Donald Trump enters the Oscar De LA Renta Fash...

The Weiner Component, Volume 2 – Economics in the 21st Century: #1: Change & the 21st Century: Part I Introduction


Prenote: I find myself getting bored with Donald J. Trump and his machinations.  He, as President-Elect is setting up a government which seems that it will wipe out any progress made in the 20th Century on.  Will it?  We’ll have to wait and see. 

Meanwhile the stock market is rising to new heights.  Is that because of President-Elect Donald J. Trump or in spite of him?  Again we’ll have to wait and see.  Basically the issue with Trump is that we, the public, will have to wait and see what he does after January 20, 2017, when he becomes President of the United States.

Meanwhile I will begin a new version of my book, “Economics in the 21st Century.


Volume 2 #1 – The Purpose of Government in the 21st Century:                                                            Introduction: Part 1


The past is always safe, particularly if it is mostly imagined.  It is a known when balanced against the future which is always unknown and therefore unsafe.  In the presidential election of 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected by a minority of voters who were fearful of the changes that were occurring in society.  Trump promised to bring back the past.  He would bring back the values and conditions that supposedly were while Clinton would continue forward to a changing society.

                       *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

 With the election of Donald J. Trump, as President of the United States by a majority of people from the smaller states the country choose the candidate that got the minority of popular votes but the majority of electoral votes.  Hillary Clinton actually won the election with nearly three million more votes than Trump received.  The voters who choose Trump actually choose to stay with what they believed would be a return of the past, to the supposed happy days when there were jobs for all the low skilled workers.  Trump would, he said, “stay the course” and continue the process of lowering taxes.  He would continue the war effort in the Middle East and the War against Terror.  He would bring back all the jobs that had moved overseas and take the country back to its happy days, whenever they were.  He would reform our society, making it as it had been in the past.


Of course “reform” historically was a euphuism for change or raising taxes among the ordinary citizens of the country.  Trump has promised to lower taxes for the wealthy.  Ordinary people would object to a tax raise but how can they be unhappy about reform, semantical games.  The problem is that the government is spending billions of dollars daily above what it collects in taxes pushing the National Debt (which President Clinton had begun to reduce) to new astronomical levels.  Trump will lower taxes for the wealthy and the corporations.  He will have to make up the difference somehow.


There is currently one vacancy on the Supreme Court and one Justice in her eighties.  From what I understand Trump should be able during his tenure as President to probably make two appointments to the Court.  This should make the Court 6 to 3 in favor of the conservatives.  The significance of a solid conservative balance on the Supreme Court is that it might, among other things like individual rights, finish striking down Roe vs. Wade; and thus take away the right of choice from slightly over fifty percent of the population.  The majority of women, according to the surveys taken, are overwhelmingly in favor of choice.  It would be a decision imposed by a minority upon the majority.


 This seems to be Trump’s version of the “good old days.”

                           *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

But despite what is currently happening with Donald J. Trump as the new President-Elect no one really knows what he will do as President.  Still the Twenty-first Century holds the promise of all sorts of social and economic changes for the people of the United States, the other Industrial Nations, and even for the emerging non-industrial countries of this world.  The question, of course, is whether these changes will be positive or will they be otherwise.  Our traditional economic model will no longer function (if it ever did properly beyond the theoretical stage).  Technological change, particularly that of the Computer Revolution is moving forward at a rapid pace.  The changes are speeding up. 


     With these changes the concept of employment (What is work?) is/will also undergo evolution.  Low skilled jobs are and have been disappearing in the United States; some highly technological occupations are and have been coming into being.  A large number of factory and many white collar jobs are moving overseas where they can be performed at a much lower cost.  The economy today is a world-wide one with the individual nations still being essentially nationalistic.

                         *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

     For the last three to four thousand years the concept of work has been fairly constant.  It has essentially been effort related to survival: production of food, shelter, clothing, and gradually entities needed for recreation.  Up until the Industrial Revolution it took ten or more people working full time (sunrise to sunset) to provide the fundamentals needed for one individual to have the leisure time to be a priest, government official, artist, or someone not having to work for survival.  With the change over from a hand-craft society to a machine- operated one the ratio has changed and continues to decrease.  From ten to one we gradually went to one person supplying everything for one hundred people.  With the coming and continuance of the Computer Revolution the ratio has gone from one supplying everything for one hundred people to one supplying what’s needed for a thousand individuals, with the possibilities of eventually going well beyond that number.


     What then happens to both the concept of work and the need to work when all the rudiments can easily and almost effortlessly be supplied?  Traditionally man (and woman) have earned their bread like Adam (after being expelled from the Garden of Eden) by the sweat of his (her) brow.  Now, ironically, we have returned to garden conditions.  Can we handle them?


     Today, at the Second decade of the Twenty-first Century, we seem to be well into the Computer Revolution; but, I suspect, we are only seeing its initial stage. 


The government constantly monitors and publishes the unemployment percentage of the working population.  They are thrilled when it decreases by one or several tenths of a percent.  Politicians like Donald Trump, are constantly promising to decrease unemployment.  The President will proudly proclaim and take credit for any tenth of a percent decrease.  The goal, as far as the government and public are concerned, seems to be a healthy economy with full employment in an era when computers are rapidly increasing the rates of productivity and many corporations are downsizing while increasing their output.  We seem to be squarely and hopefully looking historically backward.

                               *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Many thousands of years ago a man-like creature first picked up a rock or piece of wood and used it as a tool or weapon for the first time.  From that time on the concept was passed to others and they did the same, eventually discovering that they could chip the rock into a specific shape and sharpness and sharpen the wood, fire-hardening a point.  Over the multitude of years types of tools were developed.  Mankind developed more and better means of increasing his productivity, of making life easier for himself.  In fact his conscious or unconscious goal during all the years of his existence has been to produce more with less effort.


During the 19th Century the emerging handicraft society began to change in England and then Europe and the United States with the gradual development of machines; this became known as the Industrial Revolution, when manufacturing changed from hand-production to machine production.


The early machines were mostly made of wood and were operated by water-power, and shortly thereafter by steam power.  With the invention of the electric motor and development in metallurgy the machines became metal and also more highly efficient, multitudinously increasing their productive capacities.  Where in the Eighteenth Century it took ten people to produce enough to free one from labor, now gradually one person could produce enough to supply ten individuals with all their basic needs.  Life and the concept of work changed.  A percentage of the handicraft people were displaced becoming superfluous; these were the luggites.  Machines did their work a hundred times faster than they could by hand.  The level of productivity brought about by the Industrial Society achieved by the middle of the Twentieth Century a level of supply of goods and services in the Industrial Nations that had been inconceivable earlier.  It also brought about the Business Cycle — prosperity, recession, depression, and recovery — in a never ending pattern erratically coming about in shorter or longer periods of time.


Recession and depression, presumably caused by overproduction, brought about a situation in which there was fair to large scale unemployment, reduced consumption of goods and services in an economy where the overall workforce strongly desired to work and consume but could not.  The economy had broken down, ceased to smoothly function.  The willingness to work was there but the economy could not utilize it.  For one reason or another the basic rudiments that caused the economy to smoothly flow no longer worked. 


The question here is why?  There is a ready and willing workforce anxious to labor and consume the goods and services produced but there is no work for them and very little for them and their families to consume.  WHY?


The grease that allows the economy to function is money.  The distribution of that entity throughout an economy, the amounts that each family unit earns or has determines who will get how much of the goods and services produced.


How then is money distributed within a society?  The different occupations receive different levels of remuneration.  Unskilled labor, which is mostly grunt type work requiring generally brute strength only would be the lowest paid earnings.  In many cases, not enough is earned to provide for the basic needs of an individual or family.  Skilled labor, on the other hand, can go from a fair standard of living to a level where the amount of money earned cannot possibly be spent because of its vastness in the millions.


Money can also be stored, not used for consumption, but put into banks or other financial institutions where it earns interest.  In addition it can be used as a commodity where it can earn profit.  Used this way it tends to increase the productive capacity of a nation; but this has nothing to do with the distribution of goods and services.


Money, in the form of profit (Adam Smith’s “invisible hand”) becomes the motivating force behind production of both goods and services.  Profit, from the sale of goods or the charge for services and the accumulation of money is the motivation for production.  This accumulation allows a small percentage of the population to amass large amounts but again, has nothing to do with a reasonable distribution of the specie.


It can be argued that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” works on every level of the economy.  Given a choice the laborer, white collar worker, executive, entrepreneur will take that position which pays the greatest amount or has the best advantages.  Therefore each entity within the society is functioning where he/she can in their own interest; doing the best for themselves and their family unit.  But, again, what has this to do with a fair distribution of the National Income?


Several interesting questions arise here: Is money really related to the production of goods and services?  And if it is not then in what way would distribution be accomplished?  Since volume of production is tied directly to volume of consumption how, if we are to avoid upturns and downturns (constant recovery and recession), can we maintain a steady course of production and distribution of goods and services? 


The economic model (capitalism) was stated in 1776 by Adam Smith in his book “An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations,” which was published that year.  Smith designed his model for a pre-industrial nation, for a time when production could not meet the overall needs of everybody in the society.  We are now almost into a postindustrial society moving rapidly through and into the computer Revolution.  We are still prone to the vicissitudes of the Business Cycle.  Can we afford this kind of continual economic up and down turn?


The Twenty-first Century promises to be a time of intense change.  If we continue to adhere to what we have now then the economic upheavals can be catastrophic.  The Great Depression of 1929 could be mild compared to what we may face. In 2008 we faced such a situation.  It was avoided by massive spending by Presidents Bush and Obama.  


Donald Trump seems to be pointing toward the pre-2008 period.  He could, during his four year presidency, bring us back to an economic situation as bad as or far worse than the potential 2008 Depression. 


To avoid the possibility of negative economic change within our economy the country needs a new economic model or it has to make massive changes within our present system.



The Weiner Component #174 – The 2016 Election


Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 Presidential Election by at least 2.8 million votes.  She actually won the election but lost the Electoral College Vote: Clinton had 232 Electoral votes to Trump’s 306. On the basis of a true Democratic Vote, rule by the will of the majority of people in the country, Hillary Clinton actually got the majority of votes.  She should have won the election.


Donald Trump won the actual election because of a system inaugurated by the Founding Fathers in the late 18th Century that allowed the election to be skewered toward the much less populated states.  The initial issue in the late seventeen hundreds was representation for all thirteen states regardless of population. 


Each state regardless of size got two senators while the number of representatives in the House of Representatives was determined by the population of each state.  The smaller states didn’t want to be totally overshadowed then by the larger states.  The 2016 Presidential Election is the fourth time in the history of the nation that the election has gone to the person with the lesser amount of the public votes.


It has happened twice in the 19th Century and, so far, twice in the 21st Century.  As a rule the Republicans tend to do better in midterm election than in Presidential elections.  This is mainly because a lot of voters don’t vote then.  In addition to this Republicans use what methods they can to suppress the minority vote.  Texas has been quite successful with voter suppression.


The majority political party in the United States is the Democratic Party, then comes the Republicans, then the Independents, down the line there are the Libertarians, and finally the Green Party.  There are other groups but they tend to be regional.  Occasionally there will be Third Party candidates.


During a Presidential Election only two of the fifty states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner take all principle.  In the remaining forty-eight states whoever wins the majority of votes gets all the electoral votes for that state. 


There are 435 elected members in the House of Representatives that represent the 50 states.  There are three more that represent territories held by the United States.  Not all territories are represented.  The 435 seats is a fixed number.  Every ten years a census is taken and the seats are redistributed based upon population changes.  Regardless of population every state will have at least one member in the House.  In the Senate every state is represented by two Senators regardless of population. 


Every four years a Presidential Election is held.  The voters, within the country, do not vote directly for the president.  Instead they elect an invisible elector who will vote for the person they choose.  There are 538 people who are chosen as electors, three or more from every state representing the members of Congress and three representing the U.S. territories.  It takes 270 electoral votes to become President.


One of the problems with this system is that the Electoral Districts are the same as the House of Representative Districts.  Both political parties, but the Republicans particularly, have gerrymandered their Districts within their states to give them the most advantage when it comes to elections.  They have drawn the districts to break up Democratic blocks of voters and whenever possible give Republicans the advantage.  This same advantage exists in the Electoral Districts of many states, since both are the same. 


This advantage has allowed the Republicans to hold a majority in the House of Representatives since 2011 even though in 2012 over one and a quarter million more Democrats voted for members of the House.  That same advantage existed for Donald J. Trump even though Hillary Clinton has received well over two million more votes from the general population than Donald Trump has gotten.


Two of the Texas electors have announced that they cannot in good conscious vote for Trump.  One has stated that he will resign and the other will vote for another Republican.  This, of course, will not change anything.


Since the overall population of the United States increases and continually relocates a National census is taken every ten years to determine the number of House of Representative Districts in the nation.  The number is fixed at 435.  The Congressional Election Districts are rearranged every ten years.  Also within the cities of each state there is a continual movement from the rural areas to the urban cemters where most job opportunities occur, so that the population will dynamically change within the ten year period.  Consequently the cities continue to grow making for totally unequal numbers in many of the Congressional Districts.  Within most states the urban votes count for less each year against the rural districts, which tend to lose people continually.


What is true for the individual states is also true for the United States, except that here it works on a larger scale.  The number of people voting in the larger states, which have many more and much larger urban areas, have their individual votes count for a lot less than those residing in the smaller states, particularly in the rural sections of the smaller states.


All fifty states are shown on MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News as either red or blue states: red is Republican and blue is Democratic.  There are also purple states, which are the swing states that can go either way.  Most of the campaigning during Presidential Elections is done in the purple or swing states.


These battleground states carry disproportionate influence in Presidential Elections.  In 2016 most of the campaigning was done in just twelve states.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau there is a net population gain of one person every 13 seconds.  This means that the United States gains 110.77 people every day or 40,431 every single year.


The following population statistics are taken from the Census Bureau’s July 2014 estimate.  If anything they tend to be conservative.


The statistics here used were done by the Census Bureau in July of 2014.  According to the official 2010 population count officially done by the Census Bureau the population of the United States was 308,745,538 and was estimated to be 318,857,056 in July of 2014.  The 2016 Vote was taken from the results of the Presidential Election.


                                                               House     Elect.      Pop. Per   |2016

Rank|     State           | Population|  Seats|   Votes   |House Seat| V0te

    1  |  California      | 38,802.500|    53    |     55       |      717,763|  D

    2  |   Texas            | 26,956,958|    36    |     38       |      734,867|  R

    3  |   Florida         |  19,893,297|    27    |      29       |      715,465| R

    4  |  New York     |  19,746,227|    27    |      29       |      724,824| D

    5  |  Illinois           |  12,880,580|   18     |      20       |     715.292 | D

    6  |Pennsylvania |  12,787,209|   18     |      20       |     709,085 | R

    7  |     Ohio           |   11,594163|   16     |      18       |     721,514 | R

    8  |    Georgia      |   10,097,343|   14    |       16      |      708,568 | R

    9  | N. Carolina   |      9,943,964|   13    |       15      |      750,159| R

  10  |  Michigan     |      9,909,877|   14    |       16      |      705,954| D

  11  | New Jersey  |      8,938,175|   12    |       14      |      738,716| D

  12  | Virginia         |      8,326,289|   11    |      13       |      744,170| D

  13  |Washington  |      7,061,530|   10    |      12       |      689,701| D

  14  |Massachusetts|   6,745,408|     9    |       11      |      738,460| D

  15  |   Arizona       |      6,731,484|     9    |       11      |      728,139| R

  16  |   Indiana       |      6,596,855|     9    |       11      |      726,370| R

  17  |  Tennessee  |      6,549,352|     9    |       11      |      717,360| R

  18  |   Missouri     |      6,063,589  |     8   |       10      |      752,749| R

  19  |  Maryland    |      5,976,407  |     8   |       10      |      735,570| D

  20  |  Wisconsin   |      5,757,564  |     8   |       10      |      715,800| R

  21  |  Minnesota  |      5,457,173  |     8   |       10      |      672,392| D

  22  |  Colorado     |      5,355,856  |     7   |         9      |      741,083| D

  23  |  Alabama     |       4,849,377  |     7   |        9      |       688,860| R

  24  | S. Carolina   |       4,832,482  |     7   |        9      |      674,818 | R

  25  | Louisiana     |       4,649.676  |    6    |        8      |      766,982 | R

  26  | Kentucky     |       4,413,457  |    6    |        8      |      730,069 | R

  27  |  Oregon       |       3,970,239  |    5    |        7      |      779,871 | D

  28  |Oklahoma    |        3,878,051 |    5    |        7      |      762,964 | R

  29  |Connecticut |        3,596,677 |    5    |        7      |      718,059 | D

  30  |     Iowa         |        3,107,126 |    4    |        6      |      758,547 | R

  31  |  Arkansas     |        2,994,079 |    4    |        6      |      737,283 | R

  32  |Mississippi    |        2,984,926 |    4    |        6      |     746,232  | R

  33  |      Utah         |        2,942902  |    4    |        6      |     713,822  | R

  34  |   Kansas        |        2,904,021 |     4    |        6      |     721,476  | R

  35  |   Nevada       |        2,839,099 |     4    |        6      |     689,733  | D

  36  |New Mexico |        2,085,572 |     3    |        5      |     695,179  | D

  37  |  Nebraska     |       1,881,503  |     3    |        5     |      618,508 | R

  38  | W. Virginia   |        1,850,326 |     3    |        5     |      618,471 | R

  39  |    Idaho         |         1,634,464|      2    |       4     |      797,864 | R

  40  |   Hawaii        |         1,419,561|      2    |       4     |      696,157 | D

  41  |   Maine       |    1,330,089   |         2    |       4     |      664,596 | D

  42  | N. Hampshire| 1,326,813  |         2    |        4     |      660,350| D

  43  |Rhode Island|   1,055,173  |         2     |        4     |      525,146| D

  44  |   Montana   |    1,023,579  |         1     |        3      |  1,005,141| R

  45  |   Delaware  |        935,614  |         1     |        3      |      917,029| D

  46  | S. Dakota    |        853,175  |         1     |        3      |      833,354| R

  47  | N. Dakota   |        739,482  |         1     |        3      |      699,628| R

  48  |   Alaska       |        737,732  |         1     |        3      |      736,732| R

  49  |   Vermont   |       626,011   |         1     |       3       |     626,562 | D

  50  |   Wyoming  |      584,153    |         1    |        3       |     576,412 | R


Depending upon population every state has at least three people in Congress, two in the Senate and at least one in the House of Representatives.  Wyoming, population-wise has the smallest population, a little over ½ million, while California has the largest population, almost 40 million.  California has 53 house members and two Senators.  The other states generally come between these two. 


Altogether there are seven states that have only one representative in the House and two in the Senate.  Of these two voted Democratic and five voted Republican.  Only thirteen states have ten or more electoral votes.  All the others go from one to nine.


If we take the bottom 29 states and count their total population then we have approximately the same population as California.  They have 55 House Districts and 42 Senators.  This gives them 97 electoral votes against California’s 55 electoral votes.  There seems to be something wrong with this math. 


If it’s argued that some of the bottom 21 states voted for the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, then if we skip those states and count just Republican states the number diminishes a little but the same problem exists.  The number of House votes will increase and there is still a large number of Senate votes.  No matter how this is added up it is totally unfair.  The smaller states each have two Senators and the number adds substantially to the number of electors representing them while the much larger states only have two senators.  


The reason for the Electoral College may have made sense in the late 17 hundreds but it makes no sense today.  A fair election in a Democracy is an election where all the people are equally represented.  This does not exist with the Electoral College.  It is past time for a change. 


Even Donald Trump has called the system unreasonable.  With a fairer system Trump said he would have done most of his campaigning in the bigger states.  He believes he still would have won.


In addition, under the current system, there are actually 50 plus elections going on with no carry-over from one to the other.  Forty-eight of the states are winner take all states.  This means that every vote for the losing candidate is lost.  In a truly democratic election there would still be one winner, but every single vote would matter until the winner was chosen.  That doesn’t happen here.  Hillary Clinton had well over two million more votes in the 2016 Election than Donald Trump.


In addition states like California send millions of tax dollars to the Federal Government.  The smaller states are generally the recipients of much of this money since many of them receive much of this tax money in aid. 


Trump ran up large margins in small cities and rural areas turning out white, working class workers in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  He also did extremely well in rural areas of battleground states like Florida and North Carolina, which he won.


It is certainly time to modernize our election system.  All votes should be counted equally.  The Founding Fathers did not visualize or necessarily approve of political parties.  They developed a system that they believed would allow the President to be chosen by the best educated people living in the country.  They never even had a glimmer of a country such as exists today. 


Political Parties came into existence almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.  Alexander Hamilton organized the first political party, the Federalist Party.  Shortly thereafter Thomas Jefferson organized the Democratic-Republican Party.  Both men served under President George Washington. 


We are now in the 21st Century.  It is time to modernize the Constitution.  Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 Presidential Election.  Hopefully Trump will not take us back to the 1920s and the disaster that followed in 1929.


Hillary Clinton had 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump.  She had approximately the same number as Barack Obama had in 2012.  She won big in the larger states like California and New York, beating Trump by almost 2 for 1 in California.  Trump, where he won, won by small margins.  In the smaller states he won by slight margins; and mostly by votes in the underrepresented rural areas of the smaller states.  It was an election where the smaller states, those that generally get economic help from the Federal Government, made Trump the winner.  The 2016 Presidential Election was a prime example of rule by the minority.