Trump Force One versus Air Force One

Donald Trump railled against Boeing for the guessitmated cost of replacing the existing two Air Force One planes with two new planes. As with everything Donald Trump says, listeners must not take what he says as completely factual or truthful.

Donald Trump lives in a simple world with simple ideas which flitter for a fleeting moment before another flutter of simple ideas pop up. The cost of replacing Air Force One is a perfect example. Donald knows the cost of buying and operating his Boeing jet, or I hope he does if he is going to start complaining about the cost of replacing the existing Air Force One jets.

Perhaps he’s forgotten the cost of operating his jet, just like he forgot to renew his FAA licence for his smaller plane for almost a year as he flew it around earlier in the Presidential run-off until someone noticed he had been flying an unauthorized plane for almost one year. Simple things like renewing an annual FAA licence was just too complex for him to remember. Or perhaps he was just being Donald and figured that being Donald Trump meant rules don’t apply to him.

Most children over the age of 10 would likely suspect the cost of a plane for a President of the United States would be quite a bit more than the cost of an equivalent and ordinary run-of-the-mill non-military plane. “Hey young Donald, which do you think cost more; a Boeing plane for you or a Boeing plane for the President of the United States?” “Why a Boeing pane for me ’cause I know smarter people than the President and I’m great.” Okay, so Donald is truly an exception.

Donald can compare Apples and Oranges and find no difference better than anyone. He’s the best. He’s great. He’s fabulous. He’s marvellous. He’s incredible. He’s absolutely incredible.

Here is a short video comparing Trump Force One and Air Force One:

How Donald Trump is changing the rules for American business


HIS inauguration is still six weeks away but Donald Trump has already sent shock waves through American business. Chief executives—and their companies’ shareholders—are giddy at the president-elect’s promises to slash burdensome regulation, cut taxes and boost the economy with infrastructure spending. Blue-collar workers are cock-a-hoop at his willingness to bully firms into saving their jobs.

In the past few weeks, Mr Trump has lambasted Apple for not producing more bits of its iPhone in America; harangued Ford about plans to move production of its Lincoln sports-utility vehicles; and lashed out at Boeing, not long after the firm’s chief executive had mused publicly about the risks of a protectionist trade policy. Most dramatically, Mr Trump bribed and cajoled Carrier, a maker of air-conditioning units in Indiana, to change its plans and keep 800 jobs in the state rather than move them to Mexico. One poll suggests that six out of ten Americans view Mr Trump more favourably after the Carrier deal. This muscularity is proving popular.

Popular but problematic. The emerging Trump strategy towards business has some promising elements, but others that are deeply worrying. The promise lies in Mr Trump’s enthusiasm for corporate-tax reform, his embrace of infrastructure investment and in some parts of his deregulatory agenda. The dangers stem, first, from the muddled mercantilism that lies behind his attitude to business, and, second, in the tactics—buying off and attacking individual companies—that he uses to achieve his goals. American capitalism has flourished thanks to the predictable application of rules. If, at the margin, that rules-based system is superseded by an ad hoc approach in which businessmen must take heed and pay homage to the whim of King Donald, the long-term damage to America’s economy will be grave.

Read the complete article on The Economist.


Ben Carson: ‘No experience’? Neither does Trump.

Donald Trump’s transition team announced that former presidential candidate Ben Carson had been nominated as housing secretary. “Ben shares my optimism about the future of our country and is part of ensuring that this is a presidency representing all Americans,” the president-elect said in the statement. Carson had previously removed himself from the running for a cabinet position after his spokesperson said that he did not feel qualified to run a federal agency.

So far, Trump’s roster of key White House advisers and Cabinet officials could be the least experienced in recent presidential history.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner who is now being discussed as a White House adviser, none of those individuals has worked in government.

Other Trump picks without any government experience are:

Treasury Secretary

Steven Mnuchin. Mr. Trump has selected Mr. Mnuchin, who served as his campaign finance chairman. Mr. Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive, has deep roots in Hollywood and no government experience.

Commerce Secretary

Wilbur Ross. Mr. Trump has selected Mr. Ross, an investor whose fortune is estimated by Forbes to be $2.9 billion. Mr. Ross has said the United States must free itself from the “bondage” of “bad trade agreements,” and has advocated threats to impose steep tariffs on China.

Defense Secretary

James N. Mattis. Mr. Trump announced at a rally that he had selected General Mattis, who led a Marine division to Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and led the United States Central Command from 2010-13. General Mattis, now retired, has been a critic of the Obama administration.

National Security Advisor

Michael T. Flynn. The New York Times describes that “many of those who observed the general’s time at the Defense Intelligence Agency described him as someone who alienated both superiors and subordinates with his sharp temperament, his refusal to brook dissent, and what his critics considered a conspiratorial worldview.”

Read more about Donald Trump’s picks at this link.

Trump's Cabinet Looks For Solutions.

Trump’s Cabinet Looks For Solutions.

Christmas with the family

Merry Christmas everyone and happy holidays. May the best things which happened to you this year be the worst things to happen to you next year and always.

Why Trump’s Carrier deal bad for American business


Donald Trump’s Carrier deal is bad for American business because businesses must now consider being punished by Trump for performing an act required by law; acting in the best interest of shareholders.

The Carrier deal is a prime example. Yes the deal saved 1,000 jobs. For now. But the deal also allowed Carrier to move more than 1,000 jobs to Mexico. The $7 million put up by taxpayers to save those jobs helped Carrier. Carriers owners, United Technologies, gets brownie points with Trump and an easier opening door to government when UT needs it.

But what if the only economic option for a company is to move a production line to a more affordable location anywhere other than the US? By law the company has to act in the best interest of its shareholders. Will taxpayers have to shoulder the expense of forcing an American business to keep its production in the US?

No company is going to agree to keep its employees in the US if by doing so raises the retail cost of its product or can be seen as not acting in the best interests of shareholders.

And you won’t find any factory workers willing to accept the same pay as someone in more low-cost labour country. No one will buy an American-made thingamajig for $20.00 when they can buy the identical item in the US for $8.00 but made by the same company in another country.

Will Trump order tarrifs on that $8.00 item to bring it up to par with the American made one? Who the heck wins with that deal? Certainly not the worker who suddenly finds he/she has a job but can’t afford to buy anything anymore. Do you think Trump is going to give the tariff money to workers to offset higher living expenses? Maybe he’ll take that extra tariff income and give workers a $100/month Trump card for you to spend at any of his businesses.

The result is the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with paying the bill for any Trump deal no matter what.

Instead of issuing threats of retaliation to American companies not obeying Trump’s utterances, Trump should be looking beyond immediate image enhancement and instead focus on long-term positive gains for American workers by making it easier for workers to upgrade their skills for employment in knowledge-based industries, and provide financial assistance to low-income and middle-class students so they may attend university and college in order to get a job in the future or create a business in the future.

Threats may have worked for Donald Trump when he was building properties, but Donald is in a whole new ball game where ill-prepared remarks and actions can have dire consequences for a country in the long term.

Theory challenging Einstein’s view on speed of light could soon be tested

The newborn universe may have glowed with light beams moving much faster than they do today, according to a theory that overturns Einstein’s century-old claim that the speed of light is a constant.

João Magueijo, of Imperial College London, and Niayesh Afshordi, of the University of Waterloo in Canada, propose that light tore along at infinite speed at the birth of the universe when the temperature of the cosmos was a staggering ten thousand trillion trillion celsius.

Magueijo and Afshordi came up with their theory to explain why the cosmos looks much the same over vast distances. To be so uniform, light rays must have reached every corner of the cosmos, otherwise some regions would be cooler and more dense than others. But even moving at 1bn km/h, light was not travelling fast enough to spread so far and even out the universe’s temperature differences.

To overcome the conundrum, cosmologists including Stephen Hawking have proposed a theory called inflation, in which the fledgling universe underwent the briefest spell of the most tremendous expansion. According to inflation, the temperature of the cosmos evened out before it exploded to an enormous size. But there is no solid proof that inflation is right, and if so, what sparked such a massive period of expansion, and what brought it to an end.

Read the complete article on The Guardian newspaper web site here.