Hope Everyone Had A Great Thanksgiving. Holiday Rant.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A Holiday Rant. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DORIS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) Third quarter revised GDP numbers are out and they are slightly better than expected, but one must look behind the number. It is partially better due to inventory buildup, which is large, and will need a very strong Christmas to help whittle that down, or GDP for Q4 and Q1 will be pushed lower as inventory is worked off. The other issue is corporate profits before tax were down.  Margins are getting squeezed. In my view that is because there is so much price transparency now with online shopping, not just for consumer goods, but also for industrial products, that price increases are hard to achieve to cover increasing wages.  Were it not for low interest rates, low energy costs and low logistics costs, things could be a lot more negative. None of this is a real concern as none of those costs will rise much next year, but a lot will depend on a very strong Christmas to help move these issues to a more positive situation. None of this means a recession. It just means a slower growth trajectory, and possibly a slower increase in stock prices if corporate profits do not improve. As of now, stock prices are running up substantially faster than profits, and at some point profits need to grow, or stock prices will decline.  With the job markets till strong, and some early indication that the world economy might be stabilizing, then with the trade deals, cap ex should improve and eventually profits will improve. Consumer spend over the holidays will make a big difference where stock prices go from here.

Mid-sized companies in manufacturing, transport and similar industries are feeling pessimistic, and are worried about the election. They fear a Dem president and Congress who would undo all the good deregulation and tax cuts of Trump, and tank the economy, and the stock market. As a result they are not doing any cap ex. Fear and uncertainty are their guide right now.   The other result is many of these companies are looking at mergers and spinoffs to position themselves to be bigger and better for what they fear could be a recession if their fears are realized.  If this fear reverses, then the economy will pick up materially and stock prices will rise further. The whole effort by the Dems to tarnish Trump by any means possible, is doing real harm to the economy by instilling this fear in company managements that someone like Warren or Budaboy might be elected president. Unfortunately, the mainstream media keep feeding this fear with their daily attacks on Trump, and with their continual pushing the impeachment scenario. It is unlikely that until the election is decided this fear and uncertainty will go away. My own view is that Trump will be reelected and the House has a small chance to revert to Republican. The more impeachment is pushed, the more chance the Republicans have to retake the House. The Dems are losing the independents.

As we head into the holiday shopping season, it is interesting to note that tariffs do not seem to have had much impact on retail prices. One of my friends manufactures a specific type of girls make up kits. He has been hit with 25% tariffs. Solution, instead of 8 pieces to a pack, there are 6 at about the same price. Wal Mart ate a little of the cost and raised the price very slightly, Target did not. The consumer saw minimal rise in price of a package, but they do not seem to notice the lesser number of units per package. Manufacturers in China seem to have been able to adjust some costs, plus the decline of the Yuan helped. Next year this particular product will be manufactured in Thailand. In the end China loses, and the US consumer still bought the product at about the same price although at a higher per unit cost. I believe this story is typical of what is happening. Tariffs just have not had the large negative impact on prices, nor the devastating economic impact many had forecast. Having said that, when tariffs are lifted, and there is a signed deal, the economy will respond well as it, and the signing of USMCA, will lift the uncertainty that is holding down cap ex spending. Whatever many said about tariffs being the wrong way to do this, it appears they worked. China did not pay the tariffs, but their economy and currency will have paid a big price. Farmers may have had a tough time, but in the end they will win big, and that was what they counted on. USMCA will pass by year end as Dems in the Midwest come back to DC and demand it get passed. Both trade deals get done, the stock market and 401k's go up, farmers are happy, the economy improves and impeachment goes nowhere. The Durham indictments start, and Trump wins in a landslide in the electoral college. That is a very realistic scenario.

If you want to better understand why there is no inflation, just look at which retailers are doing great, and which are failing. Amazon, Wal Mart, TJ Max, Costco, Best Buy are big successes, while department stores and ordinary chains are failing. Sears and JC Penny are badly managed, and never understood how to operate in the new retail environment. Online and low prices at brick and mortar are where most shoppers now go. Price transparency has completely changed retail and inflation expectations. Nobody has to pay a higher price anymore when there is easily the same, or similar product to be found online at a lower price. Even wealthy people now shop online and look for bargains. And shipping is free in many cases, which also cuts the cost to the consumer materially. Advances in AI driven worldwide logistics, and robotic warehouses have made a real difference in inflation. Add on fracking bringing very low energy prices, and one understands that inflation is a very different situation than in the past.  It is not clear to me that the Fed understands that. It is very clear the Dems and college kids have no understanding of how fossil fuels at very low cost due to fracking improves the standard of living for low income families by leaving more cash in their pocket. But the Dems want to end fracking and take us back to depending on the Arabs.

The WSJ apparently conducted a study of SAT scores and compared them to neighborhoods and schools. All of us could have told them the results before they started. Kids in poor minority neighborhoods, with a single parent , poorly educated mother, and poor quality schools, scored much worse than white kids from homes with two educated parents. Duh. The education world seems to think they need to take circumstances of growing up into account to excuse the lack of preparedness for elite colleges.  That misses the point. The kid is still not prepared to do the work and making excuses for him does not change that reality.

The solution, as I have said in the past, is not to just admit these kids into elite schools where they are not prepared for the high level of work and competition.  They do not have the cultural nor high school background to succeed in these schools, and eliminating the SAT, as many now are encouraging, will not change anything other than to have more unqualified students admitted to top schools where they will fail. If you admit a kid just because he is from a bad home or neighborhood, he will not succeed any better in an elite school for which he is not prepared, and remedial classes will not make the difference. Until cities instill discipline in the schools so those kids who want to learn, can learn, and until they break the unions, nothing is going to change. That is why non-union charters and vouchers are the best chance for these kids.

There also needs to be a major cultural change in these neighborhoods where they believe in education and opportunity to have a good life, which they now can see with the historic low black unemployment rate.  Instead of pushing these kids into diversity admission to universities they are not prepared for, the high school should push them into state colleges, or vocational schools where they can actually learn and do well, and succeed in life.  You can get a very good education at many state and small schools. The local high schools need to not only kick out disruptive kids, but they need to use more online courses and extensive use of up to date computers. They also need the teachers to not just do the minimum allowed by the union, but they need to instill the benefits of education into the kids since they do not often get that at home. It is often a good encouraging teacher who can make all the difference in someone's life. That takes leadership by the superintendent.

We need to stop the I am a victim scenario of, my failure to be successful is due to racism, and get back to, it's up to the individual to decide to make something of himself in spite of the home or neighborhood situation. There are many people I know who came out of bad homes and bad neighborhoods, but they were determined to do well, and they did. That attitude needs to be instilled in these poor black communities to change the culture. Successful  blacks need to go into the schools and show the kids they too can make it, and not just as basketball or NFL players. Obama and Holder would do far more good for blacks if they made videos for elementary and high school kids that said- see, I made it to the very top and so can you. They need to change the script from, you can't make it due to racism that those two have been playing since Ferguson, which is what has created this everything is racist mantra on campus and social media. I blame those two for starting what has become the victimization script. Instead successful blacks and the press need to change the script to: you now have wide open opportunity if you study hard and stay out of trouble. A lot of Asian kids grow up poor in NY today, but they are determined to succeed, and they study hard to get ahead. That is why they are now such a large percentage of the students in special high schools in NYC, and why DeBozo wants to stop the competitive tests and just take in kids who do not qualify other than skin color. The answer is culture and home life, not money, or shifting where kids go to school to have more desegregation.

Don't be surprised if Trump gets 30% of the black vote. There are those on the left who now are saying even if we are much better off financially under Trump we should give that up if necessary to not have him as a racist president. That is a really dumb position when for the first time ever, blacks are enjoying the work and financial opportunities to get ahead that they always said were denied them, and Obama never gave them.

Pocahontas is done. The bartender from the Bronx has had her moment in the sun. Bernie was never really in contention. Budaboy is a flash in Iowa and that is it. What these three plus Schiff have done is hand the Republicans a major opportunity to retake the House and control of all three branches. If impeachment goes to the Senate, Biden is finished. The longer impeachment and the Dem primaries go on, the better the Republicans will do. It will come down to Biden and Bloomberg, and then possibly Obama will try to broker a deal to make Patrick the nominee.

The below is worth reading. Heather is part of our small group trying hard to change the anti-free speech situation on campus.  Take special note of all of the administrative deans she mentions of head of bias response, sexual issues, gender issues, etc. This is where all the wasted tuition dollars go and why student loans are so high. Those people are who are pushing the students to think anyone not toeing the party line is speaking hate speech and should be barred, and they are the ones who are muzzling free speech. They are dangerous to your kids and American democracy. (See 1a below.)

Here is a very good series of examples of how horrible campus has become and why we all need to demand our alumni stop this or there are no more donations. (See 1b below.)

1a)Why Are College Students So Afraid of Me?

Because adults at places like Bucknell and Holy Cross have convinced them they are oppressed.

By

Heather Mac Donald

Few things upset American college students more than being told they aren’t oppressed. I recently spoke at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. I argued that American undergraduates are among the most privileged individuals in history by virtue of their unfettered access to knowledge. Far from being discriminated against, students are surrounded by well-meaning faculty who want all of them to succeed.

About 15 minutes into my talk, as I was discussing Renaissance humanism, a majority of the audience in the packed auditorium stood up and started chanting: “My oppression is not a delusion!” The chanters then declared that my sexism, racism and homophobia weren’t welcome on campus. “You are not welcome,” they added, as if I didn’t know.

The protesters drowned out my response before filing slowly out of the room, still loudly announcing their victimhood and leaving dozens of seats empty that could have been filled by students who had been turned away for lack of space. (The protesters had hoped to occupy the entire auditorium before vacating it, so no one else could hear me speak.)

In a subsequent open letter, a senior claimed that I came to Holy Cross to “discredit, humiliate, and deny the existence of minority students.” In fact, I came to urge the entire student body to seize their boundless opportunities for learning with joy and gratitude.

The maudlin self-pity on display at Holy Cross doesn’t arise spontaneously. It is actively cultivated by adults on campus. A few days before the Holy Cross protest, faculty and administrators at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pa., convened a therapeutic “scholars” panel to take place during another talk of mine. The goal was to inoculate the university against the violence that I allegedly represented.

Bucknell’s interpersonal violence prevention coordinator; the director of its Women’s Resource Center; the interim associate provost for diversity, equity, and inclusion; a women’s and gender studies professor; and an economics professor discussed rape culture, trauma and racism. Students and faculty were then invited to join in painting “self-care” rocks.

This craft activity, in which participants write feel-good messages on stones, was originally designed for K-5 classrooms. It may not be what parents paying Bucknell’s $72,000 annual tuition and fees had in mind. No matter. According to Bucknell’s interpersonal violence prevention coordinator, it was “especially important” for students who had attended my talk to come to the scholars “space” afterward and practice self-care. The interim associate provost for diversity, equity, and inclusion said that the administration’s willingness to let my talk proceed shows that it values free speech more than the community’s trauma.

In anticipation of my Bucknell talk, student journalists had claimed that “‘free speech’” merely amplifies “hate speech,” and that hate speech such as mine was intended to “attack students of color” and “survivors of sexual assault.” An English professor cheered them on. The Bucknell Faculty and Staff of Color Working Group urged colleagues to support those whose “first-hand experiences with injustice” at Bucknell were “invalidated and perpetuated” by my arguments.

Bucknell’s Democratic Socialists of America organized a protest at which participants—in between chants of “Hey hey! Ho Ho! Heather Mac has got to go!” and “No justice! No peace!”—were encouraged to share their personal experiences of injustice at Bucknell. Sadly, there is no available record of what the protesters came up with.

Students who can be persuaded to see oppression on an American college campus—where traits that still lead to ostracism and even death outside the West are not just tolerated but celebrated—can be persuaded to see oppression anywhere. The claim that American universities, and the U.S. in general, are defined by white supremacy is the one unifying idea on college campuses today, in the absence of a shared curriculum dedicated to civilization’s greatest works. And that idea is spreading. School systems across the country are training teachers and administrators that colorblind standards and the work ethic are instruments of white privilege. Any private institution without proportional representation of minorities and females is vulnerable to attack, since bigotry is the only allowable explanation for the lack of sex and race “diversity.”

The promiscuous labeling of disagreement as hate speech and the equation of such speech with violence will gain traction in the public arena, as college graduates take more positions of power. The former managing editor of Time has already advocated in the Washington Post for allowing states to define and penalize hate speech; potential censors wait in the wings.

Certain ideas are now taboo in the academy—above all, the idea that behavior and culture better explain socioeconomic disparities in the U.S. than bigotry. A Bucknell student protester claimed that my sin is to force “this elementary conversation about whether structural racism even exists.”

Most Americans are eager and ready for a post-racial country. The perpetual invocation of racial oppression on college campuses and beyond, however, keeps race relations fraught.

After the Holy Cross protest, the co-president of the Black Student Union, which organized the walkout with an assist from the student government, told the campus newspaper: “The fact that we pulled this off is actually amazing. I feel so empowered now, and this is just the beginning. This is the start of something more.”

About that, she is undoubtedly right.

Ms. Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of “The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.”

1b)

There’s No Safe Space for Ideas on Campus ‘Animal Farms’

Zealous student activists find ways to punish those who make them think uncomfortable thoughts.

By

Daniel Payne

Most Americans know that higher education has for several decades been in the grip of a deeply intolerant, fanatical and uncompromising strain of progressive activism. Students and sometimes even faculty members regularly chase heterodox speakers off campus, demand complete fealty from terrified campus bureaucracies, and denounce and destroy each other over the slightest and most inconsequential ideological deviations. The environment isn’t unlike George Orwell’s “Animal Farm,” a place where “no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.”

Yet an even more intolerant brand of campus activism is taking shape. This rising political philosophy isn’t merely allergic to dissenting ideas but is opposed even to ideas about dissenting ideas. It’s a bit like the concept of metacognition in reverse: These activists, gripped by zealotry and inflexible dogmatism, are taking pains to avoid even thinking about thoughts with which they disagree.

Consider a recent controversy at Washington College in Maryland. Students there successfully lobbied to shut down a campus production of a play just one day before it was set to open.

The aggrieved students were upset that the play, Larry Shue’s “The Foreigner,” depicts the evil antics of the Ku Klux Klan. But the play doesn’t show Klan members in a sympathetic light—on the contrary, they’re the villains of the piece, and they get their comeuppance in the end. Yet students were deeply upset by the Klan costumes the actors would wear, so the play had to go. (The theater department was “unable to find a satisfactory compromise” with the student activists, a campus official dryly noted.)

Several professors have also landed in hot water recently simply for speaking an offensive word while students were around. At Emory University, law professor Paul Zwier is facing major sanctions from his school because, in a few instances, he said the N-word. Mr. Zwier didn’t direct the word at anyone or anything; he merely mentioned it, first as part of a discussion of case law and then to illustrate a larger point during a private conversation. Students claimed Mr. Zwier threatened their “safety and emotional well-being.” Another student who heard Mr. Zwier use the word was reportedly “visibly shaken” after the experience, as if he had suffered a near-death experience. Faculty wanted Mr. Zwier barred from school events, lest they be forced to sit near him and risk their own reputations.

An employee at the University of North Texas lost her job after referring to the N-word as an example of constitutionally protected speech. Students demanded her firing, claiming that her use of the word proved she was racist. At Augsburg University in Minneapolis, a professor uttered the word while discussing a James Baldwin text that itself used the word. That professor was suspended after a student outcry. A professor at the University of Kansas got booted off the tenure track after referring to the word during a class session.

More evidence of ideological intransigence can be found in the “bias response teams” that are now regular features at many universities. One Michigan State student had a bias report filed against him for watching a Ben Shapiro video in a dorm. A faculty member at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was reported for having a Trump sticker in his office window. Another professor was hit with a bias report after discussing the infamous Janet Jackson “nipplegate” controversy. The offended student said the professor had not couched the discussion with enough moral qualifiers.

These incidents don’t represent the normal campus hysterics to which we’ve become accustomed. A growing and strident sect of campus activism is coming to oppose not merely differing opinions but even talking about differing opinions. This is a new and far more uncompromising brand of progressive politics, where even an unsympathetic and progressive depiction of the Ku Klux Klan is too much to handle.

Administrators are partly to blame. University leaders have been far too quick in recent years to yield ground to political zealots, with the result that zealots feel that they more or less run the show on campus. They aren’t wrong.

But the real responsibility for this mess belongs to the student activists. Nobody forced them to become hyperpartisan fanatics; they did that on their own, and they now find themselves enmeshed in a silly, thought-free ideology, the consequences of which will surely come crashing down one day soon.

Mr. Payne is an assistant editor with the College Fix.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++