Business As Usual in the PRC

I once heard a sporting goods salesman explain the technology of their new composite wrapped baseball bat. “You get more distance relative to other bats. More distance equals more home runs.” I know they test these things so I pressed a little. “Does it really work that much better than other high end bats?” He looked a little confused “Um...It should.” It reminds me of how the business community thought of China’s growing economy over 20 years ago. Many thought the country could be ‘turned’ into a free market capitalist society. Based on foreign investment and market reforms it seemed to some that “It should.”  

Turns out that reality is more complicated and what a lot of corporate types hoped would happen, didn’t.

 Early last week China’s president Xi Jinping announced that he was ‘changing’ the constitution so as to serve unlimited terms as the leader. Previous presidents served two terms of 5 years each. It’s doubtful that any constitution had law binding capabilities that would be upheld by the Communist Party. But in the late nineties the State Department and a lot of CEOs believed that a growing market economy in China would force a softening toward the West. If the Chinese could become consumers and build a middle class they would insist on democratic reforms and more freedoms like Hong Kong, it was thought.

   

How realistic was it to assume that with a little prosperity and lower trade barriers, China could transition from the closed world of protectionism to a free market nation? Depends who you ask but the idea was pervasive. Right now though it seems foolish to assume an authoritarian government would relinquish any control, whether financial or cultural. In order to understand why smart people thought this way we have to understand the time.

During the late nineties the Communist Party began experimenting with privatization and banking reform. Led by Deng Xiaoping, reforms in certain industries like agriculture began turning a failing sector into a secure and profitable enterprise. They encouraged foreign investment and deregulated much of the economy. The poor nation needed money so it looked to the West. It was limited in scope and most of the really profitable industries (energy, manufacturing) remained state owned. But the reforms worked and created a sense, among some, that the one party state was opening up to the rest of world.

Two big events happened after that. First the British began handing back Hong Kong to Beijing with certain exceptions. Hong Kong would retain the ability to govern itself, keep its valuable currency and operate in a free economic zone apart from Beijing’s interference. The Brits had operated Hong Kong as a territory and set it up as a free trade zone after ceding control. Hong Kong had been separate from China before. 

Second, the United States and other Western partners admitted China into the WTO (World Trade Organization) if they met certain benchmarks, mainly they had to make their economy open to foreign business and ensure self-governance. Also China agreed to abide by the rules of trade for members of the WTO. Rules on tariffs and quotas have to be voted on by members and international courts preside over disputes among member countries. It’s worth noting that the PRC (People’ Republic of China) did make some drastic moves at home (at least superficially) to show their commitment to joining the club. In 2001 they were admitted as a full member and the mainland economy grew exponentially.

The internet was seen as a positive development that could bring democratization to Chinese citizens and introduce them to new ideas and, hopefully, Western thought. This wasn’t completely naive. When people are connected across vast swaths of the country leaders are held to account for bad behavior. But the Chinese were never going to let any new technology into the country until they had a way to control it. They periodically blocked news websites like the BBC and Bloomberg for various reasons. Certain words or phrases like “democracy” or “Falun Gong” (a religious group) would not return any results with a Google search. The censors blocked countless websites viewed as subversive. Arrests and detentions of journalists and Christians still happened but less so, since more the government needed to appear conciliatory. If not conciliatory at least they understood the importance of hiding the uglier aspects of a police state.   The economy was growing so well no one wanted to slow it down and hold Beijing accountable for obvious infractions. Neither did the Chinese government want to rock the diplomatic boat over some display of police brutality or arrest of a prominent journalist. China didn’t change dramatically in the 2000s but did learn to hide a lot their moves.

American businesses that entered the market mostly became frustrated by the lack of cooperation and intellectual property theft that is as common as the cities’ smog.

Intellectual property theft is more serious than people realize. If patents aren’t respected in foreign countries companies can’t sell product and demand the same value. It works like this, if Nike designs a running shoe for sale in retail stores around the world they expect to be the only ones making that shoe. Chinese factory owners frequently copy the design to sell to their own venders. DVDs create the same problem, as do software and tools and anything that carries a patent. Knock off copies of nearly everything exist within the country because the law doesn’t effectively crack down on theft. The authorities do some token sweeps of sellers from time to time but it doesn’t amount to deterrence. I once asked a Chinese business man why the authorities don’t enforce the law. “Why should they? The factories that make the fakes create thousands of jobs for unemployed workers and shoppers like cheap options. From a Communist official’s point of view, it doesn’t make sense to curb it.” 

Another aspect of opening a Chinese branch of your particular business is the ‘shared’ aspect of making money in the country. Big companies like Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, KFC) have to partner with a Chinese local company and share profits in order to open a location. This creates friction when the regulations change and rules aren’t clear. Having a partner means sharing financial information and intellectual property. Not every foreign company is doing poorly but the trend is toward less control in decision making.

I’ve wondered how much of the optimism toward China was genuine and rooted in positive changes the government was making, and how much purely driven by new markets. When the opportunity to make money presents itself you take it. Did American shareholders really believe that China was on the cusp of a global opening for democratic norms, or did they just pretend to in order to expand. The old saying about business is that if you aren’t growing you’re dying. What better opportunity to grow than in a country with 1.6 billion consumers? Like my baseball bat salesman, something tells they didn’t really know but figured “it should” work.

Since 2012 the Communist Party has started reverting back to old tactics, crushing dissent and purging the ranks of powerful cadres. The first big move Xi Jinping made was to start a ‘corruption drive’ to weed out bent officials and purify the party. It turned into a ploy aimed at removing rivals. Not that party corruption wasn’t a problem, citizens are all too aware of it, but it served a larger purpose for the young president, eliminate competition and send a message. Since then he has taken a wide swath of leadership positions and chairs that other presidents never assumed. He has tightened the noose of internet censorship and built up military bases along the South China Sea. The military buildup in particular is a direct affront to the US which patrols the region under a freedom of the seas initiative. Freedom of the seas ensures rights to travel through the ungoverned parts of the ocean. Building bases on shoals and tiny islands threatens this concept for both commercial and US Navy ships. Almost weekly we hear of Vietnamese and Philippine fishing vessels turned around, told to leave the area.

The US is in a tough position now. We have to determine what is important to national security first, economic considerations should be second. We should have learned by now that as long as the Communist Party is running the show, open markets and liberal reforms are a nonstarter or at least very limited. Keeping the South China Sea open for commerce is essential. America's Navy should double its presence in the waters as a show of force. If the Chinese restrict movement and dominate the sea our influence in the entire region is over. Conflict is almost certain in the future. It doesn’t have to lead to a full scale war, but our objectives on clear shipping lanes should be enforced. Better an economic war than a military one. Hopefully is doesn’t come to that. Our optimistic notions of China a bastion of free trade was always a pipe dream. 

Whether we really believed it or not is a mystery.  

Google's ad filter

There is really one way to avoid annoying pop up ads online. Download an ad blocker extension or use a separate browser like “Brave”. The advantages of a blocker are pretty obvious. The ads disappear and browsing becomes a much easier experience. On the downside they seem a little slower to me. Restricting the web page from bringing up ads causes a slower loading time. For most people this is still not bad considering pages that have ads don’t load until the ads are present anyway. I tried using one for a while but quickly discovered I couldn’t add clip images to my blog the way I could with Chrome. Also, it didn’t save my work website passwords for easy access. I am sure with a little tinkering I could have fixed that problem as well, but I don’t like tinkering. I want as simple an experience as possible and things that don’t work right the first time are useless to me. “Patience and diligence” what’s that?

 So I went back to Chrome. 

I was pretty pumped when I read that Google was updating its Chrome browser with an “ad filtering” feature. This is big news for a couple of reasons. First, Google relies heavily on money from advertisers for a big chunk of their revenue. Without looking I’d say most of it. Telling advertisers what they can and can’t use on their platform seems like cutting off the tree limb your sitting on. But it isn’t. Chrome has something like 60% of the traffic (of the entire web) using their platform. That makes it a big player and one that can set effective parameters for advertisers.

Walmart tried something like this over a decade ago. They set requirements to vendors who hoped to put product on their shelves by dictating terms. Before that vendors had exclusive rights to decided details like packaging, price and quality. Afterwards, sellers lined up to adjust product offerings for a chance at selling to the largest market share in the country. Only a large player like Walmart could have pulled that off. Market share is everything.

Tech blogs are not impressed with Google however. Mostly their criticism revolves around privacy concerns of regular users and not Google’s war on annoying pop ups. Most of the ones I scanned don’t think it will make a difference to the overall experience of users. I disagree. By establishing guidelines, Google forces advertisers to eliminate the most egregious ads, the ones that drive people to use blockers in the first place. I can’t speak for all PC users but that was my situation. The types of ads on the chopping block are the ones with video and sound, the full screen ones where you can’t find the exit button and those grating countdown timers that explode out of nowhere. It’s a simple request but one that should stem the tide, for a while, on consumers ditching traditional browsers for blockers.

Why now? In other words why didn’t they do this years ago when the internet was crawling with adware like lice on a dead sparrow? Ad blockers were not very good and the sheer number of users who had them wouldn’t fill out a subreddit thread. They weren’t a threat to any of the major browsers. But now they are. A whopping 26% of users employ an ad blocker on their desktops and 15% do it on their phone. My concern though is with desktop software since I use an Iphone and don’t have issues on the mobile side. Also I do all my work on my laptop and until I can afford a Mac (Safari), I’ll stick with Chrome. Google is losing ad money to consumers who have checked out, tired of the onslaught of flashing, obnoxious advertising.

There is another problem for desktop PC users who don’t utilize a blocker, more page interference than ever before. When your boat capsizes everyone is exposed to sharks. Those who climb into the life raft avoid the feeding frenzy. Anyone still in the water when the sharks come by has to fend off additional attacks. Same situation for those still on traditional browsers, they catch the ads that were meant to be spread out among a larger number of viewers. Fewer people mean more ads. It’s a cyclical mess that promotes leaving Chrome altogether, it seems like Google is finally getting it. Their model is threatened without seriously reigning in the worst types of pop ups.  

I can deal with some types of internet advertising. I expect shoe companies to target me when I search for Mizuno or Nike sneakers. The targeted ads that appear in the margins of your favorite news site are just a result of recent searches anyway. I’d rather not see it at all but considering I am browsing for free, the trade-off doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people. Anyway with more news sites opting for paywalls it doesn’t leave many quality freebies. It may yet resemble a neighborhood after the good stores leave and all that’s left is liquor marts and pay day lenders; or more appropriately Breitbart and Buzzfeed.

In the early days of web surfing (mid 90’s) everything was free (mostly) but given the limited use advertisers didn’t bother paying for slots on pages. Some did, but it wasn’t targeted like now. The availability of tracking data and site click minutiae didn’t exist. The openness and ‘share anything’ culture created stars and popular bloggers pushing out their own content. People still get famous for weird, silly, creative and awful behavior but the sheer amount of devices online now means getting noticed as the next great singer is tougher, making it sort of like life before the web. Singers, writers, actors, film makers and artists have to go through the same tiered systems as always.

Create content and market the content.  Hope someone notices the content and pays for more similar content. This was true before the internet and it’s true now.  

This might sound like pinning for the good ol’ free days. I promise it isn’t. The internet is much more efficient now despite the odd insurance commercial that plays at full volume.  As much as we all hate it advertising makes a lot of stuff free that we would otherwise pay for. Nothing is really free after all and consumers ultimately decide how much is too much with regard to ads. Google’s move in creating a built in ad filter is just the first step in an effort to keep advertisers in check and hold on to a dwindling base.

More to come on ad restrictions? I certainly hope so.  

Cherry Ho!

There’s only one way to eat cherry turnovers---enthusiastically. I don’t mean one sensible bite at a time, between alternating sips of Earl Grey. Really get in there, like a pitbull munching on a tennis ball. Don’t let a second of time pass between the brief chewing phase and the next massive chomp. Chew a bit, swallow, and chomp. Repeat the process until the sugary pastry is kaput. Then grab another.

I discover this little quirk every time I buy a box (Awww... is that for me?). I’ve tried to just eat one. It must be easier to cure diabetes than tear oneself away from the ribbon festooned box with the warm bakery scent wafting through the paper bag. Some people have trouble walking past a shoe store, others can’t miss a good garage sale but even fewer pass by a bakery without that Pavolovian twitch in the taste buds. For me cherry turnovers are it. The all.

When baked just right, the corners fold together evenly like a stack of napkins at an upscale restaurant; the pebble sized sugar bits sink into the cooling dough and rest neatly on top like pillows on a bedspread. The melted frosting pools delicately around the base. When done poorly…still not bad actually-nothing the microwave can’t fix. They get overcooked sometimes which is worse than being under cooked for the same reason people eat raw cookie dough and not burnt cookies.

The toughest time is bringing back the gift box of warm turnovers. My appetite for sweets gets stronger on the long ride home from the bakery. I become engaged in a mind battle, a struggle for the soul.

Stomach: “I’ll just eat one, save one for breakfast and maybe polish it off tomorrow.”

Brain: “Yeah…heard that before”

Stomach: “Oh my Goooood, so good! I am getting another”

Brain: “You said. You promised. One and done…remember?”

Stomach: “It’s only two, that’ll leave two for tomorrow, perfect even number. Although, maybe just one more before bed, glass of milk to wash it down.”

Brain: “You realize that’s a family size box right? Three! Are you kidding, don’t do it!

Stomach: “Well, only one left. Don’t think that’ll be enough for breakfast, may as well finish it off.”

Brain: “You make me sick, disgusted really.”

Stomach: “Did we remember to get Tums? I don’t feel so well.”

I don’t pretend I can bake them but I know what passes for success and what decides failure. Under this logic I could be a host on a baking show and make the contestants bring me a platter with sweets. I could pick a favorite but would have no advice for how to make the bland ones better, “Umm probably needs more sugar”. “Yes, definitely more sugar. And what else did you use, frosting? Use more of that too.”

 Those shows seemed more concerned with presentation than taste, which makes sense in a fancy setting but doesn’t work with me. Maybe it’s how I am wired but taste should come first since it has the longest memory tail. I’ve only been to one of those expensive dinners where everyone wears ties and gets their portions in drips and drabs. “Oh look dear, they arranged the veal with a little parsnip and marinara sauce!” I remember the dinner was good but I like to eat faster than the 2.5 hours it takes the place to send out waiters to the table like Western Union couriers delivering telegrams. I remember the dessert, French silk pie with a perfect balance of rich whip cream and melted chocolate. Point being I remember the dessert and wait time, not the presentation.

Apparently it is rude to ask for seconds, thirds are out of question. I don’t want to be that guy, but I kind of am.

I’ve even bought the frozen pre-cut cherry turnovers before too. They aren’t bad but the taste is in the ingredients and something tells me the ingredients in frozen packaging are sub par. Same goes for the little packets of frosting and cherry filling, they end of tasting closer to a “Toaster Strudel” than a baked turnover. I’ll try a few different brands and see what sticks.

The same problem is likely to arise, so many turnovers so little time. Saving money requires buying in bulk but the only bulk I keep get to keep is in the stomach area.

Till next time, happy eating.

    

"The Cuban Affair": Review

 In doing research for this book Nelson Demille visited Cuba, probably shortly after the Obama administration tried to normalize relations. I didn’t check to see how long he was there but it is a safe assumption he spend at least a week or more. His detail of the roads and layout of the city is impressive, not only in Havana but also some of the other spots.

The Cuban Affair builds intrigue slowly, revealing just enough about the mission to keep anyone interested.

His hero is a retired Army officer named Daniel McCormick (Mac) who owns a charter boat in Key West that he uses to take fishing groups on excursions in the Gulf. One day a wealthy businessman offers him a chance of a lifetime. Through a series of events, he is to join a tour group from the states, under an assumed identity, and bring back some secret documents and money. He is joined by a Cuban American woman (Sara Ortega) who helps him get around the country What could go wrong?

 Despite the risks he agrees to the terms. A fishing tournament off the shores of Cayo Guillermo serves as the opening for a way to get the hidden loot from its hiding spot in Cuba to Mac’s boat just off the coast. It’s a risky stunt and we are never sure what the real value of the hidden treasure is. Like any good story it unfolds a little at a time, never giving too much away and continually raising the stakes.

Mac has a grouchy old partner who enters the fishing tournament while Mac and Sara join an official tour group as a way to get into the country.

I’ve always like the way Demille writes dialogue. The story unfolds from the mind of the lead and the reader sees the plot develop around them. This puts us in the head of the main character, what he is really thinking. It’s funny too.

Sara: “I want to do it now…in case I don’t get back”.

 Mac: “In that case it doesn’t matter”

Sara: “Yes…but…it’s the right thing to do. Even if you cheat, you shouldn’t lie.”

Really? I though lying and cheating went together. But maybe Catholics need to confess. 

Mac: “Let’s decide tomorrow.”

Demille’s leads are sarcastic and pepper the story with one-liners and inside jokes. And since he writes from first person (mostly) we follow the plot from Mac’s point of view.

The story isn't forced since Mac isn’t political or passionate about causes. He doesn’t preach to us about the cruelty of the Cuban police state, he lets the story develop that way and leave no doubt. It’s sympathetic to anti-Communists and harsh with citizen informants “los chivatos” who are really just stand-ins for the police. They report suspicious activity regarding foreigners. 

I’ve always thought there was too much romanticism surrounding Cuba from Americans. Partly because of Ernest Hemingway (he had a home there) and partly because of the “What might have been?” aspect of almost 60 year embargo. This book will not make anyone think the US made a mistake in slamming the door to trade on the Castros. It keeps the history pretty light assumes readers understand how the island came to be run by thugs. 

The Cuban Affair blames the decay of the country as the fault of the leaders only, not of the citizens trying to scrape by on $20 a month.

What results is an adventure with plenty of romance, scuttled plans and an impressive knowledge of the city layout in Havana.

Who Owns the Tip?

What is the purpose behind the tip at a restaurant? Is it the friendly attitude and ‘can-I-help-you’ demeanor of the waiter or waitress? Does it depend on how long it took to cook that “extra anchovy” pizza? Is the food quality the reason, or is it all decorum and timing?

I guess everyone has an imaginary sliding scale in their head on what determines a fair tip. Since the service is what I notice first, I tend to weigh it higher than food quality. Everyone is different though. 

The one thing most people know about the restaurant business is that competition is fierce. That Korean BBQ place you like might go belly up in a few years, that local deli with the perfect Ruben might be close to bankruptcy. Even profitable ones are often one slow season from shutting the doors forever. The reasons are pretty simple. Alternatives exist and even most small cities have a handful of options for dinning out. From steak houses to Applebees and everything in between, this country is chock full of places to gorge. Owners decide daily on how to cut costs and remain profitable. One measure is in salary for employees whether wait staff, cooks or bus workers. Retaining good cooks, especially at swanky places, is imperative for offering top quality. With such tight profit margins owners are sometimes forced to use tip pooling schemes to pad the salaries of everyone.

Understandably this doesn’t sit well with servers. At least in those cases where they are used to tips as a part of their income, a ‘pooling’ requirement would undercut their totals. Currently the Department of Labor is considering tossing out the Obama era’s policy that make’s pooling illegal. The existing law bars restaurant owners from using server tips as a means to pay cooks, bartenders and bus boys for their labor. President Trump’s proposal would overturn that requirement, giving owners total control over payroll. At its core, this law gives owners the freedom to make choices in the best interest of their businesses.

 Without the freedom to make payroll choices though restaurants may find themselves quickly out of business. The best option for any company trying to survive is to make choices that fit their model and make sure everyone working there understands it.

Some businesses get around the pooling law by adding a percentage fee (10%) to the total bill after the sales tax. That way half the tip (assuming a 20% gratuity) is already spoken for. It usually gets added to a salary fund and divided among the ‘back of the room’ staff like cooks. This does seem a bit like taking money from the servers, but again it depends on what the tip represents. Is it a reward for excellent service, or payment for a great meal and wonderful experience? If the former, than steeling the server’s income is what it feels like. If the latter, than the staff shares in the reward due to everyone.

I think the old model of servers getting the whole portion of the tip is on the way out, probably has been for a while. I never think to ask when eating out “How exactly is my tip being spent?” but most establishments have probably figured out what works best for them by now. I imagine if too many dine in places go the pooling route, good wait service will see a huge drop off. That’s the downside. Removing the incentive for great service means removing great service. There is some question as to how much of a link there is between customer care and tip percentage. Most people put down between 15% and 20% for even mediocre service; Acting ‘extra nice’ to paying customers doesn’t seem to garner a higher percentage.

I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t prize customer service though.

 US companies generally prize customer service, this is especially true for dinning out. I went to Ireland a few years ago and ate nearly every meal out, some at fast food short order places and some at proper dining restaurants. In the short week I was there I noticed that places used to hosting foreigners had decent to good service. One place even cooked for us after the kitchen had closed from catering an all-day wedding. The burger and fry joints were universally bad though, the service was worse than an 8 hour license check at the DMV. Slow moving workers, forgetful cashiers and bland (really bland) food were the norm. “For the love of taste, has anyone ever heard of seasoning salt!?”

The best incentive in customer service is money. I like a culture that emphasizes taking care of paying customers. We shouldn’t take away that importance altogether even if it means the dinning business has to rethink some core methods for paying its help.

FirstPrinciples believes a one size fits all approach to paying workers is bad business and hurts those with a unique model and a varied customer base. Let enterprising owners decide how to hire and pay their own staff according to the model best suited. Who can say what creative marketing ploy they might devise anyway to attract hungry diners. If tipping wait staff for excellent service is what customers want, use it as a selling point for your new venture. “Waiters get to take home any extra tips” as a model, might just work for a large enough segment of your city’s foodies. It would certainly attract good servers eager to earn higher rates than the competition.

For exactly the same reasons I was against the smoking ban for restaurants over twenty years ago. Some places cater to smokers. It seemed silly to insist they all ban it. Don’t like working in a smoke filled dinner? Don’t. You don’t like eating in a restaurant with a smoking section? Don’t. There were plenty of places going smoke free before the ‘ban’. Let owners decide which (smoking or non) is a better fit.

Putting one size fits all regulations on company restricts their ability to compete. Put choice before out dated requirements. 

  

Renewing the Mind

I read this article on Michael Phelps today where he opened up about his depression. The article pulled a quote from an interview where he said “I am extremely thankful that I did not take my life”. I know these athlete profiles are generous and promotional but if you dig deeper into the answers he gave, a sense of profound sadness emerges. It’s important because it proves that people who are famous for greatness are often as sad and lonely as those who aren’t great. He is a phenomenal swimmer and holds nearly every record available in Olympic competition, but even he struggled with depression. The article doesn’t get into much beyond basic questions about his mental state in his competitive years but it’s helpful none the less.

I think depression is more common than a lot of people think. I don’t mean that everyone is in need of medication but a level of sadness runs through the current of everyday life in America. It’s difficult to generalize about the reasons, I imagine a good bit of it stems from an idea that we can have it all, wealth, happiness and love without hard work. We are conditioned to strive for excellence and self-fulfillment. We aren’t content to just enjoy and relax in casual happiness, time with family, a great meal, a sunny day.

Success should be a result of diligence and persistence. Instead it becomes the goal, the measure of who we are. The anxiety it creates is overwhelming and can lead to depression.  

 One culprit is the availability of options. “You can be anything you want and do anything in America” is a basically true axiom, but not everyone is suited for certain careers. Our physiological makeup and intelligence determine a big chunk.  Kids who struggle with math shouldn’t become engineers and quiet anti-social types shouldn’t go into sales. We do live in a very open society with never before choices available to us. A lot of the old barriers and exclusivity corners (Ivy league networks, racial restrictions) are crumbling. The ‘choice’ narrative is a powerful idea and often promotes options that aren’t really options at all. Most success is earned, a bedrock characteristic of achievers.

 Being great at anything requires a staggering amount of mental toughness and perseverance. Exceptions to the rule exist and get promoted ahead of conventional notions. The Kardashians and kids of famous musicians/actors are mostly just familiar because they are on TV, a lot. This image of popularity supports the underlying belief that anyone can do it. Nothing against overnight sensations but those are extreme cases and most people won’t find success that way.

Also, popularity isn’t success. Reality TV and YouTube have certainly boosted popularity of some deserving and not so deserving, stars. Young kids often want to be popular because it feels like a shortcut. Most people will figure out at some point that hard work and persistence are endemic to success. Hard work is hard. In a lot of cases, depression is an outgrowth of the phenomenon that says anyone can be popular. When reality hits and we realize popularity is rare, it plants a seed of doubt in everything we are. We start to disbelieve that we can offer anything substantive to those around us. We aim too high at first and instead of starting with excellence at a low level, say being a reliable employee, we disappoint ourselves.  

I don’t imagine that everyone wants to be an international pop star or a famous athlete, but we do want to matter. We want our own sense of significance and influence and getting there feels hopeless. The hopelessness surrounding big dreams leads to hopelessness in small endeavors. Suddenly we struggle to go to work and take care of our lives. The mood swings become frequent as we see, what we assume, are friends everywhere living the good life as we struggle to just pay bills. Without a dramatic re-think the sadness can become ugly and poisonous to those around us, the ones we love.

The only true re-think I’ve found is to study the Bible and discover what Christ says about us. The message of Christ is all about purpose and significance, selflessness demonstrated by a perfect man. Only by putting our ambition and happiness aside will we discover the importance of salvation for all. It turns our self-centered attitude into an others first attitude toward friends, family and strangers. The effort to transform thinking (renewing the mind) feels awkward since our previous journey has been singularly focused on self. It is rewarding though. The dark clouds of mental anxiety begin to lift when we spend time offering help to those in need. It can be as straightforward as helping a friend move or giving food to homeless men and women. 

Also, in pursuing friendships based on support instead of network we find meaning and hope. 

The best part is that by living a life for others we get the happiness and peace we so often strive for. By not striving we find joy. 

Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God. Romans 12:2 (Holman)

On Immigration for America

The President supposedly called Haiti an “s-hole” country. Actually it wasn’t clear which country specifically he meant since it was reported second hand by Congressional members who met with him last week to hash out details on the upcoming legislation. No Republicans (at least then) argued the specifics of Trump’s comments so it is a pretty safe bet that he said it. It certainly wouldn’t be out of character for the 45^th president to talk about anyone crudely, it’s kind of his MO. The ensuing criticism from the press was typically shocked, annoyed, incredulous.

Whatever the context of his arguments he seems to step on the main thrust by being rude and dismissive. Let me try to make his case instead.

 He was elected on the promise of building a wall and drawing a hard line on illegal immigration. Because of his bluntness voters reasoned his motives were genuine and enough Americans felt our borders are (and were) unacceptably porous. Too many attempts to create workable immigration quotas and restrictions fell flat in 2007 because it always included some type of amnesty. Even when work visas and penalty taxes got introduced as part of a broad framework the plans always failed. Phones rang off the hook at congressional offices during the Bush (43) years from angry voters demanding a wall along the southern border.

I thought then, and I do now, that if a wall were build and tough restrictions put in place Americans would settle for some type of work visa for illegals already in country. But security always takes a back seat to amnesty. We never trusted congress to complete their promise of building a wall after the work visas were in place. That’s why voters were so belligerent over the issue and pushed Trump ahead in 2016. He talks tough on security, terrorism and illegal immigration. All of this played to the one issue (illegal immigration) voters felt they could never get a solid deal on. President Trump is an imperfect vessel for curbing immigration (among other things) but he is also the only vessel. But he is plowing ahead on his promise (so far) to put up a wall because that’s what got him there. He knows it.

Immigration isn’t an all or nothing issue the way it is often portrayed. Either you are for open borders and with no quotas or you’re a nativist who hates brown people. Countries have a right to increase their numbers as well as decrease them based on whichever criteria are deemed important at the time. They are determined like every other issue. We vote on them. Immigration is a truly national issue since Montana and Minnesota can’t decide how many Canadians to give citizenship to. Neither can Texas establish plans to open the border to Mexico and South America.

Federal power is absolute on the borders.

Immigration falls into a couple of problem categories; drugs and crime, welfare state increases, and terrorism. On the first one, our own drug demand is the real problem and not something foisted on us by those “tricky SOBs” in South America. Sorry America, this one is your own doing. Supply and demand explains it. Resource rich countries with poor industry like Columbia will sell to cash rich decadent ones like the US. Customs officers restrict when possible but this is a massive country with an expensive addiction. Enforcement is extremely difficult. Without checking any figures I’d say it is responsible for most of the violence in Mexico. It should be a sobering thought to every American who uses illegal drugs.

The second big issue is with giveaways in food stamps, housing and education to illegal immigrants. Understandably the first few years in a new country are tough financially even for legal immigrants. Most people take whatever help is offered. Who can blame them? But countries with tax burdens for an increasingly stretched safety net cannot survive by doling out generous subsidies year after year. Paying citizens won’t support it because their burden will continue to go up. It isn’t just a math problem either. There is something morally wrong about keeping people in poverty through government transfers. It keeps the cycle of poverty turning. It isn’t just illegal immigrants; this is a problem for poor Americans too.

There is a trade-off for permitting ‘off the books’ type work. Labor intensive industries like farming and hospitality get to pay low wages and stay competitive which keeps prices on bread and hotel rooms affordable. That’s the benefit. The cost is in the welfare and service costs to maintain living conditions. That includes food stamps, Medicaid, Social Security and housing just to name a few. Even if the benefits outweighed the costs, which they don’t, it would be bad policy to encourage such future dependency.

The third issue is terrorism. On terrorism the plan is pretty straightforward and requires diligence on particular countries in the Middle East. The truth is most of them are Muslim majority countries and even without the religious difference from Christianity, the culture is very different. Of course many followers of Islam will (and do) make great citizens and run successful business. At some crucial level, large increases in the populations create problems for democracy. Talk of incorporating Sharia Law with American legal norms has already begun.

The President’s ‘ban’ on selected Middle East countries was roundly criticized. But it ignored the fact that the US (and any country) has the right to restrict immigration even when it seems mean spirited and targeted. Follow the news in most European cities where Muslim migrants have emigrated and a picture of conflict appears-between liberal democracy and religious fervor.

Assimilation is a dirty word in our hypersensitive mindset but the process is critical to maintaining unity. Because of some ham-fisted attempts in our history (think Native Americans) we have a bad reference point for it. Assimilation is just a respect for the laws and customs of the host country, including language. American citizens are different in temperament, history, political leanings, and religion. To say nothing of the incredible mixing of ethnicities spread from coast to coast. The similar thread is democracy and capitalism with an underlying Constitution supported by Judeo-Christian principles. Each citizen pursuing happiness generally leads to cooperation and civility.

Wealthy places will always be a draw for those looking to get rich, escape poverty and pursue free expression. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a large number poor people seek a life in the US. It has been this way since before the big immigration boom in early twentieth century.

 I wouldn’t say our strength is because of our immigrant populations through the years, but it is a defining characteristic of the American experience. Our strength is in our liberties and the laws put in place to guard them. As long as we stay true to our values, immigration should remain an important part of who we are. Without unity we fail.