Emily Post Values

I’m far from alone in being frozen in place rather than making everyday decisions in a timely fashion. It’s hard to make choices and commitments when the situation can change in a minute on a whim. The president explained what each nation would suffer from U.S. tariffs, complete with a visual aid, only to turn around and delay much of the implementation. Then came exemptions. Worse, the whipsaws often came while markets were open, so there was no time to evaluate.

It takes investment capital to create productive jobs; how can I or anyone else commit funds and effort under today’s circumstances? Franklin Roosevelt’s ever-changing policies prolonged the great depression, in my mind. Yet, Trump makes him look like the sole of consistency. Nothing seems safe. Even if you negotiated a trade agreement in Trump’s first term, the president unilaterally pulls out and enacts new terms. Do we have allies? Do we have friends? What are the rules? For how long?

We hear of dozens of nations lining up to come to terms. Maybe they just want answers to these questions. If I’m having problems going about my business under these circumstances, imagine what leaders of nations are going through.

There used to be rules of the road to avoid unintended collisions. When I grew up, it seemed everyone had a copy of Emily Post’s “On Etiquette” or something similar. While this may seem quaint today, it served a practical purpose, preventing misunderstandings that could create ill will when intending none. Simply forgetting to send a thank-you note or a reply sends the wrong message and ruins friendships. If you don’t intend a slight, do the right thing.

We have rules governing relations between nations, the government, and the people in the U.S. When someone runs roughshod over regulations and conventions, what’s the message? Some of them are treaties and legislation signed into law. Can you do your thing without regard for others, without sowing distrust and anger?

Continue reading

Bad Books

We’re at a point where it is impossible to comment on the present administration’s policies. Trump’s pledge to end both the Ukraine and Gaza wars quickly has dissolved into continued bloodshed, with only a few hostages returned and some prisoners exchanged. The administration apparently may move away from peace efforts. We must wait for information on what the administration is up to now.

There are three ways our tariff policy could go. First, Trump could come to his senses and reverse most of these taxes. The loss of trust in the U.S. will remain, but it mayn’t get worse.

On the other hand, if Trump truly wants us to produce everything within our borders, he has to raise the walls so high that nothing comes in from abroad. Of course, if nothing comes in, we take in no revenue—just higher prices and less choice.  

The third outcome may be an expanded version of Trump’s first-term approach: imposing tariffs and negotiating a patchwork of cut-outs and individual deals with countries, industries, and companies.

If I had to bet, I’d go with the last option. An endless procession of supplicants competing for favor is a narcissist’s dream. Of course, granting favors to those best appealing to his vanity would be a mercantilist economy on steroids—cronyism rules. Will this work better now than in the past?

While waiting for the fog to clear, it’s a good time to deal with the sudden spate of books and articles on Biden’s cognitive decline by people who were aware of it or should’ve been aware the former president wasn’t on top of his game.

Continue reading

Haven’t We Seen This Movie Before?

You’re settling in to spend an evening watching an interesting-sounding movie, only to realize you’ve already seen it. That’s the feeling I got when Trump suddenly reversed course and paused some of his tariffs for 90 days. The reason the administration and, indeed, Trump himself provided is that all those seventy-five nations already ripping us off, except for China, were lining up to lift their tariffs and other actions and finally move to free trade while leaving China on the outside. It’ll take time to accept their surrender.

Prominent countries named as heading up the list of supplicants were Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Australia. These names rang a bell. Haven’t we sat down with these countries and others and worked out a lowering of tariffs and other trade restraints in the past? Then it came to me; we negotiated a trade treaty with these nations and seven others that accomplished these goals. It was called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Negotiated over several years by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who claimed “the deal set the ‘gold standard in trade agreements.” Twelve countries’ representatives O.K.’d the Treaty in 2016. It only needed to be sent to the Senate for approval by the new president.  

What happened then needs to be recalled and appraised in light of what is happening today. Donald Trump campaigned against the treaty, claiming it would join the already-in-effect NAFTA treaty in destroying middle America. This stance reflected his anti-free trade stance going back to the 1980s. What is surprising is that Hillary Clinton turned on her handiwork.

Continue reading

First A Solid Foundation

The administration makes the case that Elon Musk’s doge group will make the government more responsive to our needs, but just getting rid of people and finding fraud and abuse might do some good; it fails to get to the heart of how to get things done in a timely fashion in America. Even the Doge claims a trillion dollars in savings, which pales beside the returns of actually getting things built or produced.

Even some left-of-center people realize that rather than Americans being able to interact in enterprises in reasonable time frames, it’s likely that any enterprise will ever come to fruition. In their new best-seller, “Abundance,” Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson lament how difficult it is to get anything done in America. An illustration they feature is California’s long-delayed high-speed rail. Having spent billions with no rails laid, the project’s goal was reduced to linking the great cities of Fresno and Merced instead of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The author’s example misses the mark by omitting that Florida has already linked Miami and the Gold Coast to Orlando with high-speed rail. Last year, the privately owned Brightline carried 2.7 million passengers.

Rather than lamenting America’s inability to build things, it is better to look at how people who faced a similar problem got up and running. As a private for-profit company, no question about who was in charge and responsible. The project leader coordinated everything on a set timeline. Because the route mainly ran on already-in-use Florida East Coast rails, permitting obstacles were minimal.

The relative success of high-speed rail in Florida vs. California’s costly failure should provide some principles for Governments to use to provide the framework for successful ventures.

Continue reading