Skip to main content

Time bomb

Free market capitalism only works within a restrained box and even then only in theory.

When the United States negotiated NAFTA with Mexico and Canada it was supposed to open up markets for companies, facilitate cross border movement of goods and services between Canada and the States and help stabilise a failing and fragile Mexican economy and government. It seemed a relatively good deal for al and even helped raise the wages of very poor Mexican workers.

So when Donald Trump rails against Mexicans and threatens to build a wall he negates to mention that net movement between the United States and Mexico is for all intents and purposes zero. This is because some Mexicans are going back to their country to find better job situations. In other words it's a smoke screen.

Trump’s base is mostly composed of white, less educated males who are receptive to xenophobic hysteria but the real message to take from the failure of the U.S. economy to find balance is income inequality.

When U.S. companies began opening up shop in places like Bangladesh and Indonesia it created even more unbalance since the American worker was now facing even more global competition. Let's also not forget that by allowing cheap Chinese goods to enter the west it allowed for more job loss because people just couldn't get enough cheap stuff that they didn't need. As a result we increasingly became a culture of consumers.

The other elephant in the room has of course been technological advancement where far less workers are now needed to build things. When you couple that with a trickle down economic myth that went bust, Republicans are faced with having to explain why that top 1% keeps getting richer.

Meanwhile we continue to sit on a ticking economic time bomb which that 1% doesn't seem all that concerned about.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

the pseudoscience behind gender dysphoria

The real science as to what causes gender dysphoria still awaits.

Harry Benjamin was on to something except he didn’t have the scientific evidence to back up his suspicions hence, like a true scientist, he negated to draw conclusions. His hunch, based on treating so many patients over his lifetime, was that one is born with a predisposition to be gender dysphoric.

However, with inconclusive brain scans and no DNA marker (as of yet) we are left with believing the word of people who need help and only want to lead happy and productive lives.

The best we have been able to muster since Benjamin's death in 1986 was to amass statistics on who gets a boner imagining themselves as a woman which is in equal parts pathetic and disappointing. For this is not really science at all but is instead playing with interview data that doesn't point to anything definitive or conclusive. I have dealt with this problem at great length in my blog.

The whole thing started with Kurt Freund's obses…