP base. He took leadership role in this discriminatory crusade, appearing on national TV to preach his ignorance. This particular event managed to throw multiple refugee settlement organizations into disarray--which, by the way, actually include the Catholic Church of Indiana (the arch bishop of Indianapolis publicly criticized the governor)--and several Syrian refugees which were well into the process of moving to Indiana had to be relocated to another state. Pence didn't back down until the courts affirmed that his order was unconstitutional.
  • He shut down a highly successful energy efficiency program--one of the first in the nation, making Indiana a trailblazer--initiated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the support of previous governor Mitch Daniels. He did this for no good reason, other than to signal to his far-right constituents that he was fighting against Obama's evil despotic EPA.
This is all just in his three years in office. He is reviled across the state, and especially so in Indianapolis. There is (was--now that he's the VP nominee, he can no longer be governor) a bipartisan Pence Must Go campaign to get rid of him, and there are literally billboards and yard signs plastered all over the city. 

Pence is, by virtually all objective measures, one of the worst governors in recent Indiana history, at least in terms of working for the benefit of the state. He has basically focused on far-right Christian social conservative interests to the clear detriment of all else, most importantly the current and future well-being of the state's reputation and economy.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Clinton versus Trump

net neutrality
nationalizing the healthcare industry
Hillary Clinton's official position on health care isn't nationalization, but includes a public option and promoting Medicaid expansion. Donald Trump parrots Republican talking points, focusing on a repeal of Obamacare with some free-market-based suggestions. So I don't think "their stated opinions are the same".

Even if you disregard Trump's written position in favor of the various contradictory opinions he's expressed over the campaign, and somehow draw out of them an equal or preferable position to Clinton's - in practice, Trump will be working with Republicans in Congress and Clinton will be working with Democrats. Though he would have some influence of his own as president, he's hardly a complete renegade; aside from the above link, among other things, his official tax plan is based on the House GOP's, and his list of potential Supreme Court justices includes your typical conservatives. Needless to say, the Democratic and Republican parties as a whole have rather different opinions on healthcare nationalization.
re-nationalizing the prison industry
expanding education funding
and establishing modern educational techniques and certificates of attainment
Not enough detail here to determine whose education plan (aside from funding) you'd prefer, but they're certainly different.
using our existing anti-trust laws like a ban-hammer
extending employee protections
Clinton supports it. Trump doesn't seem to have much of a position, but his party certainly opposes it.
reducing the length and severity of patents
Neither candidate supports this itself, but Clinton's plan includes measures against patent trolls and ensuring the PTO is properly funded to, among other things, "ensure that only valid patents are issued".

The Influence of French Food on Japanese Culture

Today we are going to talk about French Food and their impact in Japanese culture.

French food has been a huge part of Japanese cuisine from the Meiji Era to the modern day. Japan is probably the biggest fan of French food, having several three-class Michelin starred restaurant and actually beating PARIS in terms of how popular French Food is today. French Food found its way in influencing several Japanese foodstuffs, and modern Japanese food in today’s world. As such, it’s going to be very big. I know some people don’t like it when I do really big write-ups, but when it’s big, it’s big for a good reason.

Some notes: for those that don’t know what Burdock tastes like, it has a texture that’s somewhat crunchy and it tastes like something between the meaty flavor of bacon with the slight saltiness and bitterness of anchovies. It’s really really good! So for those unfortunate souls that can’t eat bacon due to religious reasons, this can help explain what bacon taste like.

Also, wine is incredibly important business to the French. This is coming from the same country that declared a national emergency when California won their first international wine competition after all, and it’s still infamous today as the Judgement of Paris. Last time I checked, they still have a grudge on us Californians for that.

…By the Way, the scene where the chefs pray, that’s real. Real Life French Chefs pray to God to get through the shift, especially on hell days (Days which the most profit is made) like Weekends, Holidays, giant reservation meetings. As a famous French Chef once put it, “The religious should pray to God during these harsh times, and if you’re an atheist, pray to God anyways because you’re gonna believe in God soon enough after this shift is over”

Anyways, where to begin…

French Food first started to appear in the Japanese diet during the late 1800s in the Meiji Era. Remember Emperor Meiji and that giant super-student transfer program that sent a lot of men towards Britain? Well today we’re gonna focus on the French side. I’m very excited to talk about this part in history, because when Japan talks about outside influence Meiji Era, they always focus on Britain. Granted, it’s understandable, considering the British Empire was at its height at this point, several of Japan’s famous ships like the Mikasa and Kongou were British-built ships, and A lot of Japan’s policies were very British-based, to the point where Emperor Showa tried to advertise Japan as “the Eastern Grat Britain”.

So to recap, the super-student transfer program Emperor Meiji made had these goals in mind: Make allies with as many European countries as possible, get them to send as much military Equipment as possible to Japan, and to get Japan to learn as much information on whatever they have in Europe, whether it’s European philosophy, industry, science, and culture. France at this time gladly accepted Japan as an ally, and told them to send as much people as they want over. In addition, France built some battleships to send to Japan, but not as much as Britain (France didn’t have as much resources and territory as Britain, and Japan was more buddies with Britain, but they still liked France), and Japanese people set foot in France.

Now imagine you are a Japanese person in France at this time. You never exited your country before, and this is the first time outside Japan. In your paper, Emperor Meiji gave you the task to learn anything involving European culture. This was like a huge thing for you, as the Emperor was kind enough to pay for your ticket and all you needed to do was learn something to bring back to Japan.

This was a huge moment for any Japanese person to step outside their country, a whole new world. While many focused on industry, military matters and science, while some focused on government laws and philosophy, some Japanese decided to go look into the cultural side, and learn how to cook French food, and these became the first Japanese French chefs. When they came back to Japan, Emperor Meiji hired these first Japanese-french chefs to his royal Kitchen, so Emperor Meiji can improve the cultural parts of Japan he felt were outdated before by the samurai. Others opened French Restaurants in Japan, and they made a LOT of money. More on this later. In addition, Emperor Meiji promoted the consumption of French food in many other ways, such as the time Japan had its first world meeting with multiple representatives. Emperor Meiji invited diplomats all over the world, and he asked France to send in several chefs to show that Japan can be a royal country as the Europeans. This was a massive shocker to the Washoku (Traditional Japanese) community at the time, because before the emperor would borrow chefs from their kitchens, but here Emperor Meiji decired to hire foreign chefs for their feasting.

Now I would like you all to note that throughout the Meiji, Taisho, and Showa Eras pre-WWII that French Food, while popular amongst the rich, was not growing in popularity despite Emperor Meiji advertising French Food as the best thing ever, because Emperor Meiji promoting French food as great ironically made European food really Expensive.

You see, when the first Japanese French chefs set up shops, they were often visited by noblemen and the Emperor himself whenever he got the chance. The First Japanese French Chefs realized that this was an incredible way to exploit this and they made money. A lot of money. Indeed, they made so much money that even pretty wealthy families that ate kaiseki and big places couldn’t afford to eat French Food. This gave French Food a whole meaning of wealthy all on its own to the point where there was a phrase that said, “The Rich may eat Kaiseki (Rich Japanese food) but the Emperor eats French food”. This also unfortunately gave the impression that anybody eating French food that wasn’t connected to government as either insanely rich, criminally corrupt, or both. Just to give you an impression on how hard it was to get French food, the easiest way for a man to get the one chance to eat it was to join the navy (Which was much more harsh compared to many other navies), slowly go up the ranks, and pray that you live long enough to be stationed aboard a battleship like the Yamato. That’s the EASY way. The HARD version is to somehow get into Japanese politics and gain influence, but do not get assassinated. But anyways, just to give you an estimate on how much money the Japanese French chef made, one particular French chef made enough money to:
  • Buy a Japanese mansion, complete with garden and tea house (REALLY EXPENSIVE)
  • A private hunting ground, complete with smokehouse for ducks and deer
  • Enough money to travel around the world several times over.
  • Money to send his son, and later grandson to go to the top colleges and kitchens all around the world.
  • Money to spend on really expensive wines.
Keep in mind, this is just one person, and yet he managed to make so much money that even in today’s economy, that’s still a lot of money.

So this gave the Japanese the impression that French Chefs are like literal money makers, but the thing was that despite the amount of money French chefs made, the Japanese government was looking for more industrial tech to modernize Japan and military men to modernize the military, so the Japanese French community was pretty monopolized.

So moving on to the Early Showa Era.

The Early Showa Era had a bit of a decline in the popularity on French Food. There are two reasons for this: The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1929 and the rise of Nationalism. The Great Kanto Earthquake caused a giant famine in the region, causing a massive loss in interest in “rich people food” as famines tend to do. Another thing was the rise of Nationalism. During this time, conservative party members like Hideki Tojo rose into politics, and they promoted Washoku Japanese foods, creating a massive decrease in French food. However, in a sense of what can be described as irony and hypocrisy, the conservatives and the Emperor themselves loved French Food, and they spent a lot of money going to those monopolized French Restaurants. Indeed, one of the people who loved French Food was Emperor Showa himself. Emperor Showa LOVED French Food, and a large budget was entirely devoted to spending money on French duck dishes, which were Emperor Showa’s favorite foods. The Military generals in the Imperial Japanese Navy (Note the Navy part) also loved French Food, and indeed, the IJN actually promoted propaganda that encouraged young men to Join the navy on the one chance common people may be able to enjoy eating the foods of the rich. Indeed, Japan’s capital ships, like the Yamato and Musashi had French chefs stationed aboard them, and sailors that got the rare privilege on serving aboard the ship got to experience the wonders of the rich. Indeed, Admiral Yamamoto (The guy who bombed Pearl Harbor) enjoyed the Yamato’s consume (A French soup) so much that he gained weight from eating the food. Anyways, this gave the IJN a sort of love hate for the Yamato, as while sailors were enjoying the high life on the Yamato, they didn’t sortie, so this gave the impression that Yamato was a “hotel” of sorts.

World War II began, and French food wasn’t bought as much. It was kind of seen as politically incorrect to eat French food unless you were the Emperor, and French Food was eaten exclusively by the rich. Again. Also, Yamato’s chef got killed during the Battle of Bounomisaki (Ten-go) and went down with the Yamato. Moving on, since not much really happened in World War II in this subject. But Post War gets really important.

Post-War

Okay, so the year is 1945 now. Let’s talk about the state of the world at this time.

The atomic bomb has dropped, changing warfare forever. Britain’s giant empire is rapidly falling apart. France, Germany, and Italy are destroyed and need to repair badly. Russia was preparing for the Cold War. The Japanese spent so much money on the war, that the economy is rekt. The only person that made it through alright was America.

Since America was the only one that made it out WWII intact and actually gained in the war, they had to fix the world. Naturally, America saw Japan’s economy and shoved a bunch of money to create the POST WAR ECONOMIC MIRACLE, which got the economy running somewhat. But there was the problem with creating jobs. You see, when America took apart the military, there was a surplus of young men who wanted to join the military, but without the military, they were out of a job. So America interviewed many youths, and noted that many had ambitions to be a French Chef. So America calls France.

America: Hey France, how you doing?

France: we got pretty blown badly during the war, many of our males are dead, our population is trying to rebuild but we need more people to fill in some vacant jobs to succeed in places.

America: Are chefs some of them?

France: Yes! We need more trainees in the kitchens, and some chefs that graduated were going to open restaurants, but our cityside has been destroyed, so they can’t set up shops.

Then America has a genius idea.

America: Well, we got plenty of Japanese people who want to be French Chefs, why don’t we send them to you to train with your older chefs, who need apprentices, while you send their top apprentices to Japan and they can train the next generation and open restaurants there? As a bonus, I’ll pay for everything.

France: We French chefs are the best in the world! Send them over! We’ll train them to be the best chefs! Also, we’ll send our guys to them to train and profit.

(Replace France with Italy and you get the Italy boom in Japan, but that’s another story for another time)

So many young males (Note the Males, high-class cooking was traditionally seen as a male thing, Females entering the area of high class cooking is a kinda recent thing), ranging from dropouts, people who had bad records in schools, people who realize they could turn a new leaf, military men out on a job realized the potential on the high amount of money they can make, realized that they can make a lot of money. So many males signed up for the exchange program, and many Japanese people went to France, while some French chefs travelled to Japan to teach the newer generation on how to cook French chefs. One of these people was a young Joel Robuchon, the legendary God of Cooking, also famous for popularizing Soy Sauce to the west.

So many Japanese travelled to Paris, excited to learn French Food. Instead, they experienced a battlefield.

So you’d expect many of them to simply learn French food, right? Well, no, because France is the birthplace of the infamous Paris system. To describe the Paris system, imagine if Tootsuki was filled with racists and the culinary equivalent of videogamers who play hard modo all the time. Something like that. One famous Japanese chef described the scene as “hell”.

Now here’s the thing you need to know about Paris in the cooking world. Paris has an infamous reputation for being the “Battlefield of Job Applicants” in the cooking world, as not only is impressing the chef not only hard, but Paris has an 85-90%* chance of people getting fired, and whoever gets fired can get replaced just as easily because there will be always another person who will fill the spot for minimum wage, so unless you are extremely bold and want to keep working, you have to be at your top game 100% of the time, because in the Paris system, you literally are expendable. This is also why chefs who do really well in their resumes practically can get hired in any restaurant they choose and have a much easier time opening restaurants. Paris has an infamous habit of “purging” many good chefs for producing excellent chefs. Kinda like Tootsuki, only more racist.

Indeed, many Japanese during that time got their applicants rejected on account of being Japanese, or having a Japanese tone in their accent. (In the cooking world, communications are important, so having an accent can be a disadvantage in high-class places). Those people that do got in had to deal with racist French chefs trying to kick them out and other Japanese chefs trying to compete to be as successful. The Japanese had such a hard time finding jobs, that some decided to kowtow and bow down in front of the restaurant doors, literally staying there for several days until hunger gets to them, just hoping to get an interview for a job application with the French chefs. Many French chefs came home either just as empty handed or learned small skills, some used them to create new trends, but for the few Japanese people who trained, endured, and worked hard, they experienced heaven. They got to work with the finest ingredients nobody ever gets to touch, sample the finest wines in the country, and they got to work with the French Chefs they admired so much. They literally climbed the culinary Everest, and were on the top of the world. Indeed, when they got back home, their hometown celebrates their return like they won a massive war. The entire hometown would throw celebrations, invite classmates and teachers, and party. These people became famous for being the 1st Generation Japanese-French chefs.

Now before we continue, I’d like to talk about the 4 great generations of French Chefs.

The generation we talked about was the first Generation of Chefs. Out of the 4, these ones tend to stick most to the classique French techniques, and are most famous for their sauces. I would like you to all also note that out of the 4 generations, this was the generation where the majority got through from the deals made by America, as the 2nd-4th generation got to France via Japanese-French agreements once Japan started making money again by America’s POST WAR ECONOMIC MIRACLE/spent the money to travel to France. Members in this category are Iron Chefs Ishinabe and Sakai, although Sakai is an unusual case because he also combines a lot of Nouvelle techniques.

The Second Generation are famous for combining a balance between Classique and Nouvelle, and were some of the people who sparked the dessert revolution in Japan, the time when Japanese chefs adopted French techniques to incorporated it into wagashi, thus giving boom to new trends. Famously introduced ice cream and crepes to Japan.

The Third Generation are top Nouvelles, are liberal in their interpretation of French Food, preferring to use more vegetables than the typical French and using a lot of Natural flavors, mixing a few Japanese touches in the food. It’s hinted that Shinomiya is a Third Generation, considering how he uses a lot of vegetables and his sauces don’t look heavy (a staple of Nouvelle cuisine).

I admit I do not know much about the 4th generation, but I do know that they recently set up shops in France, and French Chefs have been really angry that their customers are going to their stores, so there’s a culinary war developing in France there.

Anyways, the difference between Japanese French Food and Regular French food comes in 3 ways. First, Japanese chefs use more vegetables in their dishes, and incorporate it into the main dish, while Traditional French Chefs use vegetables more as a garnish. 2nd, Japanese French sauces tend to be more light to reflect part of the Japanese ideals of sauces, making it similar to Nouvelle French. The final part is that Japanese chefs are much more delicate and intricate in their decorating compared to the French, who are much more bold with the food.

The French-Japanese Culinary War

The amount of these successful Japanese French chefs coming back weren’t welcomed by everyone, however. Indeed, by setting up restaurants and businesses all over Japan, the French Chefs angered the Washoku (Traditional Japanese) chefs all over Japan. The Washoku chefs accused the Japanese French chefs of being culture traitors, while the French Chefs called the Japanese chef old-school conservatives who are too stubborn for change. It was, at first, a small conflict. Then it grew big. Really big. Then it turned out into an almost outright war of attrition, the culinary conflict we call today the French-Japanese Culinary War. This also makes Hinako’s… Crush on Shinomiya in Eitolle kind of hilarious, as the two culinary communities, while respectful of each other, hate each other in real life.

The French-Japanese culinary war split Japan in 2: Those that like French Food and those that like Japanese food. The French-Japanese Culinary War saw a massive boom in new restaurants appearing, then the weaker restaurants getting eliminated by jealous rival restaurants, a literal Free-for all deathmatch with some resemblance of teamwork, alliances, and backstabbings here and there, kind of like politics, only culinary. Tokyo turned into a battlefield, almost as intense as the streets of Paris, and entire shopping districts had to have their maps redrawn several times just because of the amount of competition and elimination the two factions had trying to outdo each other. By the way, I have to mention this: this conflict is STILL GOING ON TODAY. It’s a huge subject I absolutely have to talk about.

Now one thing you all have to note is that Washoku chefs do not HATE French Food itself. Indeed, there are several times where French and Japanese Chefs cooperated and create beautiful and tasty dishes that are above and beyond. What Washoku chefs hate are the fact that French chefs are entering their territory and taking customers, prestige, and the like away from the Restaurants with French Food.

So how did the conflict escalate to such an extent? Well, 4 things, really: Land Animal usage, customer spending, Nationalism, and reviews.

First important point I have to have to mention is the French usage of Land animal meat. Remember back in my beef stew writeup when I mentioned the whole Washoku-Yoshoku split on how the Washoku factions were really angry on the usage of land animal meat, especially beef?

Well, this is going to come back, full force.

Meat gained a MASSIVE popularity post-WW2 because of the French Chefs, and more people began eating more meat, especially beef. The Japanese Chefs, more bound to tradition, were furious that meat became more popular, as it drove the value, popularity, and worth of the seafood-based dishes the Washoku chefs made down. In addition, traditionally, Japanese dishes were made with seafood and many were reluctant or very outright refused to convert to meat, so they had a harder time with the changing trends compared to the newer chefs who did adapt to cooking with land animal meat.

The 2nd thing, customers, was another big issue. Before the 1950s, French Food was just a rich-people’s club, and many were scared of the thought of spending hundreds of dollars on food, so the French community in Japan were a very niche group. They disliked each other, but there wasn’t a conflict between the groups because both groups mostly kept to their customers.

However, with the rise of French Chefs post 1950, this drove the prices of French food down to a still expensive, but much more affordable state, so while the newly set up French chefs may not have made quite as much money as that one guy I mentioned in part 1, it’s still a lot of money, but they also got a much bigger spending range for eager customers, with the not as rich finally being able to try French Food after so long. But how did the Japanese French chefs managed to get so many people to come to their stores? Well, aside from advertising, they did some deals. Great Deals. They made deals that made it much more attractive for people who want to try rich foods to try French better. One example is that Japanese French Chefs made deals like “if you reserve for a party here, we can make you a great deal that everyone can spend on”, thus making it much more attractive for huge business leaders to dine in French Restaurants. But the biggest territory the Japanese French chefs treaded on that really pissed the Japanese chefs are wedding deals.

Now for a little context: In Asian culture, marriages are serious businesses. When two Asians marry, they invite the ENTIRE FAMILY, from Parents, to uncles and aunts, cousins, siblings, their sibling’s children, EVERYONE, even Crazy Uncle Joe that lives halfway across the world, and they spend a lot of money to celebrate. In Asian Restaurants, marriage reservations are serious money makers, due to how many expensive ingredients they get to break out. A usual marriage can make a profit of several thousands to the hundreds, depending on how big the marriage is, so some successful restaurants made profits and names alone just catering to marriages. The thing is though, is that Japanese Marriages are extreme in the fact that the typical Shinto marriage can go from $100,000-500,000 depending on how many family members show up (Read: A lot) and there are several restaurants that go to the MILLIONS.

The French decided to play at the Japanese game, but offer a slightly CHEAPER (Read: Still expensive, Your wallet will cry but it won’t be so bad compared to the RIP Wallet Prices of a Shinto Marriages) price. This got more Japanese people to romanticize European Marriages, the Bridal dress, and cause European Romance boom, and those French Chefs that do cater to marriages made a lot of money, but at the same time really pissed off the Washoku factions, who before had the monopoly on marriages.

The Third Reason, Nationalism, is a complicated subject. Going with reasons 1 and 2, the Washoku factions are known to be, well, very politically conservative. As in, they are afraid that the Japanese people, with all these new businesses setting up in their homelands, may forget that they are Japanese. To be fair to the Washoku factions, they are not entirely unjustified. For example, in a recent magazine article, there was a sentence that said that Japan was the “haven of new and innovative French Foods”. However, the Washoku factions do not want to be known as that, because if tourists travel to Japan, they want to eat Japanese foods. It’s a serious issue that is very political, and they do have some justification.

And lastly, we get reviews. In High class dining, reviews are serious businesses. Having all good reviews can seriously cause a rise in sales, while having just one bad review can send customers away, and thus reviews can get serious at times. However, in some reviews, like Michelin, they tend to be biased on French Cuisine, and indeed, the term “French Bias” is actually a very big thing thrown around by a lot of different cuisine chefs, especially the Japanese. The Japanese French Restaurants, being French cuisine and having food similar to what the reviewers liked, catered more to the palettes of the foreign reviews of well known guidebooks, such as Michelin, Zagat, and other reputable reviewers. This again, pisses off the Japanese in the sense that a reviewer that critiques the food specializes and favors French food, thus they get higher scores. Again, the Washoku factions are not entirely unjustified, as seen in the Zagat Controversy.

What is the Zagat Controversey? Well, in 1998-1999, Zagat released a guidebook, and chefs everywhere bought the guides, as per custom. While many French Chefs got high praises, none of the restaurants listed were Washoku restaurants. Riots then promptly proceeded to break out everywhere, with accusations of French Bias being yelled out, and the guide even infuriated the wrath of (Former) Iron Chef Rokusaburo Michiba to the point where he and Toshiro Kandegawa (Keep in mind, these two chefs, while respectful of each other, really disliked each other in real life because Kandegawa was a conservative (As in, followed the traditional path of making food) while Michiba was a liberal (As in, went beyond the boundaries of tradition), so these two men actually agreeing with each other was a huge shock to everyone) agreed that the guide was biased, and Michiba, with a very tranquil fury, promptly used his connections with the Show Iron Chef just to fly the Zagats over and get the Washoku community better reviews, which they did do another, more fair analysis of the restaurants in their next guide. Keep in mind that the Washoku community still does get very angry whenever a French Restaurant shines through, and this is a very sore subject, considering how if I recalled, a very recent magazine that had a French Restaurant winning in Tokyo really got the Washoku community up in flames.

SOURCE

Why the US "Debt" Doesn't Matter

We have ~270 trillion in assets and ~150 trillion in grand total debts. That is what they call the US "financial position". It also leaves us with a net worth of 130 trillion. It doesn't mean that we'll suddenly sell California to settle a debt with China; but the earning power of a country is in part predicated on assets. A country which is large, geographically isolated and secure, with high technological development and many ports and rich natural resources is always going to have a strong earning potential.

It's like looking at a man with 50k in credit card debt and only 5k in the bank. But he has a mansion worth 1 million that he owns in its entirety. 1m in equity, well in excess of its debts.

Yes, Nixon divided the dollar from gold. And yes, we have a huge amount of "theoretical" cash in the world which outweighs physical cash of coins, paper bills, and rare minerals. But the US has land, territories, legal rights. It has trading contracts with other countries, something that Britain, with is recent exit from the EU, can tell you are incredibly valuable things, and a bitch to negotiate. We have manufacturing, we have brands, technologies, an international reputation, and we have taxable citizens with career prospects and educations who represent a strong annual income in the form of taxes for many years to come.

These realities make the deficits pale in comparison. Look at how favorable the US Federal Governments borrowing rates are. Why do you think countries are willing to lend to us for such low interest rates? Because the prospects of our future earning power are incredibly strong. Our deficits are just one tiny drop in our potential future earnings, and like any creditor, countries with available liquidity are more than happy to lend, and therefore make money, to a country with robust earning power, and a net worth well in excess of our current debts.

In fact, just to hit home how strong the US' position really is, the US owns thirty four percent of the global total wealth. Let that sink in. We own a little over a third of all the wealth in the entire world. There's 200-some odd countries, and if you put every single one of them together over us, they only double our wealth. China only owns 9%.

So use that to remind any slack-jawed drool spewling Trump voter who claims we aren't "winning" anymore.

EDIT: I would also just like to point out that what people are referring to when they talk about China's economy is its growth. In the last twenty years, China has more than doubled the size of its economy - but that's because it was only doubling a single digit number. Can you imagine what it takes to grow our economy at this point?

Capitalism depends on growth. This is why China is so enormously important. You can't shove Apple products down American's throats nearly as fast, because Americans already have shit. Sure, there is always the stray idiot who trades his perfectly fine iPhone 6 in for a shitty iPhone 7 after owning it for only a year, but these idiots are rare. However in places like China, strong growth combines with a strong need, specifically, a need for Western goods like iPhone, and clothes, and Hollywood movies, and all the things that we are saturated with, but they are not, and all their growing middle class for which these things would previously have been incomprehensible luxuries are suddenly able to afford them and are buying with a fervor.

The ideal consumer in a capitalist world is someone who has a great deal of disposable wealth but a relative lack of things. That's China right now. They're building cities, modern Western amenities, adopting Western needs for clothing and cosmetics and all the things we know and love and make. And so with their newfound wealth they buy, and buy, and buy, and buy.

But this is the paradoxical thinking in capitalist economies. To be huge is sometimes seen as a problem; to be becoming huge is seen as an incredible asset. The same with companies; some companies grow so large that growth is virtually impossible. Even though they are stable, and paying all their bills, stable companies are not as attractive to investors as growing companies. If I have 1m dollars, where would I be more likely to invest it: in a giant company whose stock value, while high, never moves? Or some small but fast-growing up-and-comer, whose stock value is low, but whose value is guaranteed to grow? No question: invest in the grower, because your 1m investment will grow relative to the growth of their stock.

China is currently this growing economy, and in a capitalist global structure, you need growth. Because in America, where we already have everything, and are relatively saturated, you need to either A) invent radically new products and technologies which no one has but everyone wants (smartphones were an example of this, but experts predict the number of these types of advancements are shrinking), or you B) find a foreign economy whose citizens are growing richer but are not saturated with our products yet.

China fuels global growth because as they grow, they need things. Countries and companies sell things; thus, China fuels growth. China needs oil, steel, minerals, food - they need a lot to fuel their economic growth, but at some point (maybe soon), their growth will slow. And that means other countries and companies will sell less than they are currently selling, and they'll be back to the drawing board.

This is where the trouble is. Not in debts, but in slowing economies. This is why it is also wise, for all of us, to invest in the growth of pre-industrialized nations. The better they do, the better we all do, because we open up new markets to export our goods and therefore strengthen our economies.

This means we are in a state of mutual dependence - China offers cheaper labor and materials for American manufacturing, but they also offer a gigantic wealthier population to gobble up those goods at retail prices.

But when China's demand slows - when its growth slows down, our GDP shrinks, because there are simply less people available to buy the things our country manufactures.

EDIT EDIT: Wow! Triple gold, thank you to everyone who commented. This was a pretty big shock to me on a third-tier comment I didn't think would ever see the light of day. Honored and humbled.

Everyone has had some great dialog beneath this - even my detractors! I love good, open debate, and the subsequent debate this post fostered is worth more to me than gilding (though gilding is great too! Even though gold isn't nearly as valuable as Glenn Beck may lead you to believe it is).

Couple things: Yes, I insulted Trump voters, and iPhone 7 buyers. No, I'm not sorry. Yes, it was a little unprofessional. Fairness to me, I had no anticipation this post would gain the visibility it did, or prompt the discussions it did; if I had, I would have probably been a little more polite (though isn't frankness and vulgarity Trump's big appeal with you people?) I, too, as a human, enjoy throwing around phonetically appealing vulgarities on Reddit late at night. I really dislike Hillary too, and still haven't returned my potentially explosive Note7 yet, if its any consolation.

When I wrote this, I was speaking off-the-cuff; many people have nicely, and sometimes not so nicely, pointed out misspeaks, like Britain technically not having exited the EU yet, the fact that the Fed Gov't doesn't technically own all recorded assets in the US financial position (immaterial), that my metaphors aren't perfectly symmetrical with the concepts I'm using them to describe (I was never much of a poet). I'm immensely grateful for the response, the compliments, and for all of the many nuanced discussions that have taken place below. If this topic interests people, I encourage you, please read this thread in its entirety, and listen to what a lot of smart people have had to say about it, and then continue on your own research.

As a final disclaimer, in this OP, i was not trying to advocate that everything is peachy and rosy and sunny in global economics. We have a lot of challenges. And $19t in debt isn't doomsday, but it isn't a figure to celebrate, either. There have been financial missteps. There continue to be financial missteps. Wealth inequality, over-regulation in some sectors, under-regulation in others. Read, and be informed, and bring that to the voting booth in this very important upcoming election. Most of congress is up for the taking. I won't tell you who to pick - but a positive national net worth doesn't mean things can't hurt and be unpleasant for us. Vigilance of an informed public is the best way to make sure politicians don't use historically boring financial subjects to inflict grievous harm on our economy.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

On a Healthy Marriage and Why Marriages Fail

Here are the most common mistakes I've seen (my own as well as collectively) in the failed and struggling marriages I've seen:
  • One or both spouses have unresolved childhood baggage issues that will rear its head in their adult relationships. Examples of these include (but not limited to) physical or emotional abuse/neglect in the home; sexual abuse; one or both parents had substance abuse/addiction issues; one or both partners came from a divorced or single parent household. Among the many reasons why this is such a significant factor is if you grow up in a dysfunctional environment, you have no idea how dysfunctional and unhealthy it really is. To you, its normal, it is all you've ever known. So if Mom and Dad resolved conflict by getting drunk, yelling at each other and then not speaking for days, guess what you have a chance of modeling as an adult in your own relationships?
  • Understanding what "marriage as a priority" really means. When you get married, your marriage has to be the main priority in your life. Not your career, not your spouse (i.e. don't put them on a pedestal), not your kids, not your hobbies or your personal fitness. The fact is, when you get married, you no longer get to call all of the shots. Gotten used to staying up all night playing XBOX with your boys on weekends? Not going to work in a marriage for an extended period of time. You're going to have to accept the fact that if you want to have a healthy marriage, compromise is your new word of the day. In some cases you may have to give things up entirely, or learn to say "no for now." While this often tends to be more of a struggle for men, women can also struggle with this issue. I'm not saying that getting married means giving up you completely, or kiss all of your favorite activities goodbye. What I am saying is, if you want your marriage to be healthy, you now have someone else in your life who gets an equal (not dominant--equal) say in how you spend your free time.
  • Poor communication skills. A shockingly high number of adults lack basic healthy communication skills and conflict resolution skills. Its heart breaking to have conversations with struggling couples who won't speak to each other with a kind word for any reason. Both spouses should feel that their marriage is the one safe place in the world for each other. Unfortunately, in many instances, it is the last place a spouse can go for emotional safety. If you don't feel your partner is your first friend, your best friend, your most trusted friend, then something is broken in your communications with each other.
  • Vastly different backgrounds. Don't get me wrong. Anyone can be successfully married to someone else if both people are committed to it and willing to work on it. But most of the time, that's just not the case. Societal/familial pressures are real, and it is important to assess them if you find yourself in a relationship that is impacted by them. Are you dating a trust fund baby/very wealthy child and you are the Jack Dawson? Tread carefully. It makes a great movie, but statistically, Rose winds up marrying Cal far more often than running off with Jack, because she doesn't want to deal with the family pressure or get cut off financially. Sorry, that's reality, not the movies.
  • Similar to different backgrounds, different motivations in life. Do you know what your partner wants out of life? Do they aspire to be an artist who welds clown sculptures out of mufflers? That's great, but will it support the two of you, and if it won't, will you be okay supporting them while they're making Pennywise the Dual Exhaust Killer? Do they want to be a stay at home parent? Are you okay being the sole breadwinner? What if it is the reverse?
  • One. Union. Combined. Together. This notion is one that I see a lot of guys--especially high wage earners who are the sole income for the family--stumble over. Whether you are religious or not, the fact is when you get married you are no longer two individuals. You're one. The law sees you that way, the tax code (at least in the US) sees you that way, and society sees you that way. There is no such thing as "mine and yours" in a marriage. There is only "ours." The faster you get that concept nailed down, the better off you'll be. I've seen many marriages collapse just over this issue alone.
  • Marriage is not an event, its a journey. So many couples stop trying to pursue each other after the wedding day. Guys and girls do this. Stereotypically/historically, men tend to focus on their careers/making money; women tend to focus on raising the children and/or managing the household. (I realize not in every situation) Both spouses stop taking time to compliment each other, appreciate each other, go out on dates, weekend getaways, or generally just spending time chasing after each other. They take each other for granted and begin to drift apart. "We just fell out of love" is one of the most common phrases I hear in couples struggling, and the sad thing is, its one of the easiest traps to avoid.
  • Friends and family around the marriage. This is especially hard for people who come from dysfunctional families. When you get married, your new spouse automatically gets moved to the front of the line. In front of your parents, siblings, lifelong besties, etc. They're great to have in your life, but all of them have to take a distant back seat to your new spouse. If you're a guy who has had a doting mother all your life and she's told you what to do, who to marry, where to go to college, etc, you have a tough job ahead of you. The Monster-In-Law stereotype exists for a reason. If your new wife turns pale when your Mom's number pops up on your cellphone, you need to talk to your wife and find out what boundaries she'd like to have installed. If you are Daddy's little girl and nobody has ever been good enough in your Dad's eyes, its time for you to tell Dad that you're so grateful for his love and support, but Jim is more than good enough in your eyes, so you need him to be in his eyes, too. And sadly, if you have friends or family members who are toxic to you or your marriage, you may be forced to make a very difficult decision in your life. Anyone who sits around bitching about how much they hate their life, their spouse, their kids or how you're going to eventually feel the same way about yours--put distance between you as fast as you possibly can. We tend to adopt the attitudes of the company we keep. So if you spend all your time with negative people...guess where you're going to be mentally?
  • Date to establish trust. Time is actually your friend, not your enemy. Do not ignore ANY red flag you see in a relationship. Examine it for what it is, then determine if it is something you can work through with the other person, or is it something they refuse to acknowledge or deal with? If you're dating someone who is selfish and they refuse to see it, they will not magically become unselfish because you were kind enough to marry them. Red Flags ignored in dating will become the rocks upon which your marriage boat smashes in the coming storms. If there are multiple red flags and they won't talk to you about any of them, walk away. It doesn't matter if you've already moved in, share the bank account, the dog, and a car. Get out now. If they're not willing to work on things that impact the security of a relationship today, you can count on them not working on them after you get married.
Marriage is not easy. It requires a lot of work sometimes, even when you are both on the same page, have great communication, great sex (which will happen very easily if the rest of the relationship is healthy by the way) and great chemistry. People get sick, they get laid off, their family members die, children get sick, get hurt in accidents, friends have affairs, get divorced...life is challenging and it impacts our relationships, sometimes in ways we're not expecting or prepared for. If you're not willing to value your marriage above everything else in your life, its going to be really hard for it to survive the day in and day out challenges of living.

Decline of the American Middle Class

The concept of a large, affluent middle class is the cornerstone of the American dream. A dream in which anyone with a high school diploma and hard work could easily afford a nice house in the suburbs and two cars. Americans assume that this is the way the universe should work. That Americans have the "God given right" to the American dream. 

However, this reality of a wealthy and prosperous middle class is not the natural state of things, but a by product of a very unique set of historical circumstances, specifically, the end of World war II.

At the end of the Second World war, the US was the only major industrial power left with its industry and infrastructure unscathed. This gave the US a dramatic economic advantage over the rest of the world, as all other nations had to buy pretty much all the manufactured goods they needed from the US, and use their cheap natural resources as form of payment As a consequence, the American owners of the capital and means of production had to rely heavily on the American relatively small (on a Global scale) and highly skilled work force, since they had no one else to hire to men the factories. 

This gave the working class a lot of leverage to claim for itself a decent share of the high profits the American industrial complex in the post world war II world. This allowed for the phenomenal growth of the US middle class we saw in the 50s and 60s. A growth so incredible, that while the US middle class made up less than 5% of the world's population, it consumed 1/3 of its resources.
However, over time, the other industrial powers in Europe and Asia rebuild themselves and started to compete with the US. Not only that, but countries like Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, India, China, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, South Korea, Vietnam and more also became industrialized. 

This meant that they were no longer selling their natural resources cheaply in exchange for US made industrial goods. Quite the contrary, they themselves started to bid against the US for natural resources to fuel their own industries. 

And more importantly, the US work force was no longer was the only one qualified to work on modern factories and to have proficiency over modern industrial processes. This meant that the US middle class could no longer easily outbid pretty much everyone else for natural resources, and the owners of the capital and means of production no longer dependent solely on this small and highly skilled work force. 

Many other countries now had an industrial base that rivals or surpasses that of the US, and a qualified work force to operate modern factories, if US companies chose to move productions out of the US. This meant that they also had their own middle classes that was able to bid against the US middle class for those limited global resources. And more importantly, manufacturers now can engage in global wage arbitrage, by moving production to a country with cheaper labor.
And the consequences of this global wage arbitrage? 

A dramatic, unprecedented and unimaginable drop in world poverty. 

Where once the American middle class was so wealthy that it voraciously consumed 1/3 of the world resources, that wealth has been redistributed around the world, thanks to globalization. This means that we are going back to the normal, where the US middle class is not that different from the middle classes from the rest of the world. 

The US middle class will get poorer, while the rest of the world will leave abject poverty and join a new, more modest middle class. And both the poorer US middle class and the emerging global middle class will meet at some middle ground. 

It is a "return to the mean" and that cannot be changed.  This is where the decline of the US middle class is coming from. There are no political solutions for it. It is the way it is. Any politician who claims to be able to restore "the good old days" is lying.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Mother Tersea was not a Saint

  • She ran hospitals (If an institution with a 40% mortality rate is actually classifiable as a hospital) like prisons, particularly cruel and unhygienic prisons at that. Children in her care were tied to their beds to prevent them misbehaving. She let the terminally ill (and even those with illnesses that would have been curable if her 'hospitals' were run better) die without pain relief because suffering bought them closer to Jesus
  • Most of the money donated to her causes was filtered back into the (already exceedingly rich) Catholic Church, or used to expand her 'charities' to new regions, rather than actually helping those in her care, many of whom were starving and lacking basic medical care... Basically she didn't love the poor and hungry, she loved poverty and hunger, she saw suffering as a grace and despite being lauded as a humanitarian given the fame and donations she had at her disposal did relatively little practical good.
  • She befriended and defended a genocidal dictator, Jean-Claude 'Baby Doc' Duvalier, and accepted donations from him of money extorted from the very poor she was supposedly helping as well as drug dealing and body part trafficking.
  • She accepted and refused to return profits of criminal activity. Including one and a quarter million US dollars in cash and use of a private jet from convicted racketeer and fraudster Charles Keating who stole over $3 Billion from US taxpayers in the 80's and 90's... Upon his conviction not only did Mother Teresa and The Catholic Church refuse to return the money they had received from him, Mother Teresa actually tried to use her influence to have him let off or at least sentenced leniently.
  • She publicly defended known pedophiles from within the clergy, including trying to use her influence to have leniency shown in sentencing of convicted child rapist Donald McGuire and campaigning to have him reinstated to the priesthood and allowing him to continue his work... even though this work would inevitably bring him into regular contact with children.
  • Because so much of the money she raised went to the church not the poor she hated waste in her hospitals, insisting staff reused needles until they were too blunt to continue using... even in known HIV high risk areas.
  • She directed a mere 7% of the monies her charities raised directly those she was supposedly helping... With much of the rest ending up in secret bank accounts and as yet still unaccounted for.
  • She routinely baptised those dying under her care regardless of their own wishes or religious beliefs.
  • She opposed both abortion and contraception, even in cases of incest, abuse and rape.
  • She praised and supported Ireland's anti-divorce laws... even in cases where spousal abuse was apparent, forcing countless women to live out lives of slavery and torture.Basically pretty much everything about her was evil, but the churches PR machine didn't have a hard job spinning a kindly looking old women stood amongst some of the poorest people in the world to look lie a saint, and once that side of the story was cemented in the press it became all most people saw of her.
Sources:

http://www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca/udem-news/news/20130301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html
Les côtés ténébreux de Mère Teresa
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/25/why-to-many-critics-mother-teresa-is-still-no-saint/
Christopher Hitchens - Mother Teresa: Hell's Angel
http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/i-dont-think-she-deserved-the-nobel/284270
http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/on-the-same-page/284274
http://newamericamedia.org/2013/03/city-of-doubts-kolkatas-uneasy-love-for-mother-teresa.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/03/the_wests_big_lie_about_mother_teresa_her_glorification_of_suffering_instead_of_relieving_it_has_had_little_impact_on_her_glowing_reputation/
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/10/forbes-india-mother-teresa-charity-critical-public-review.html
More sources in this comment by /u/BlunderLikeARicochet