DATELINE 3rd August 2016.
November 8th 2016 is when the next US president is to be elected.
In the face of the Trump polls, the elite who have been the power
behind the scenes (influencing both Democrat and Republican Parties and
Presidents) are showing the stress.
Because "The Donald" is not owned. Nobody has the reins. He
is a wild card. And that is intolerable.
The TPP is an indication. It still has not been passed by
Congress. It is anticipated that it will be passed after November
8th (so as not to damage Hillary) but before the new President is sworn
in. It is hugely unpopular with working Americans, because it
will likely cause the loss of jobs in the industrial states. That
is why Hillary has joined Trump in condemning it. (But not Obama.
Oh no. He could stop it now, but that is not what the elite
want. The elite want the Democrats in Congress to pass it AFTER
the election but BEFORE Trump gets in and can stop it.)
The signs of panic are all there. In the last few days:.
This has resulted in a favourable blip in
the polls for Hillary.
- Bill and Obama got huge coverage for the DNC. (Twice
what Trump got at RNC).
- Ex president and Husband Bill would have been expected
to give a boost, an did.
- Obama came out of left field.
- Trump’s "unpopular" acts are trumpeted in most media.
- Hilary’s unpopular acts (Benghazi etc) are ignored by
- The scheming in the DNC to favour Hillary are being
ignored by most media.
So: Why do I call it desperation? Because the big guns were
brought out too early. There is more than three months of
electioneering to run. The voters will become immunized to
scandal. It will lose it's force.
Because The Donald is a moving target. And the Elite are running
out of legitimate ammunition.
If I were commanding the Secret Service I would be putting in for a lot
of overtime. And making "The Donald" wear armour.
DATELINE 27th August
The one sided media activity has diminished. (Perhaps the Hillary
team read my blog:) As the one sided coverage has stopped,
Hillary has sunk back. She is however reported to have a huge
bankroll. Expect to see that bankroll utilized in mid
Just what defines a politician? That bloke that we in a Western
Democracy elect? The person that we call "Our Representative"?
Already some work has been done on defining politicians. The
"political space" has been analysed in terms of social liberty and
economic liberty in the Nolan Chart.
In the Sciences a scientist attempting to capture a phenomena with
"laws" will look for extremes, and then plot reality as being somewhere
in the middle. As an example, when a gas is compressed the
relationship between Pressure and Volume will fall somewhere between an
Isothermal (P*V=Const) and an Adiabatic formula.(P*V^g=Const where
g=Gamma, which is Cp/Cv). In real life the relationship is
described as "polytropic" and engineers use the formula P*V^n = Const
So let us look at political extremes to help with defining a new
dimension in a politician.
Of course real politicians fall somewhere
between those two extremes. In fact, in some regions of the Nolan
Chart they might be at the "fixed" extreme, and in others they might be
- At one extreme we have a politician who states his
fixed position on all issues and never budges. For instance,
"Capital Criminals must be executed." or "In sentencing a
criminal, the reasons for the criminal acts must be considered and
calculated to mitigate any punishment". He will not resile from
his stated position. He gets elected, and you can be confident
that his vote on those laws will never change.
- At the other extreme we have a politician who is
flexible. S/he literally has no opinion on anything. He
decide his position on any legislation by polling his
constituency or sponsors. If at any time s/he is advised by
public opinion or his/her sponsors (whichever is more important) on
capital punishment s/he will vote
I have avoided discussing "Leaders" and the formation of public
opinion. Some politicians think that all they must do is show
"Leadership" to carry the day. Leadership to change public
opinion is a media exercise, and is best carried out by media
persons. David Cameron is a good example of a politician who
thought he could be an opinion leader on Brexit.
Let me analyze some of our politicians. First start in NSW
Australia. A rather personable looking bloke called Mike Baird
got promoted after Megan Latham of ICAC had his predecessor
Barry O'Farrell outed over a lie about an expensive bottle of wine.
Megan owns Mike..
Against all the promises made before the last election, Mike has
dissolved local government with the intent of making it more user
friendly to the major political parties by amalgamating local
government areas. (In Australia, local government is a department
of state government.) To quell the outraged public objections, he
has cancelled the racing greyhound industry, a change that has occupied
the media to the exclusion of the much more important amalgamation
issue. Mike is playing the greyhound issue as "principled" and
based on his moralistic religious outlook.
So Mike is an extreme example of a changeable politician, in that he
has made major reforms against the promises of his party, and
opportunistic legislation calculated to take the heat off the very
important amalgamation issue.
Next let us look at Malcolm Turnbull, Australian Prime Minister.
Like Mike, Malcolm took his position from the fall of a previously
elected leader. However, despite having principles different to
those on which his party was elected, he has refrained from making
policy changes to e.g. the carbon credit scheme. In general,
Malcolm is the opposite of Mike. He is both principled in keeping to
party promises, and flexible in that he does not introduce regulations
out of left field.
Now let's look to the Trump Clinton war.
Hillary is totally under the control of her sponsors, who will only
allow policy changes that must be made to get her elected, like her TPP
stand. She has four times the campaign funds, not counting the
Trump has no firm opinions on anything. He is a populist, and
will offer whatever he believes his constituency wants.
Consequently, he is not attracting media or as much funding as
Hillary. As said above, he is a wildcard. He is out of control.
Just where is technology taking the world?
The logic that justifies the TPP is based on Ricardo's theory of
"comparative advantage". The theory of Comparative Advantage
suggests that lowering trade barriers benefits everyone. For
instance, if US steel imports were unrestricted then most US citizens
would be able to buy cheaper steel products such as cars.
Unfortunately US ironworkers would suffer massive job losses.
However it can be shown that the nett benefit to the people is greater
than the nett loss to steelworkers.
So basically, I argue, "comparative advantage" rests ultimately on
labour costs. And technology is killing labour costs.
Consider technology. It is a job killer. Think UBER. Think
email. Think automation. Think self driving cars.
- Agriculture is an issue of
lettuce is grown economically, and there is no reason, given cheap
enough labour, that any agricultural product could not be grown
that sunlight exists.
- Raw materials are not a real
There is no raw material for which there is no substitute, or at least
the likelihood that one could be developed. A current example is
Oil. OPEC is no longer a power because US scientists discovered
a substitute (shale) from which they could refine gasoline..
- Consider the effect of self driving
cars. No more
truck drivers. No more Taxi or Uber drivers. Poof! Perhaps 10% of
the workforce gone.
- Consider other technology.
Scanners and CCTV replacing shop
assistants. Self serve is taking off in Coles & Woolworths in
Extrapolate. Technology replacing
workers is not going
to stop. It will most likely
Within a decade or two machines with AI (Artificial Intelligence)
will do everything. Mankind will become superfluous to provision
the necessities and luxuries of life.
The issue is, where
are all those newly unemployed going to get income??
The answer is, we need to redesign
our culture. No stopgap social security payment system
will solve this problem.
Science Fiction author Iain Banks
"Culture" series contains a possible end result.
The real problem is, how to get from the here & now to the then & there.
I cannot see those with the wealth and
power voluntarily relinquishing their advantage.
I am quite fearful that they might instead establish a technological
autocracy (intelligent robot police) controlling 99.9999% of the
population for the benefit of the 0.0001% That is 1/1,000,000 or about
1,000 non slaves in a planetary population of 10 billion.
The strategies I suggest are:
Or you could just rely on the integrity and sanity of those who
to get elected.
nation states small. Do not allow amalgamation.
- Seek online control of government, like in
Switzerland, and various US states (e.g. California).
- Resist automation of the Police and
Good luck on that.
mail responses to: firstname.lastname@example.org