Seeing the Future

I've been working on a post outlining various possibilities for the next 4 years, but it's not ready yet.  But I'll mention this Politico piece, discussing the betting odds on a Trump impeachment.  Apparently the betting world thinks it's a lot more likely for Trump to be impeached or resign than I do.  I think most of that is wishful thinking, fed by our past history of Nixon and Clinton.  Back in the day impeachment was not mentioned--it took a long while for the Congress to reach that point with Nixon--that's probably why I make long odds on that result.

[Updated to add: "“Trump is the gift that keeps on giving,” Paddy Power’s Davey said. “We’ve got a bonanza of betting specials on The Donald. When Trump took to Twitter this week to defend [daughter] Ivanka after Nordstrom dropped her clothing line, we were out with a [betting] market on next retailer to drop the Ivanka brand next.” (The current favorites are TJ Maxx at 4-to-1, Walmart at 5-to-1 and Amazon at 6-to-1.)"]

High Probability of New Terrorist Attack?

I'm not quite sure what Nate Silver is talking about here:  

natesilver: I mean, the probability of an actual or thwarted terrorist attack in the U.S. or in some  NATO country over the next year or so has to be quite high. I’m not talking about something on a 9/11 or a Paris scale or anything like that, but something scary enough for Trump to use it as a cudgel to try to expand his powers. [emphasis added]
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-really-matters-from-trumps-first-3-weeks/

The Paris attacks involved 3 attackers, the 9/11 19.   The Orlando attack involved one, but killed 49.

Certainly there's some terrorist attack which could prompt Trump to ask for/get expanded powers, but what would it be?

Some possibilities:

• a multi-person attack by refugees admitted before 2017 from one or more of the seven countries
• an attack which claims victims in the triple digits or more, particularly if multi-person.
• an attack on a particular target, like a sporting event, a civic event, a notable politician or eminent figure.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I'm pretty sure in the months after 9/11 I was more optimistic than most about new terrorist attacks.  But I'm still surprised we've gone 16 years with only lone wolf (regarding San Bernadino as one) attacks, attacks with little innovation as to targets or methods. So my predictions for the future have very low confidence, but I'd still expect more of the last 15 years than anything which could be a pretext for more surveillance, enhanced interrogation, etc.  

The Virtues of Consistency in Managers

I think I've recounted this before, but I'll do it again.  Early in my managerial career I exploded at an employee, using some curse words.  My boss, actually the deputy director of the division, counseled me in a session I've remembered.  (Of course I had to apologize to the employee.)  Also in the division was another branch chief, Lew, a WWII veteran of D-Day (I think his ship was sunk) who was, to stereotype, a volatile Italian-American, and a male chauvinist. (This was 1975 or so.) One of his section chiefs was a young woman, Linda, who was new to management.  I think the conversation happened some months after a reorganization of the division.

Anyhow, the deputy director noted that while putting Lew as Linda's boss seemed counter-intuitive, he thought it was working.  The key factor was that Lew was consistent, so Linda could learn to adapt to his ways.  By contrast, if your manager was unpredictable, erupting occasionally while usually being emotionally withdraw (i.e, like me), it was hard for employees to adapt, to learn what worked and what didn't.

The lesson rang true to me then, and I've found subsequent experience confirming it.  With this in mind, I fear our President-elect will not be a good manager.  His subordinates will get tired of his changes of directions, and start withholding problems/information which might trigger bad decisions.  And that withholding may lead to bigger problems.

We'll see.

Contra Trump II

I blogged previously on how Democrats should view and oppose Trump.  To extend my thoughts, because Trump has few or no principles, he can be unusually flexible (can Teflon be flexible?).  Similarly his opponents must be flexible, meaning they should avoid confirmation bias. (See this New Yorker post on this and other ideas relevant to the Trump era.)

We shouldn't believe or argue that Trump is fascist, authoritarian, racist or inept.  I guarantee for every  ten examples we can point to over the next four years showing those qualities he will have a few counter examples. Our best bet is to attack him as inconsistent, unprincipled, hypocritical showman, of whom the American people will become tired and disillusioned and be willing for a return to Democratic sanity and steadiness in 2020.

The bottom line on Trump is he lost the popular vote by 2.8+ million and won the electoral vote with a lot of luck and a very unlucky opponent.  And demographic trends are still against the Republicans.  So a competent candidate in 2020 without 40 years of baggage should be favored, even against an incumbent president, assuming Trump will have as rocky a tenure as we Democrats have to believe he will have.

I Was Wrong

See this, and should retire as a predictor but I'm still optimistic.

Where I'm At: Optimistic

At noon on Election Day, I'm optimistic, both about the election and the country:

• I want and expect Clinton to win.
• Trump will concede, either graciously or at the behest of his family.
• If the Dems take the Senate, they'll still be at the mercy of their conservatives: Manchin and Donnelly. If they don't, I expect the remnants of the Gang of Eight (or was it Sixteen) to help pass legislation.  (Republicans don't have many running in 2018 so Senators won't be pulled to the right by primary fears.)
• Clinton will likely work from the center, both as a result of Congress being narrowly divided. She'll turn out to be a good president.

As always, I'd predict an extension of past trends (which is a sure way of being wrong--things stay the same until they don't)--growth in the economy, improvements in social trends (teen pregnancy down, crime low, lower obesity), and innovations which help and hurt (autonomous vehicles, health care innovations, etc.)

Predictions: Senate

The Senate may be controlled by the Democrats, but likely by a very slim margin.  Based on our history, a 50/50 split or 51/49 split is going to be unstable.  Among the events which can affect passage of a specific bill and/or control of the Senate (disregarding the likelihood of a filibuster and the need for 60 votes)

• any individual senator can hold out for his or her favorite project issue (we saw that in the ACA negotiations--the senators from LA, AR, and NE at different times held out for something special)
• a senator may switch parties
• special elections to fill vacancies (first of all--the VA seat Kaine now holds) from resignations or death. Note most governors are Republicans, in cases where they have authority.  Such elections will attract gobs of money.

The End of the GOP?

I think I've seen a little discussion that the Trump candidacy will lead to/means the end of the Republican Party. 

I disagree, based mainly on my memory of the 1964 election and its aftermath.  First I'd like to say there's little evidence that 2016 will be as one-sided as 1964.  While Goldwater was a more attractive personality than Trump, we forget how much LBJ was respected if not loved in 1964.  He had rallied the nation after JFK's death and had accomplished things which seemed unlikely.  So HRC is no LBJ.

After the landslide there was, IIRC, a lot of discussion that it was the end for the GOP,  Areas which had never voted Democratic, like my upstate NY district, had gone for the Democratic candidate, not only for President but for Congress. That's how we got the super-majority in the Senate.  Cointon is not going to beat Trump by upwards of 20 points; more to the point she's going to be very lucky if she even has a bare majority in the Senate and squeaks by the in House. So the Republicans would have a good base to rebuild from, much better than the 1965 Reps.


It's arguable that the divisions in the party are greater and more firmly based now.  It may be true, though I'd bow to the political scientists on that.  Certainly the divisions on free trade and immigration, and between social conservatives and populists seem sharp.  But in the long run, the pursuit of power is a great consolidating force.  So I'd predict the GOP would rebound rather quickly after a Trump defeat, just as it began to in 1966.

Organic Does Not Equal Small or American

Modern Farmer has a piece on the costs of converting farmland to organic (it requires a multi-year history of only organic methods being used, which is costly) so Costco is going to finance some vertical integration:

"This first initiative will find Costco partnering with Andrew & Williamson Fresh Produce, based in San Diego, to buy equipment and 1,200 acres of land just south of the border."

As I say in the previous post, the organic premium and demand is there now, but I predict an overbuilding of capacity. 

Organic Does Not Equal Locavore

A Bloomberg piece on the importing of organic grain from Romania and India.  It's certainly not energy-efficient.

This is related to the next post on Costco springing for the costs of converting farmland to organic.  I'd interpret both as saying the price premium for organic is promising enough to warrant these measures.  I'd also guess there will be at some point down the road an overbuilding of organic capacity, because farmers usually overshoot their market corrections.

Court Gamesmanship

Having just seen my prediction for the Presidential elections go up in flames with Rubio's withdrawal, I forge ahead with commenting on the Supreme Court.

I seems to me that Obama has this strategy:
  

• taking the Senate Republicans at their word--they won't vote to confirm any appointee now.
• Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee and she's likely to beat Trump.
• if she beats Trump, there's some chance a nominee who's not a liberal icon and who's a little older will seem more palatable to the Republican Senate after election day.  That's particularly true if the new Senate has a Democratic majority.   

Paul Meringoff at  Powerline, a conservative with whom I almost always disagree, seems to support my theory, writing this morning: " Things might look different in September, if Hillary Clinton is 25 points ahead of Donald Trump in the polls and the Republicans are headed towards losing the Senate. In that event, Garland might look a lot better."

The Paperless Office Redux

John Quiggin at Crooked Timber discusses a paper of his that says we've reached peak paper.

I remember in 1984 when the IT guys were trying to build their case for the System/36 in ASCS offices, one of them asked me about the paperless office.  Now we all know my memory is fading as rapidly as my age is increasing, so I don't really remember whether I was asked a leading question about it, and answered with a paean to the possibility that ASCS offices and farmers would get out from under the paperwork burden, or whether I was skeptical.  Most likely I wimped out and answered somewhere in between.

Anyhow, Quiggin thinks it's finally here, and that means the consumption of paper worldwide will increase.  It makes sense to me now: I'm typing on a 23 inch monitor with color and WYSIWYG; in 1984 it would have been a monochrome 14 inch monitor, etc. etc.   He points to the explosion in information (in 1984 it would have been an 8-inch floppy).  He goes on to discuss a parallel with Peak Oil, Peak Coal, and Peak Steel.

Prediction

I predict the tickets will be Hillary Clinton/Julian Castro versus Marco Rubio/John Kasich.

[Update 1--that was Feb 2.  New prediction:

Clinton/Castro versus Kasich/Rubio.   :-) ]

A Bubble--Yes

So says the economist in this agweb article.

Unlike the early 80's, the developing world is still growing and providing more demand.

$2.75 Corn? A Bubble?

Did we have a land bubble? Agweb has an article saying get ready for $2.75 corn.  I find by searching on this site I was forecasting a land bubble in 2007 and again in 2011.  Guess I got tired of being wrong and have kept quiet since.  A reminder if any were needed of how difficult it is to make economic predictions.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place--FSA

The good bureaucrats at FSA are between the rock of current law (the extension of the 2008 farm law) and a hard place--the certainty that direct payments aren't going to survive this Congress.

Why do I say "certainty"?  Because all parties agree there needs to be more cutting, and direct payments was already on the block last year, so it will be one of the first candidates offered up this year.  According to today's Farm Policy, cutting direct payments was already proposed in a Republican amendment to the Sandy disaster aid package: i.e., the Republican majority wanted to offset some of the disaster aid with cuts to spending and they included direct payments.

So the bottom line is that FSA has to act as if they were going to have direct payments, but we all know farmers won't see a nickel of them.

Post-Election Prediction

Had a discussion this morning about what will happen after a Romney victory in November.  My interlocutor suggested he would repeal ACA immediately.  This is my response, for what it's worth:

Repeal the health plan root and branch? No. The fiscal cliff will absorb their time and energy. Meanwhile they'll figure out how to handle the good parts, repeal the bad, and still pay for everything. Unless they go the constitutional option on the filibuster, they've got to squeeze ACA repeal into reconciliation, which is going to be difficult. As for the huge tax cuts, no way. They'll be doing good in the fiscal cliff negotiations to extend the Bush cuts, while stopping the FICA cuts. Redoing the tax system as Romney/Ryan propose will take a couple years. And it won't work as drafted--the itemized deductions are too woven into our society. Think of Obama: he promised healthcare and no mandates and climate change legislation and immigration, he got 1 of the 3 with very big changes and he had a big win and a big Senate majority. Romney won't have either, maybe a small Senate majority.

A couple more comments: there's been a to and fro between Marty Feldstein and other Republican economists and Brad DeLong and some Dem-leaning economists about whether the Romney tax plan is possible.  The Tax Policy Institute said it wasn't, Feldstein says it is, DeLong says Feldstein failed elementary math.  IMHO it's all beside the point.  To make it work (i.e., lower tax rates and broaden base) you've got to do what Reagan and Rostenkowski failed to do in 1986, which is to end the deductibility of state and local taxes and mortgage interest.  The problem they had, and the problem Romney will have, is all the realtors in the country, who are very much Republican small business types, support interest deductibility. And all the people who pay high state and local taxes in states which rely on income and property taxes, who again are very much Republican types, support tax deductibility.

My other comment relates to foreign affairs: assume Israel's not bluffing, and Romney's serious about 110 percent support of Israel, we may be seeing a new Middle East war in the first 100  days.  (Of course Obama can't point this out, because he's only 105 percent supportive of Israel.)

We'll see how accurate my predictions are in the 200 days to come.

What Lies Ahead

On Black Friday, let me be gloomy and forecast doom over the next few months and years:

• the Eurozone collapses as the EU continues to be a day late and a dollar short and refuses to take advice from Geithner and Obama
• Europe goes into recession, which leads us into a period of zero growth
• the developing nations see their growth slacken, as bubbles pop and exports to the US and Europe, now in recession, decline
• harvests in South America, Russia and the Ukraine, Australia, China and India are record or near record levels.
• commodity prices fall because demand from the developing world is depressed and supply has exploded.
• the farmland price bubble pops and many farmers find themselves overextended.
• with the US economy in a second recession, the deficit starts really to explode, making it impossible to pass a farm bill because the parties can't agree on anything.

Finished on somber Saturday.  (Not that I think the above will happen, but what do I know.)

Fighting the Last War

That's what bureaucracies do, whether it's the Army or the Coast Guard and Interior.  There's a good interview with Adm. Thad Allen at Government Executive, which explains the Gulf spew.  Part of the explanation: the system was dominated by the lessons of the Exxon Valdez spill.

Prediction--Landesman Out in One Year

The NYTimes had an interview article on the new head of the National Endowment for the Arts, Mr. Landesman. Based on the contents, I confidently predict he'll be out in a year. He already shows a tin ear for politics and political realities--he's going to be a loose cannon.