Exurban nation stetching a point until it breaks

Every body wants to correct the unfair trade but do not want to take their portion of the medicine. Decades of failure make the medicine all the more bitter. High prices will have to come to support the high cost of doing business in the US. It seems to me that lobster farming is the same as AG farming. Tough biz to produce low cost raw product when the down stream players make far more profit in the end. My answer to farmers is they need to control it from harvest to retail or be at the mercy of market prices. Cut out the fat of middle men who trade for profit.

Harley is crying about tariffs but that is not their core problem. Their customers are dying and kids are not interested in old very out dated odd fire thumpers and pirate costumes.


HD made a great come back and have not made the transition to the new order. They bought NHRA motorcycle drag racing not because they are good but the bought in to NHRA and the racers to rewrite the rules and the Foreign bikes didn’t have a chance to compete. That’s not competition, that’s fixing the game.

I am not opining on the Clintons. That press conference says it all IMO. You know all the arguments. I believe that proTrumpers are emotionally invested in such a way that neither fact nor logic can prevail. As someone recently said you can’t logically dissuade people from a position, when they didn’t get there by logic to begin with. I know that you and Dawg and the rest will feel highly insulted by that, and I’m very sorry about that, and I respect you all highly, and I’m sure in you professions you are very logical.

I personally loathed the Clintons, and still do, but I voted for her because there wasn’t anybody else running who could possibly win. I think and though he was crazy, which is better than being treasonous, in that there is no personal fault in being crazy. I have tried not to loathe him, in accordance with my belief that you you attain cosmic brownie points by being able to look at any human person and say thou art God. (SEE the Art of Godliness) But there he gets on TV and says stuff that makes my blood boil, which is certainly an emotion too.

Walter Cronkite was once the most trusted man in America. This was when news was simply reading facts – (i.e. – boring). Editorial were rare – and were specifically set aside from "news" and "EDITORIAL" was posted in big white letters on those rare occasions. And, in some cases, a few days later, some other person would be given equal time to offer a rebuttal to an editorial.

I can reach the conclusion that he threw our intelligence agencies under the bus and said he believes Putin is telling the truth about not meddling because I saw him say it. The problem is the "news" people feel compelled to explain what happens – creating editorial content in every story. Even if the editorial content is valid (based on the facts), it is NOT journalism or reporting. It’s editorializing.

The question American are not taught to ask THEMSELVES is "If I’m wrong, how would I know?" Instead, we are taught from day one to the end of formal education — "Trust your teachers! Simply regurgitate what you hear from your betters." Active thought is discouraged. Questioning authority is viewed as traitorous, treasonous, or just plain evil.

So, what do Americans do when two different "authorities" offer different views of "truth?" We pick one – and we stick with that one, (because we are taught that "flip-flopping" is also evil and wrong). And both camps end up diving ever deeper into their logic-absent bubbles – where any attempt at trying to find common ground or discuss things in a civil manner is treated as an attack by the brainless opposition.

The last time U3 was under 3.5 was 1969. The only time we actually had U3 numbers at 3.2 was immediately after WWII, in the midst of the workforce chaos of returning servicemen, Rosie the Riveter returning to the kitchen, and the post-war conversion from war-time to peace-time economy riding both the psychological wave of winning the war AND ending the Great Depression.

Mind you – we ARE in a time when I believe the historical unemployment numbers are likely to grow increasingly meaningless. Once we actually hit the point where more people are leaving (retiring) the labor force than entering it, we may well have a case of steady unemployment RATE (maybe as low as 3.5 … though I’m skeptical), while NFP numbers go negative, (the labor force is shrinking).

One of the limitations of data is reliance on the truth of those reporting. For the 16-19 year olds, PARENTS (by law) have to be the ones reporting. So, parents are stating whether their child is looking for work. Since 1948, there has been a steady down trend in teen participation, (fewer even attempt to get jobs, as HS dropout rates have plunged, and college attendance rates have surged).

I actually did an experiment in the early 2000s. I read *BOTH* MSNBC and FoxNews on-line news stories each day for a year. What I found was that both were using AP and Reuters for the vast bulk of their actual news stories – which were surprisingly UNBIASED (on either site). But, I didn’t go anywhere near any of the opinion stuff. It IS still possible to get old fashioned "news" (mostly from the AP), devoid of the partisan wrappers – but it’s boring.

I also watched alternating prime time Fox and MSNBC for a time. But, stopped when it was clear that the ratio of data to opinions on both networks was so skewed it didn’t really matter. My perception was that MSNBC put more effort into presenting data to support their opinion monologues, while Fox seemed (relative to MSNBC) "dumbed down", where they’d present one data point and then just hammer on that for 30 minutes, rather than even try to build some kind of logical case for a position. But, there was no balance. Even on shows with panels intended to present the appearance of balance (like "The Five"), it still came down to selling a pre-set narrative.

Out of the whole lot (both networks), Chris Hayes was my favorite, being the wonkiest of the bunch and would more often wade into details like how and where certain data came from. But, in the end, most of what are referred to as "news networks" are opinion networks. It’s safer and (sadly) easier to do my own research to scrape up the unspun truth than work to filter out the hours of opinion to get to the seconds of fact.

For most of history, and across most cultures, it was taught that whatever class/caste you were born into was by "God’s will", so that was where you were forever stuck. The Founding Fathers of the USA had a different idea – that regardless of how miserable a start a person has – her life should ultimately be determined by actions – and not due to some random or arbitrary circumstance of birth. But, even with that concept – and with phrases like "all men are created equal", they still weren’t ready to condemn slavery, because they had been taught it was a reasonable thing.

When we had just the three networks it was MUCH harder to be unreasonable. It was difficult to wander from the center (or be unbiased) without screams from one side or the other. Today, outlandish sells – and people self-segregate into their bubbles of choice, reinforcing false narratives in echo-chambers of arrogance. And they do it, not because they are stupid. They do it, because they were taught from age 4 to trust authority figures – and all they need do is pick one, and blindly accept whatever that voice tells them.

In 1980, when Reagan initially lowered the top marginal rate, it was 70%. He lowered it to 50%, (but also closed a ton of loopholes). It was tax simplification – but intended to be revenue neutral. (It wasn’t – but there was at least some tax simplification). The thing was. This was done when inflation and interest rates were both sky high and unemployment was bad (and about to get a lot worse).

The SECOND tax cut (top rate from 50% to 28%) was a disaster. Why? Because the first one had ALREADY done the work. The economy had turned, it was growing, things were great. The businesses that were going to take the benefits of the first cut and reinvest and hire new workers already had. The second became a straight give away to the rich.

They can work (to a degree). But, they don’t "sustain" growth – they change the direction of growth. This is why the Trump cuts are (IMHO) foolish. We were at 4.1% unemployment when implemented. There’s nothing to stimulate. Nobody left to hire. There’s a nominal 1 or 2 quarter bump from the employers who could hand out raises WITHOUT sacrificing profits, (nice PR and helps retention in a job-tight economy). But, mostly it will just bloat the deficit and officially end the last pretense that anyone left in the Republican party is actually a fiscal conservative.