“Logic and Law” by Joshua Golden
Cultural conventions at risk
A generally agreed upon standard of ethics and morality contribute to the cultural conventions that govern our modern society, from the customs of commerce to the civility of conviviality. With these we enjoy relative stability and safety. Respect for the intent of others and trust in humanity define an aspirational ideal, and movement towards this is considered progress. It is a given that within these parameters there will be some that are petty scofflaws, scurrilous scoundrels, and wanton evildoers. But in general, the rule of law and order is the unseen fabric of civilization that enables all our endeavors, from our basic rights of privacy and possession, to the expectations of justice and fair play. This amorphous, and increasingly fragile, shroud of history, traditions, and agreements empower our reliance and trust in the logic of reason, facts, and process, that begins with the common law. Without these why would there be any acquiescence to any established governmental authority or a belief in any information?
Misconceptions, misdirection, deceit, self-interest, and bluster are the antithesis of the legitimacy of reasonable governance, and any veracity of the fourth estate of media. It’s reasonable to assume that waste, abuse, corruption, and bias can be found in any institutional structure. But addressing these concerns with a sudden, drastic deletion of agencies and programs is revolution branded as reform in an ongoing cancellation coup that can only create chaos and uncertainty, as most revolutions do. Throwing out the good with the bad, is bad enough, but the measures now being adopted to cleanse the government of impure thoughts is the precursor to an autocracy at odds with any idea of progress.
Radical reform
During a press conference in the oval office, as the POTUS appeared sullen and drowsy, the nearly self-appointed cost cutting Czar papa Musk held court and explained his efforts to restore democracy: “If the bureaucracy’s in charge, then what meaning does democracy actually have?” Musk defined democracy as what elected officials do, and what unelected officials do as bureaucracy. Musk, one of the largest contractors of the federal government and the subject of dozens of investigations, lawsuits and complaints that federal government agencies were looking into, maintains his appointment by Trump to a non-agency has qualified him to choose his staff. Like every department head empowered to do the work that elected representatives mandate. His claim that “We have this unelected, fourth, unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy, which has, in a lot of ways currently, more power than any elected representative…” now includes DOGE, an unconstitutional bureaucracy by his own definition. Demonizing the administrative bureaucracy of a government in a nation of 330 million people as unreasonable, costly and unnecessary makes for good defensive soundbites, but there is a reason the bureaucracy exists at the scale it does. Constituencies advocated over time and convinced elected representatives that those programs were worth funding, and put personnel to the task. The process as established has legitimate mechanisms for reform, like the various Inspectors General that have been fired. There is no legitimate role for the wealthiest man on the planet or his ego, despite X blasts with ‘GOTCHA!’ revelations that are often demonstrably untrue and inflammatory- his version of maximal transparency. The disruption that he has created across the federal government has benefited his business interests, there are investigations into his operations that have been stalled, quorums on oversight bodies that no longer exist. As untold data disappears down the memory hole, creating at the very least an appearance of a conflict of interest, to what extant is unknown, with delayed and unreleased financial and ethics filings.
Another tool Trump believes he has in his arsenal to deny the process is the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. A process that allows the president to ask Congress not to spend money, enacted after Nixon withheld money from domestic programs that he didn’t agree with. He was sued for violating the laws that created those programs and lost every case, including unanimous Supreme Court rulings. Trump’s budget director, Russ Vought, maintains that Trump doesn’t believe in that still valid and constitutionally enacted law. Clearly a violation of his oath and duties. Ironically, if the Impoundment Control Act was struck down, the president would have even less power. Ignore that law, and there remains the Supreme Court ruling that the president must spend as Congress directs, in accordance with the Constitution.
Trade warrior in chief
The Donald has long held the misguided belief that trade deficits are an unfair loss of value. As he did in his first term, on ‘Day one’ he issued an executive memo: “On America First Trade Policy- Addressing Unfair and Unbalanced Trade.” Directing The Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Trade Representative, to investigate the causes of our country’s large and persistent annual trade deficits in goods, and recommend appropriate measures, such as a global supplemental tariff or other policies, to remedy such deficits.
The cause? The cause of the deficit in trade is US citizens desire for the myriad of available imported products that are made at lower cost in other countries, lower costs for US consumers and supply chains for US manufacturers. The US is running a deficit because off-shore companies want to sell stuff to the US, and Americans have the money to pay for it.
Economist Adam Smith in his 1776 The Wealth of Nations, wrote the book on classical economics and free trade, noting that the wealth of a nation does not consist of money, but of useful goods and services, which we maximize by engaging in a division of labor and exchange.
Incidentally, the US has a trade surplus in services. Trade works for mutual benefit. When we buy imports we are enriched by their possession. And often the money spent is returned as investment. Imports are not something other nations ‘do’ to Americans. If Americans are importing more from one nation than they are exporting to them, it is because they are selling what Americans want. What Trump proposes as solutions, punitive tariffs, ultimately limits what options Americans have, and increase the costs of goods to the detriment of citizens. A trade deficit is not an indicator of weakness, it’s an indicator of our ability to purchase what we want and need.
Data for the 11 months up to Nov 2024 and comes from the US census FT900 report.
Trump’s belief is that a trade surplus is a win, and a deficit is a loss: “I believe in free trade, but we got to get something out of it. We can’t have free trade where we lose $500 billion a year, where we lose a hundred billion with another country and 50 billion with another one.” in his estimation if a country has a trade surplus with the US we got a bum deal. Accordingly he has made a primary goal of his trade policy reducing the trade deficit “to zero.” But trade isn’t a zero-sum game. It’s win-win, a completely different framework than he’s used to dealing with. Through trade both countries benefit even if one has a deficit. A trade deficit doesn’t imply economic weakness. In fact, the smallest trade deficit in recent years was during a significant Recession in 2008-2009. He also insists that because of trade deficits America has lost a lot of jobs. But studies show that a very significant majority of lost jobs in manufacturing are due to other causes like increased productivity through automation and technology.
A focus on China, with which we do have a significant trade deficit, belies the fact that bilateral trade deficit is meaningless, because trade is global. If we stop buying Chinese products, or in the current environment a trade war of tariffs drives reduced demand in an attempt to alter the deficit, if those products aren’t made in the US, or would be very expensive to produce. Production will shift from China to somewhere else. So it may reduce the bilateral trade deficit with China, but it will increase it with another country, the overall trade deficit is not going to change. The tariffs that Trump put on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods in his first term prompted importers to switch to other suppliers, such as Mexico and Vietnam. In addition, more Chinese parts and intermediate products are being sent to those countries and end up in the United States as finished goods.
Illogical imperialism
Israel has dropped 75,000 tons of explosives on Gaza, killed more than 61,700 people and wounded another 110,000, mostly women and children, with bodies still buried under up to 50 million tons of rubble. Meeting with International Criminal Court indicted war criminal and Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, Trump insisted that the U.S. would be in control of Gaza reconstruction and that all of the territory’s population would leave.” Doubling down as world leaders condemned his plan as ethnic cleansing, Trump continued to say the US will take possession of Gaza and move Palestinians out of the area. “…we’re going to have it and we’re going to keep it and we’re going to make sure that there’s going to be peace and there’s not going to be any problem and nobody’s going to question it…” When asked what authority he has to acquire a sovereign territory he claimed “US authority” and added that he believed the U.S. owning the Gaza Strip could bring stability to the region. Netanyahu said the approach as “revolutionary” and “creative…”
Rasmus Jarlov, the conservative party spokesperson on Greenland and chair of the defense committee in Denmark’s Parliament is puzzled by Trump drive to acquire Greenland: “There’s nothing that the United States could want in Greenland that they couldn’t get just by talking to us normally, without threats of annexation.” He says if Trump wants Greenland’s vast mineral resources, he’s welcome to mine them. If it’s shipping lanes he wants, he says there’s nothing standing in the way. And if taking Greenland is to help better secure the region against Russia and China, Jarlov wonders why the U.S. only has 150 troops at its military base on Greenland, down considerably from 15,000 troops, which it had in the early stages of the Cold War. If you want to send more troops to your base there, Jarlov says, go ahead. He says none of the reasons the Trump administration is putting forth for taking Greenland make sense when Denmark has been peacefully managing the island for 600 years.
Tune in for Politically Correct Week in Review, with Joshua Golden and Charley Custer
every other Monday on KMUD and on the archives
or find it on your podcast platform
More episodes coming soon, as we air them on the radio!
You can find more written articles by Joshua Golden on Facebook and on substack
