Why ChatGPT Will Cause Major Hardship

draft

Here is why I think ChatGPT will cause major hardship.

When globalization happened our government said: "Lowered cost of transport and new communications technology enables a new approach to how things are built and who builds them. Each country contributes what it does best and most efficiently, and overall the world improves because we reach a "new equilibrium" (*) and everybody is richer.  People who formerly did manufacturing, for example, could now work in offices in "information technology" or "the service industry" whatever that may mean.

But either hindsight, or some would say, a few minutes forethought, would show this was nonsense.  Workers were cheaper in some countries because they were wildly exploited.  Companies used this to bust unions in their own countries.  In some cases it wasn't about efficiency, it was about government subsidies to move an industry from one country to another.  When manufacturing or another industry left, the economic structure of cities would collapse as families became unemployed and left town.  Furthermore there was no money for retraining workers for these different industries which may already be oversubscribed.  Would a 50 yr old worker want to work as a secretary for 1/10th their former salary?  Who would train them?  Who would hire them? So formerly middle class families would slip into poverty. They would lean on their savings assuming they had any. Families would need new sources of income, perhaps a spouse would have to work.  Mothers would have to work so children would have to go to day care with a variety of long term implications for development. Remember the Republican emphasis on the traditional American family? Well, not so much it would appear.   Retirement would be affected as less money could be saved or put into social security.  A family might not be able to support sending a child to college, certainly not an elite one. The restaurants and stores that relied on these workers for customers would go out of business because their customers could not afford to eat out or would have to move away to find work.  There would be less tax revenues for the local community and the local schools.  No doubt large corporations made money, but as always in most countries they dont pay taxes.  The so called shareholders made money, yes, perhaps the top 10% of society, but again the rich dont pay taxes.  And politically we got more extremism, either right or left but mostly right (for reasons that are not so clear to me).

I have anecdotal stories about how this played out in the traditional animation industry, in glamourous digital visual effects and in the community of Culver City. 

Now with ChatGPT a big chunk of the middle class who make their living in part by being able to write competent essays will be disenfranchised and impoverished. What percentage of the population in developed countries am I talking about?  A few percent?  More?  Public relations, marketing and advertising come to mind.  Maybe Hollywood screenwriting (ha ha, thats a joke). If government was actually good at helping people find new careers and training them this might be different.  But our government doesn't even pay for education or pay the expenses of a real family while someone learns a new trade, or prevent ageism in the work place, for example.

So what do I recommend? No, ChatGPT is not about real intelligence or eliminating the great writer, but it is about a lot of real hardship in America and the rest of the developed world.  As usual, our government is useless, except for the rich.  But at the very least we should expect the three minimum requirements mentioned above.  1. Pay for education and retraining.  Seriously pay for it, and remember I am not just talking about junior college or a trade school here.  Think Harvard and Princeton.  2. Pay real expenses of a family, perhaps $50-100K / year.  And 3. Make serious efforts to reduce ageism in the work place which is rampant and about which the government does nothing.

The Republicans will say this is socialism.  But then they said that about the minimum wage, the 40 hours work week, and social security.

 

 

 * Economists get all hot when they talk about "equilibrium".

Why I Think Obama Was Adequate At Best

draft

Being POTUS is a nearly impossible job. Those who were great at it in our history have had a number of things going for them that were extraordinary, had accidents of history on their side in some sense, and still made enemies who were bitter thirty years later. Like the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, a great Pope or a great President is very hard to predict in advance, and even they make enemies.

I do not think Obama was a great president; I think he was an adequate president. He and his administration was certainly better than any Republican administration since Eisenhower, and possibly better than any Democratic one since LBJ, but that is faint praise. LBJ, as flawed as he was, had elements of greatness in him.

In the following, I admit that there are many issues below that quite possibly could never have gone “our” way, or at least the way I would have liked. But I felt that he could have tried harder, made more of a stink, rallied the troops, and generally raised hell. This is the POTUS after all, it is an impossible job and judged by impossible standards.

The following is in no particular order.

1. He needed to fight harder for our supreme court position. He should have raised bloody hell in the morning, and then complained about it at night. He should have shut the government down, pulled our troops home, and stopped spending money until the Congress did its constitutional duty. The damage to our republic will last for decades and may never be repaired.

2. Someone needed to lead the Democratic party to deal with redistricting in the states. That is only part of the problem that the Democrats need to face to regain control of Congress but it is an important part. He needed to lead the Democrats to at least formulate a plan.

3. He continued the bipartisan neoliberal economic policies that have destroyed manufacturing, destroyed employment for whole sections of our people, and destroyed the unions. He tried to pass the TPP which represented everything bad about the discredited neoliberal policies. The Democrats abandoned the working man and woman. Some say this was inevitable and nothing could be done. Fine, then enjoy your time with Trump because that is what you get.

4. He squashed criminal indictments against Wall Street for the economic meltdown. No new laws were passed to see that corporate malfeasance was punished.

5. The decision not to prosecute the Bush administration for their use of torture disgraced this country and set a bad precedent.

6. He did nothing to address inequality in this country.

7. He did nothing to address the way the tax code, exemptions and loopholes favor the rich.

8. He did nothing to address economic inequality in this country.

9. He did nothing to improve support for the poor.

10. He did nothing to improve how we finance education for the poor and middle class.

11. He did nothing to stop the civil asset forfeiture insanity that is being perpetrated by our local police forces. The Justice Dept briefly halted it, but then allowed it to continue.

12. The Affordable Care Act was adequate at best but did not address the issues of greed in the medical and pharmeceutical industries. These industires need to be nationalized or become not-for-profits. Doctors should be paid what teachers are paid.

13. The policies towards Russia were, in my opinion, unrealistic and certain to cause more conflict.

14. His response to China's cyberattack on this country was inadequate.

15. His response to Russia's cyberattack on this country was too little, too late. 

16. Finally, he was behind that UN resolution that is causing so much glee for those who would destroy Israel. He did so against objections in his own party and as a deliberate f*ck you to some of his strongest supporters.

I have a problem with these things.

I liked his style and manner. I thought he was a first class communicator. And compared to what comes after him, I thought he was a bloody genius and a saint. As our first African-American president, I think he is a credit to his nation.

But he was not the advocate of change that I feel we needed then and now.

Is the US Government Stupid, Corrupt or Incompetent?

draft

When I review my own thinking about Globalization, using that term very loosely, and the various issues that it raises, I keep coming back to the same question.

It goes something like this. There is no doubt to anyone who has studied economics that many of the negative issues of Globalization, as discussed in other posts on this blog, were predictable in broad outline. And there is no doubt to anyone who examines the evidence that our government enabled Globalization but did not put in place any of the sorts of programs that would help Americans who were likely to be impoverished by these policies find a new way to make a living. Nor was there any attempt by our government to address the increasing income inequality that would be the natural result of their policies. Furthermore, the record is clear that while many economists went public with the likely implications of these policies, they were apparently ignored, but even more important, our leaders did not discuss these implications with the American people. We also have to contend with the evidence that Washington is (maybe was) completely unaware of the vast anger and distress that these policies caused until it was shoved in their face, and even then I think they were blindsided and do not really acknowledge the issues even today. (See for example the incredibly stupid and egregious defense of the deceptive undemployment index in the New Yorker, reference to be provided eventually).

So I propose to you that this leads us to ask the following questions.

Was our government completely stupid, incompetent, and unaware of the implications of their policies? Or were they deliberately following a policy that was going to destroy the lives of millions of Americans to increase the profits of the rich? A third possibility might be that they were aware of the implications, but simply failed to take the corrective actions that would be necessary to attempt to ameliorate the distress caused.

The reason I keep coming back to this question is as follows. If they were merely stupid, then they are not competent to be running our government, and we should have no hope for the future. If they were cavalier about the well-being of so many Americans, then we should not expect that to change and should have no hope for the future.

Either way, the conclusion is that our government is fucked, is dangerous to the people, and that there is no hope for the future.

None of this will make the least bit of sense to you unless you understand how well understood the issues and controversies of “free trade” aka “globalization” are. None of this is new. It goes back to the 19^th century and the dawn of modern economics as we know it.

A Concise Discussion of the Role of Our Government in the Economic Distress of Americans

This is an attempt to be as concise as possible about an issue that is very complex.

Probably if you are interested in the history of globalization in economic thought and for some reason could care about what I think on the topic, you should read the more lengthy discourse which can be located here.

For those of you who want the Cliff notes version, read on.

Many people in this country are aware of serious economic distress among some of our citizens, even though the nature of that distress, and the number of people affected, is controversial.

Many of my friends have trouble believing that our politicians and government would knowingly take actions that would damage the economic well being of many Americans, but they should not be so surprised. "The greatest good for the greatest number" is used to justify many policies that are sure to be bad for some people even if they are, hopefully, good for others.

Ultimately, understanding the structural issues of the economy that has been put in place over the last 20 plus years is going to take more time than most people are willing to devote to the topic. Ultimately if you are going to understand the situation, you are going to have to read a lot more than just this post which can at best point you in what is hopefully the right direction..

As I studied the history and theory behind Globalization, several questions presented themselves. If, as it appeared, that these policies resulted in the economic distress of millions of Americans, to what extent did the US Government pursue these policies knowing full well that this was going to destroy the economic well being of millions of Americans?  The second question, presuming that they did know this was going to be one of the likely results, to what extent did the government put in place policies and programs to help these Americans find new ways to make a living and ease the transition? Finally, whatever the answers to the first two questions may be, to what extent would our government expect Americans to benefit from these policies, and who would they benefit?

Each of the following statements could have pages, even volumes, of discussion to support them.

1. The issues around the economic policies that go under the name of “globalization” or “free trade” are not new, but have been discussed and debated since the 19^th century by some of the most important economists in the history of political economy, including Ricardo, Hume, and Marx.  It is in fact one of the central issues of political economy of that century.

2. In other words, although the extent of the impact of “globalization” is larger because of new technologies, there is excellent and relevant theoretical work and empirical case studies on the topic and the debate goes back a long way.  Therefore, there is no possible excuse of ignorance.  These policies are alleged to have certain important positive economic effects, but they are also very well known for having certain negative effects as well. 

3. “If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they would still not reach a conclusion”. (Attributed to G. B. Shaw).

4. Although the positive impact of globalization on the world economy is very much debatable, what is not debated are the likely negative, local results. These results include, using my own terminology, first order and second order effects. A first order effect is when an industry goes overseas and people lose employment. A second order effect is when a community suffers because of the lost income of its citizens and the impact on the local businesses, on the lost tax income, and on the social implications of unemployment and its effect on the unemployed and their families.

5. To use one case study, an industry which had spent $500 million a year to get certain services done locally, finds that by spending $450 million overseas, they can get the same work done and save $50 million. This is seen as good because the company has made $50 million more profit, all else being equal. But the community as a whole now has much more unemployment, and the local community no longer has that $500 million circulating.

6. Therefore, whether or not the company is more profitable, it is very arguable that our society as a whole is certainly not better off. But whether you agree with this or not, it is hard to disagree that these policies were as certain as one can be in economics to cause hardship for those who are to be unemployed and the communities they live in. Although one might not be able to predict exactly which industries and communities will be hit the hardest, one can certainly predict that many will be and in fact you may be able to predict very well which ones and to what extent with a little study.

7. But if the company is more profitable, don't we all benefit? No, because in this country, most of the wealth is owned by few of the people. We have all heard different numbers, but for the sake of discussion I am going to use a more moderate estimate, and say that 75% of the wealth is owned by 10% of the population. Therefore, any benefit of this policy will go to the 10% or so that already owns the wealth, and none of the benefit will accrue to the local community, or people, workers, etc.

8, So the first question is answered. The US Government supported and enabled a structural transformation to the economy which was known to (extremely likely to) economically disadvantage workers and their communities in our country. Maybe not all workers and communities, but certainly many of them.

9. The situation is made worse by other government policies as well. I will mention three. The first is that the H2B visa program is famous throughout the world as being used by companies to help them take work from local communities and outsource/offshore the work to other countries. The second is that the US Government has failed to use its power to counteract various subsidies put in place by other countries to benefit certain industries at the expense of the American industry and its workers. The third is that the US Government deliberately and explicitly does not measure real unemployment in this country and disingenuously therefore discusses unemployment in terms that they know understate the real situation.

10. Finally, given that the US Government knew the likely effect of their policies, what steps have they taken to retrain the worker into new industries, and to support them and their families while they go through this wrenching dislocation. The answer to that is also clear and unambiguous, we have done nothing to support these people. Not one thing.

Therefore, did the US Government pursue economic policies that were as certain as one can be about such things to cause great economic hardship to working Americans? Yes. Did they do anything to help ameliorate or compensate those workers for the hardship they experienced and are still experiencing? No. And one more question, were the beneficiaries of these policies guaranteed to be people who were already wealthy? Yes.

There is another side to this story, which has to do with the economic theory of growth in a globalized economy. By no means is this theory universally accepted, but even if it was it says nothing about the people whose livelihoods were destroyed by these policies, and this negative impact of the policies are extremely well understood and predictable.

A proper post on this topic should contain at least one page of references to supporting documentation, and maybe that will be added later.

_____________________________________________

Working From My Smartphone Part 4 (Infrastructure without Power)

This is a continuation of Working From my Smartphone Part 3.

3:36 pm Monday 9/19/2016

One additional note, there should probably be a second cooler/ice chest so that the food can be better organized. Also, one should have a half dozen or so plastic/whatever containers with watertight lid for such things as potato salad, soups, etc that need to be cooled and should not be allowed to tip over and spill over everything.  There are in general not many shelves in most ice chests.

10:00 PM Sunday 9/18/2016

This post reviews some issues in the general area of "strategies for sustainability".  Obviously no one wants to "fall of the edge" and be a burden to one's friends.  So there are various approaches to avoid this, but it is difficult to discuss for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that each subtopic is itself complicated. All I can do is to bring up a few issues that are simple enough to post here and discuss some progress and potential partial solutions.

An example of a "small problem" is preparing for and managing being off the power grid. Two examples of larger problems that are not so tractable are (a) making enough income to be self supporting and (b) understanding exactly where the power is going and what it costs given that the price fluctuates wildly day to day and possibly hour to hour.

On the topic of managing being without power, this recent situation demonstrated that we had actually prepared to some extent.  I want to review here what worked and what could be better.

The following worked fairly well.  Battery powered lighting was adequate. Smartphone provided excellent communications and at a reasonable price ($40/month) given that I get email, voice telephony, texting, Facebook and mobile web browsing.  I was able to recharge the phone locally by using the car battery accessory port. The local library provides excellent access to the internet with real keyboards and screens a few minute drive from here for zero cost and in a pleasant environment. It is available basically during business hours 7 days a week.  For two dollars worth of ice (two 10 lb ice bricks), I have been able to keep cool that subset of food that requires a cool temperature, and one can easily eat without cooking if one wants to (at least for a while).

We also got lucky in that when the power is turned off, the gas is not, although I doubt this happens because the energy company is being generous. But the end result is that as long as your water is on, one can have hot water for showers.

Things that can be improved for modest cost include (a) more portable lighting, possibly with solar recharge, (b) longer smartphone life with an external battery which itself may be charged with a portable solar device, (c) an emergency radio of some sort for additional communications and entertainment, (d) possibly a camp stove to heat food and boil water, and (e) possibly a bicycle to be able to get to the local library without having a car.

I have reviewed the camp stoves, and the low cost option is the Coleman 2 burner Triton for $40.00 and the much better Camp Chef 2 burner Everest for approximately $100.00.

In compliance with our government's efforts to destroy employment in this country and impoverish Americans, both stoves are made in China, and may even, according to one source, actually be made in one factory over there.  Apparently this is one of the reasons that the Camp Chef stove is available for $30 less from a Chinese company, they just stole the design and made additional copies at that same Chinese factory.  Now that is the kind of ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that our Government can support!

But the unexpected benefit of not having power was the increased necessity to get out of the house and out into the community.  I miss that already.

Is Austria Overtaxing Its Sausage Stands?

draft

Any right thinking American, upon reading the baseless Austrian complaint against those pillars of American Industry, Starbucks and Amazon, must wonder if Austria is not indeed demanding too much taxes from its sausage stands.

You may read their horrible accusation here in Reuters.

In America, we know to never tax our corporations, from which everything good in our society originates, but instead we put the burden on the worthless people, even those who do not work. These are the scum that should pay taxes. And if they do not work, then they should pay *more* taxes, not less, it seems to me, to make up for their indolence.

Indeed, we know that when the corporation takes out its most virtuous Sausage it will bring forth blessings and goodness that will “trickle down” onto the heads of all of us, both politicians and citizens. To tax the corporation is a sin, because it restricts this flow of corporate goodness.

All politicians in America know this, and so they wait anxiously by the trough of the corporations, yapping like newborn birds for their nourishment directly from this All-Beneficent Sausage. We call this most healthy flow “the political donation” but which might better be called the “Food of the Gods”, the very life-blood of our political system and the American Way..

Therefore let Austria learn from us, and learn the wisdom of freeing the corporation from this pernicious burden, these so-called taxes, which if left unchecked might affect shareholder value.

Globalization and its Discontents Part 2/2

I can't imagine anything more futile and tedious than spending time agonizing over how to present what I have learned about some of the structural economic issues of this country. It goes without saying that i have no credibility in this area and that there is zero opportunity for my opinions to make the slightest difference.

On the other hand, I have read that a so-called democracy depends upon an informed electorate assuming, that is, that we do have a democracy, which I doubt. And some of the most important issues that we as a nation face are at the very least non-trivial and with a long and interesting history so it hasnt been entirely boring for me, but for you, thats not so clear.

If we are going to participate in the political process, then it is up to us to investigate what is going on, what the options are, correlate what we have been told with what actually happened in order to form judgments about future behavior and take what positive steps we can in a world out of our control. Furthermore, certain of the issues described below, although they are part of a very complicated economic system, do seem to have some straightforward partial solutions that would be helpful.

I will call these “naive solutions”. I mean, why not?

So with my undergraduate degree in Economics in hand, I boldly set out to understand what is going on with certain economic policies of our country. Probably no one term describes these structural issues but the one most often used is “globalization” and that will have to do for now. And the goal of my little adventure in civics and participatory democracy is to learn more about what is going on in our economy which seems to have substantially changed in the last 30 years.

Lets ask some fundamental questions.

1. Just how many unemployed people are there in this country?

I grew up at the RAND Corporation, the very home and heart of quantitative research in this country. All economic measures are imperfect but they are often useful. We need some way to judge the effect(s) of policy, and if we are using modeling and simulation, some way to evaluate the results of proposed changes in policy.

I assumed that the “unemployment rate” that we hear so much about was an imperfect measure of the percentage of Americans who are either completely unemployed or mostly unemployed. Imperfect is not the right way to describe this measure, a better way might be “deliberately deceptive”. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the “unemployment rate” only measures the percentage of people in this country who had become unemployed in the last 18 months and are still unemployed. If you have been unemployed for more than 18 months, then you are no longer counted. But of the people I know who are unemployed, by far the ones who are most affected are those who have been unemployed for longer than 18 months. How many of those are there? No one seems to know.

Furthermore, there is no measure, as far as I can tell, of the number of people who did find work, but at a rate far lower than the one they had previously. So, if they previously worked as a Marketing professional at $80K/year but are now working slinging burgers at Jack in the Box, this is not measured. There is also no accounting for the people who have given up trying to work, but would be working if they could.

But our government does not measure or attempt to measure this. And when they talk about the unemployment rate they are deliberately lying. Well, I dont find that acceptable. What are they trying to hide. Thats an easy question to answer. They dont want to know how miserable people are in this country due to their policies and they dont want you to know either.

2. But, how much of this unemployment and underemployment is the result of “globalization”?

It would be easy to find out if they wanted to know, all they would have to do is to ask the companies that lay people off, or who no longer outsource to American companies, how many people they laid off or what is the value of the contract now sent overseas.

This would not tell the whole story.  If $500 million dollars worth of salaries is extracted from a community and sent overseas to save $50 million for the corporation, that $500 million is no longer being spent in the local community. How many people does that effect and how to do you measure it?  And then of course that money is itself recycled through the community many times, perhaps to a lesser degree.  Given enough time and a research library, I would probably find that economists have measured or modeled this effect in the economy.  For our purposes it is enough to know that we do not know how much the mere outsourcing of work to save a few dollars for the corporation hurts the rest of us.

But just like the unemployment rate, we would expect that our government would want to know these numbers and would make an effort to estimate them. But they do not. All that is reported, if anything is reported, is that the corporation saved $50 million dollars that year by outsourcing. That must be nice for that corporation, and their shareholders, but how about the rest of us?

3. Surely you do not advocate "Protectionism"? What about "market forces"? 

Yes, there are market forces at work, but there are also many government forces, subsidies, taxes and so forth at work as well.  And believe it or not, "market forces" do not absolve anyone from ethics, planning or thinking.

Protectionism is a naughty word in Washington.  The code word du jour is "free trade". As previously referred to in a test case, should we allow a corporation to save $50 million if it costs our citizens $500 million in salaries?  Our Washington elite says yes. They say that so-called "free trade" will help everyone. Does it? Prove it.  

4. But doesnt Globalization help everyone?

In a word, no.

If 90% of the wealth of this country is owned by 1 percent of the population, then if profits are increased for some major corporations, those profits go to the 1 percent. But its worse than that. Not only does this not take into account the lost income to the now-unemployed workers, it does not take into account how much of that income would go to local taxes and to local businesses as people live their lives. In other words, Globalization deliberately increases the profits of the rich at the expense of the working classes and the local communities.

Furthermore, it is completely obvious to anyone who reviews the history of this process that the people who are most hurt by these policies are the people who are least able to afford it.  The worker with tiny savings can not just simply be unemployed and go get retrained as a lawyer.  First, he has a family to support. Second he has no money for school.  Third he is an older worker and our society is ageist as can be, and furthermore is ageist with specific government support to be so.  (1)

5. Why do you say the government specifically did this to hurt most Americans?  Isnt that paranoid? 

Of course.  Or maybe being called paranoid is just an ad hominem attack by people who do not want to discuss the issues.

It is the responsibility of our law makers, our bureaucracies, and our justice system to create and then implement a body of complex laws, rules, precedent and so forth.  When someone who is an elected representative tries to get support for a law, or a treaty, or a judgment and tells people it will make them more prosperous when he or she knows full well that it will not, then what do you call that?

The issues associated with so-called "globalization" have been well known in economic circles since the 19 th century. Technology has made things somewhat different, there is more work that can be sent offshore, but this is hardly the first time this phenomenon has been seen. Our politicians and leaders of industry knew to a great extent what the result would be and they did it anyway and lied about how it would be good for us the whole time.  When they knew full well that the people who would benefit would be the rich, and that the people who would be hurt would be the middle classes and the poor.  And they did nothing whatsoever to mitigate that very predictable result.  

Nor have they tried to even measure the result as we have shown.  

6. Arent you oversimplifying this situation?

Yes, the situation is far worse and far more blatantly abusive than I have described.  Lets go a little deeper.

Our government has worked to encourage business to send work to countries where slave labor, indentured labor, and vast numbers of impoverished workers look for anything to do to make a living.  They knew full well that this infinite sink of cheap labor would impoverish a tremendous number of Americans, but they did absolutely nothing to mitigate it.  What could they possibly do, you say?  One, there could be laws against sending work to countries and companies that use slave and indentured labor. Second, these laws would have to include criminal sentences and mandatory jail time for all executives of a company, to the very top, or they would do it anyway, as business in America always breaks the law to make a fast buck.  Third, we can make provision for the displaced American worker to be able to support their family and pay for their graduate school.  Fourth, we can pay for the previous item because the company that displaced them will pay for this retraining out of the profits made from globalization.  Anything else would merely say to the company, make as much money as you want but do not for a second be concerned or responsible for the immense suffering and economic results of the greed of the corporation.

Instead the government and corporations pretend that outsourcing or offshoring does not have negative effects in this country.  But it does, and someone has to pay for it.  Why not have the corporation that benefited from such outsourcing pay for it?

7. Our government has failed to enforce treaties and trade agreements designed to create a level playing field.

The case study of the visual effects and motion picture industries is quite illuminating.  The commonwealth nations (UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have created subsidies for foreign filmmakers to bring their films to these countries.  A producer who brings $10 million worth of production work to Canada will receive a check for $4 million up front.  No producer can resist that. This has affected all the filmmaking arts and crafts, but it has wiped out the American visual effects business (with a few exceptions).  Almost all visual effects has moved offshore and while some Americans have been able to leave the country and find work, or temporary work, many have not been able to do so and have been required to leave the industry and / or are otherwise impoverished.

There are laws about such things. There are treaties. There are remedies.  But in general it requires our State Department to act and they will not act if the elected representatives do not ask them to.  And our representatives will not ask the State Department to act unless the citizens demand it.  But labor is not organized in visual effects so they do not ask, or demand, their elected representatives to help them (or to invoke any of the other remedies that exist to deal with this kind of problem).

Our government had a responsibility to act and it did not do so, and as a result many, many people were impoverished and had to leave the country.  And why?  Because the movie studio wanted the subsidies, it helped them, not the worker.  But who cares about the worker, the non-shareholder? I presume that the field of visual effects is not unique, and that if our government is so completely in the pocket of the large corporation and against the worker in this industry, that the government also acts against the interests of the worker in other industries as well.

Isnt this really the fault of the worker for not organizing? Well, maybe, that is certainly part of the problem here. Maybe our system should require labor to organized to defend their basic rights? After all, the people who are hurt are not just those who did not organize (the craft of Visual Effects) but the local economies as well. But isnt this really just blaming the victim? Its all her fault because she did not scream loud enough when being raped? Maybe.

8. But what could our government do to change the situation?

The following would in no way solve all the problems.  Peoples lives have been destroyed to increase the profits of the rich and we can not turn back the clock.

First, measure unemployment. Second, pay for retraining (calculated at about 250K per person). Third, stop abusive visa programs such as the H2B program. Fourth, compel the corporations to pay their share of the retraining. Fifth, see to it the costs of shipping and communications reflects real costs and does not violate our laws. Sixth, enforce the trade laws regarding subsidies. Seventh, criminalize the corporate violations of the law that result in American unemployment. Eighth, stop oppressing the middle and lower classes with taxes, but increase the taxes on the rich. Backdate this five years. Ninth, use our intelligence community to shut down the transfer of wealth to off shore tax shelters and the work of companies to do the same. Tenth, make it illegal for our corporations to outsource or off shore work to companies that use indentured labor, slave labor, or suppress workers rights. As always with our corporations, these requirements must have criminal penalties attached.  Eleventh, the subsidy issue in the motion picture industry proves that labor must be organized to fight for its rights in our government, so not only must the "right to work" bullshit be eliminated, but unions of one type or another must become mandatory.  Twelfth, force our government to create a strategic economic plan for the economic well being of all our citizens. We have strategic plans for defense and energy, we should have one for our economy. Thirteenth, reduce the influence of big corporations on the political system.  Do this one first.

9. What conclusions should we draw?

I concluded from my little research project into the economic policies of this country the following:

1. That the policies that go under the term of "free trade" were guaranteed to impoverish and/or economically damage the American worker.

2. That the US Government knew this and lied to the American people about the likely economic results of their policies in order to increase the profits of the rich.

3. That the US Government does not measure nor does it want to measure the amount of economic distress that exists in this country.

4. That the US Government does not enforce the laws and treaties that might mitigate the distress their policies have caused.

5. That the US Government has not taken any of the steps or implemented the policies that would assist the American worker in this economy.

6. That in order for us, the 99 percent, to change this situation we will have to change our government, and force them to make the changes.  These changes include measuring the distress, stopping certain visa programs, implementing laws against outsourcing and offshoring to companies and countries using slave or indentured labor, or who deny worker rights, implementing new training and education programs for all Americans that put them on a even footing with the children of the rich, making it illegal to outsource or offshore unless it can be shown that the net benefit to society as a whole (and not just the profits of the corporation) are positive, criminalizing corporate malfeasance, making it illegal to outsource or outshore work to governments and companies known to be involved in immoral and unethical activities, creating real and non-insulting benefits for our unemployed and impoverished, force the State Department to implement the laws regarding subsidies, change the tax structure of this country to put the burden on the rich, and discover and punish off-shore and illegal tax accounts by our rich and our corporations.

Some of these are easier to do than others, but all of them are doable and should be done at once. Ha. Maybe you think that is unrealistic, and you are probably right. Our government has made it very clear what they think about the working classes of this country.

They could not care less.

[To follow: a post on the need to criminalize corporate crime and more specific remedies for the economic inequality our government has so conscientiously brought into being].

____________________________________________

1. You are invited to spend a day reviewing the laws about ageism and ask yourself whether there is any chance for one second that these laws are intended, in any meaningful way, to prevent discrimination based on age.  My conclusion after spending a week on it, is that there is not the slightest chance in hell that these laws are expected to be taken seriously.  One more time our government pays lip service to some nice sounding social policy but does nothing to make it happen.  It would be a joke, if any of it was funny.

2. See the Congressional Research Service Report "The Economic Effects of Trade: Overview and Policy Challenges" at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44546.pdf

Globalization and its Discontents Part 2/1

We will start the long-delayed second part of the “Globalization Review” here on Global Wahrman. These posts will dribble out over the next month or two.  I am not in a hurry and you should not be either. The whole issue is so far over my head (and presumably your head) that it isn't funny.

The point of these posts is to bring to your attention what a layperson can figure out about our government's globalization policies, what the results have been, what the future holds. Unfortunately there is a lot to these different issues of trade policy, taxation, employment, retraining, economic security and so forth. I will make every effort to be brief and to make suggestions for partial solutions or remedies. I think it will become very clear very quickly that our government has not done even a minimally acceptable job on these issues and is at best incompetent but probably worse.

I have no credibility in this area. There is no reason why anyone should listen to a word I say about this. I am not an economist, my degree in Economics is undergraduate and from UCLA. The world of international finance and trade policy is very, very complex. Anything I come up with is likely to be as silly as a layman trying to tell a physicist where really to look for dark matter. It will become clear that I think that there are some politically plausible, sometimes expensive, remedies which will alleviate some of the misery that many Americans are experiencing. But of course it is extremely doubtful that anyone who matters will care what I think, or what you think for that matter.

So why bother? Is this a good use of our time? Your time and my time? If it is, it is only because we are expected in a democracy to be informed citizens.Furthermore, the economic policies of this country have apparently caused a lot of misery and it is incumbent on us to understand where this misery came from, whether it was avoidable or at least predictable, and what might be done about it. In a sense, this is a form of what we used to call "civics".

I have another motivation here as well. There is every reason to think that the American visual effects community was mostly destroyed by foreign subsidies and that our Government did nothing. Is this story true, is it partially true? What was the role of the studios, the production companies, our representatives in Washington, our State Department?

When I started this investigation, I had not been paying much attention to this country's trade policy, or its tax policy, or the issues of labor organization, or to unemployment, or to so many of the issues that I have had to educate myself on.  I knew that unemployment existed and that I was a victim of it, in some sense of that word 'victim', but I did not believe that this was because of structural reasons that our government had put in place, either accidentally or deliberately.  The process of learning about the situation has changed my mind.

There is nothing subtle about what I am going to review for you. It was also a surprise to me how little of it was even new as most of these issues were discussed in great detail in the 19th century. These policies have winners and losers and the results of these types of policies are very well known.

Furthermore, it will be clear that there are straightforward remedies that could certainly alleviate some of the misery experienced in this country. Now, I admit, these remedies will probably not solve all the issues of wealth and other inequality, or restore the lives destroyed by our government's incompetence or greed (whichever you think it is), but these suggestions would certainly make things better. There are those who think that a remedy has to solve all problems or not be tried. I dont agree. I think we can chip away at problems and make a difference now. Realistically of course there is no chance for these suggestions to be implemented, nor am I convinced that these are the best ideas out there, they are merely intended to be examples of the kind of remedies that do exist.

At one point, I had a list of topics that I was going to discuss, but the list was too long and too dreary. I did not want to scare you off.  I wish I could make this more fun. All I can do is make it as brief as possible, and even that wont be easy.

I do have one request. I am a little sensitive because of my station in life and I do not like to be called stupid. If I say something here that you disagree with, fine. Feel free to make a comment that lets me know why you disagree and give me a counterexample. Or just stop reading. That is just fine with me, nobody gives a fuck what I think anyway.

Do A Good Job for Your Masters, Alan

You will be rewarded for your service.
Left in the gutter with the other poor, you serve the rich
Crunch their numbers
The rich build stupid houses for the other rich
And hide their money overseas
You are a good slave
In the Empire, slaves were often freed and given good businesses and
   made citizens,
But in our republic, the slave is worthless garbage and gets what they
   deserve
Poverty and death
Winners win and losers get nothing.
That is the American Way.

The Candidate for Michael

draft

Now that it is almost certain that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, we are all being requested to fall in behind the standard bearer. And I expect that I will because the threat of another Republican administration, whether Trump or otherwise, is too horrible to contemplate. But I do resent it, because I do not like Hillary's policies, not even a little bit, its just that she is the lessor of two evils.

So to be specific, here are some positions I would like any candidate I support to have:

1. I would want any candidate I supported be in favor of canceling all H1B visas and that companies in this country should hire the many qualified Americans instead.

2. I would want any candidate I supported be in favor of a salary and compensation cap on executives, perhaps limiting them to some multiple of the lowest salary they pay, perhaps 35 (*) times the lowest salary.

3. I would want any candidate I support to be vocal about his or her desire to change the unemployment metric to include those who are long-term unemployed or underemployed.

4. I would want any candidate I support to be vocal about change to the poverty threshold to make it a more reasonable measure of those who are very poor in this country.

5. I would want any candidate I support to change the way we do loans for education, higher, lower or middle, to make it more along the lines of the Australian system.

6. I would want any candidate I support to be vocal about seeing that globalization is not artificially encouraged by lowering or destroying standards for environmental control, as has happened at the Port of Los Angeles.

7. I would want any candidate I support to be vocal about seeing that that those who encouraged and executed torture in our name to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

8. I would want any candidate I support to work to end the grossly unfair difference between criminal sentences for black people vs white and white collar crime. How can it be just for a black man who stole a stapler in Alabama go to jail for life while John Ehrlichman went to jail for 18 months?

9. I would want any candidate I support to be vocal about seeing to it that local police forces obey the letter and intent of the law, and that those who do not have criminal prosecution brought against them.

10. I would want any candidate I support to be especially vocal about ending the kinds of abuse that one finds in the Orange County Attorney General's office with its illegal use of informants and its perjury regarding the use of databases, and its use of such information to get convictions against innocent citizens.

11. I would want to know why the DOJ did not bring criminal prosecution against the DEA in San Diego.

12. I would want to know why the DOJ did not bring criminal prosecution against the many people in the savings and loan industry for their criminal malfeasance in the 2008 bailout.

13. I would want to change the capital gains taxes to exempt those with under a million dollars in capital, but greatly increase the rate as the capital went above 10 or 20 million dollars worth. In other words, no capital gains taxes for the poor or middle class, but much larger taxes against the very rich. And maybe even a tax on capital itself for those with over 250 M or some other suitably chosen number. In other words, I am not interested in hearing that we do not have the money for education when rich people fly around in their 100 million dollar jets. Just not interested.

14. I would want my candidate to attempt to restore many tax breaks to the middle class, such as the tax exemption for education which Reagan took away.

15. I would want to change our justice system so that the poor really do have access to good legal counsel instead of just paying lip service to it.

16. I would expect any candidate I support to be vocal about seeing that public education was as good as private education.

17. I would expect any candidate I support to work to bring a sense of justice and proportion to our corrupt medical system. I would expect doctors be required to work some percentage of the time in a clinic for the poor, that their salaries would be limited to that which a public servant makes, say, for example, teachers. I would want to evaluate what pharmaceutical companies charge for their medications. For example, I regularly do an off patent generic which sells for over 180 times its cost of production.

Of course, I would not expect any candidate to support all of these, but I might want him or her to support some of them. And I would not expect that he or she could get all or maybe even any of these through Congress, but I would expect them to try.

As Senator Bulworth said in the fabulous movie of the same name, to the black congregation of a church where he is speaking, “What are you going to do, vote Republican?”

I have no doubt I will vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominates.

___________________________________________

(*) Any numbers suggested here are examples only and should be taken with a grain of salt.

An Example Where the Rich can Help the Poor

If you took the two top Google people and took their combined 70 billion dollars and divided it up among the lowest 50,000,000 of our roughly 300,000,000 people, that would come out to roughly 1,400 $US per person. Now to someone who is destitute, that is a lot of money. And that is just two of the rich people!

What about the top two Google people? What are they left? Well, they may qualify for that $1,400 themselves, so they have nothing to complain about.

Besides, we can throw in free Lithic Fragmentation therapy, so they get two benefits from their otherwise worthless, jet-filled lives.

A Case Study Where the Free Market is Proven to Help the Poor

The following post is only for adults and those who are not free market libertarians.

I have received some criticism from a few readers who believe that I have been harsh, too harsh, on the holy free market in this blog. They say that I know very well that the free market can, in many circumstances, set prices in a way that correctly assesses value in a distributed fashion. And furthermore, that it is the free market that has the best chance and a track record of helping the poor.  They request that I correct this imbalance by giving an example that shows this and I have decided to comply.

Let us take the example of a family in Great Britain, the land of Adam Smith, during the enclosure period. The rich have used their control of the political process to seize the common lands and the small farmer can no longer use the commons as their traditional rights provided. They are of course impoverished and thrown off their farm. The husband and father is killed in a foreign war defending the privileges of the rich and the mother has to support the family by working in a mill for 16 hours a day 7 days a week.

But her child gets sick and will die without an operation she can not afford.

That is only fair of course, as only the rich should be able to get competent health care. The poor, who can not afford it, do not deserve to have decent health care because they do not have the money.  That is the way the pure free market works.

The owner of the mill comes to the rescue by offering to pay for the operation and save the life of her child if she will allow him to sodomize her many times and allow his friends to do so as well.

Now I wish to reprimand those readers of this blog who are jumping to conclusions that I mean that the wealthy here wish to literally sodomize our young working woman.  They may only wish to figuratively sodomize her.   You must rise above your base understanding of the world and think metaphorically, I implore you.

Getting back to our heartwarming parable about how the free market elevates the downtrodden, how will this working woman whose services are so sought after set the price for being sodomized by the rich? This is where the free market comes to the rescue. We can examine what impoverished women sell their bodies for based of course on supply and demand and the “special requests” such as our factory owner has. Then a fair price can be set by the free market, which is not distorted by inefficient government regulation, and society as a whole is made better by this efficient solution.

Thus this poor woman has received all the benefit that the free market has to offer the poor.

Clearly, we should set all our policies for society and make decisions on health care, employment, education, access to the political process, access to opportunity and so forth based on what the free market for services and products determines. I can not imagine that we would consider anything else given the obvious advantages this system naturally provides.

Los Angeles and the Wages of Sin

El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de Los Angeles, the Pueblo of our Lady, the Queen of the Angels, born in lies and raised in crime, inequity and hypocrisy, known throughout the world for its glamour and its beaches and its women and its economic opportunity, but remember, always remember: the wages of sin is death.

Serious business people could understand the failure to enforce the fire detector laws in buildings whose designs were known to be deathtraps, even though it resulted in the fiery deaths of so many of your citizens. The deaths were only of poor people and minorities, so who really cared, it might affect the profits of the landlords. When freeways destroyed entire communities and you did nothing, you could take comfort in the thought that your actions and inactions had destroyed any chance of a minimal mass transit system to alleviate the traffic that existed and the even worse traffic that was known to be coming. When Beverly Hills sued to keep the subway from coming west of Highland, you bent over in submission to the rich, with barely a whimper. You knew very well who was really going to get fucked, the people you represented, or failed to represent.

Case after case, example after example. Oh you need more? LAX is an ugly nightmare, known throughout the world as one of the most unpleasant airports to arrive at. Dirty, undesigned, stupid. And totally under your control. The Port of Los Angeles, famous for permitting the worst environmental violation, in order to keep prices down, throw people out of work due to globalization, and yet cause a huge percentage of the smog in the area which affects the health and total lifespan of those exposed to it: particularly the children who are raised in it. To damage the lives of innocent children, children in your care, without them even knowing it, can we not call that a sin? The Port of Los Angeles, one of the busiest ports in the world, is totally under your control. Let us look no where else for who to blame, the people to blame are right here, in the administration and government of Los Angeles.

Now the 2020 Commission on Economic Development in Los Angeles, or something like that, has issued a report on some of the problems facing Los Angeles. It is filled with interesting material, the way the City Council knowingly lied about Fire Department statistics for years, and many other tidbits. But it also exudes an unmerited optimism. It thinks it is possible for LA to work its way through the problems. I am not so sure of that. But I do think and encourage everyone who lives here or who might live here to read the report. It is at the bottom of the following link in PDF form. After you have read it, I will continue with some thoughts on how to proceed.

http://www.economicdevelopmenthq.com/blog/los-angeles-2020-commission-report/

Hope lies only in radical change. You see, Los Angeles, it takes time and very serious money to fix the problems you have created for yourself. You kicked the can down the road and the road ended. To fix things now will be 10 times more expensive than it might have been before. Where will the money come from, well I have some ideas. But where will the strength of character come from? I dont know. I see no reason to think that it exists here in El Pueblo.

Ugly as sin, they pump around the clock for their anonymous masters

But here are some thoughts, humble thoughts, for your consideration. First, nationalize the oil wells, and use the profits taken from the ground and people of Los Angeles and apply it to saving the lives of the people who live here. How many active wells are there in the Los Angeles area? 10,000 wells? More? The obscene oil sucking insects pump around the clock in Baldwin Hills without even a veil of trees to hide their obscenities. Second, nationalize the Getty that does precious little for the culture of Los Angeles, and use its assets to pay for reform. Turn the so-called Museum in Brentwood into a magnet school, for example. Third, tax every car driven in Los Angeles that is worth more than $50,000 an extra $5K/year and an extra $1.00 per gallon.  Charge the container ships waiting at the Port of Los Angeles an extra 100K / day (or something) that they sit in the harbor blasting out fumes and use the money to pay for an offshore electrical system, more efficient in terms of power generation than just running their engines and fouling the air.   Won't that encourage ships to go to other ports?  Yes, I certainly hope so.   For once, use price theory to help the world instead of just as an excuse to exalt the rich. (1)

But please, please, please don't tell me that any of these suggestions are illegal. Everyone knows LA is built on violating the law and you should know that best of all. If you say these are illegal, I will say you are a lying hypocrite, which you are. The difference is that these illegalities will help the poor instead of your masters, the rich.

These are just a few ideas, simple and just, to generate income for your rehabilitation. After you have done these, come back, and I will have more ideas for you.

You are very welcome.

________________________________________

1. People have wanted to know if I was actually serious in any way about these proposals, and the answer is "of course".  LA is not going to do anything to deal with the problems at hand, so why not make silly proposals.   Nihilistic?  Sure.

Vast Government Subsidies Are as American as Apple Pie

[Do not forget that the VFX Bake Off will be Jan 9 at the usual place and the usual time].

There has been a lot of discussion recently about various government subsidies and tax incentives to filmmakers who do certain kinds of production or post-production work in that country. The country that offers such benefits is in effect co-financing a film with their tax dollars, and in return, sees employment and other benefits brought to a very prestigious industry in their country that might not otherwise be able to compete internationally.

As always, in matters of this type, subsidies are not the sole cause of the situation. None of this would really happen if the industries in the subsidized countries did not demonstrate skill in the areas involved. In many cases, such as the case of the UK and London, there is a long-standing community there that is highly esteemed. Nevertheless, that industry is greatly nurtured and supported by their government's actions on their behalf.

Furthermore, let us not be naive.  This did not just happen.  The local industries have been working with their respective governments to get these advantages.  And can we perhaps suspect that producers and studios have also used their persuasive ways to encourage these governments to shower their beneficence upon them?  Yes, of course they have.  That's their job.  (2)

In the last month or so, three major events have occurred that will likely determine the fate of the motion picture visual effects industries in various nations for the better part of the upcoming decade. All three events are structural and examples of how governments manipulate trade and industry in their perceived national interest.  This is something we, the USA, does whenever it is convenient for us to do so, a topic I will expound upon in an upcoming post.  (1)

The net result over the medium term is that the American effects industry will continue to be destroyed, and that work will pass to three other nations which will develop the technology, employ the people, receive the money, the awards and the careers that come with it.

The issues involved in this matter are far too complicated to put in a single blog post at this time. The best I can do, with my other responsibilities, is to break it into about 5 posts on various topics in this larger subject. The topics will include (a) what has just happened that will set the stage for the next decade, (b) what the effect the actions will have on the domestic visual effects industry, (c) some of the history of international trade and preferential subsidies and other means and (d) the argument will be made that change will only be possible by organizing and working within the political system that exists in this country.

Failure to organize and express our interests politically, which is the current state of things, will result in the destruction of the American industry. Actually that destruction is nearly complete as it is, so the best that could be affected is perhaps a renaissance of those industries.

Without political action, there is not a prayer of success.

Next: Three recent events

___________________________________________________________

1. But if you want a taste of it, see to what extent our government is involved in the creation and current success of the aerospace industry.  This is not subtle.

2. Their job, generally speaking, is to make money by making entertainment product.  They make money a number of ways, but one way is to lower the costs of any given production.  If someone wants to give money, why not?

NY Tech Meetup and the Delusion of Optimism

When I was in New York, I had the opportunity to attend the November meeting of the oddly named "New York Tech Meetup" at NYU's Skirball Center. The November meeting is reserved for academic presentations, e.g. presentations of new technology (or old technology) by universities and schools, professors and students. We had 20 presentations and each lasting about 3 minutes long.

High School students frisbee throwing robot that failed to throw frisbees

We had one set of students who had used image understanding software to cheat at completing jigsaw puzzles. Another group of students (high schoolers) had built a robot that threw frisbees. We had a Harvard based group of people who showed their website that allowed programs to be written with a visible programming language from MIT that allowed you to snap pieces of programs together. And we had our own NYU Media Research Lab show the current status of a very inexpensive immersive reality system that used about $500 in parts.

Backstage at Skirball with Ken Perlin and Students getting the immersive reality demo to work

But the audience was the most impressive part.  Maybe 500 to 600 people, all enthusiastic, all well dressed, all maybe 25-45 years old.   All of them ready to do that big tech startup and get rich!

When it was all over, we had a reception hosted by, I think, Google.  On the 10th floor, a view of Manhattan, and filled with enthusiastic people "networking".

So you know me, Mr Reality here.  Mr Sourpuss here.  I go and find the organizers and complement them, but mention one little issue I had:  "It was all so upbeat" I said. "It was all so optimistic"

"Well, whats the matter with that?" they asked.

You do realize that there is 25% unemployment in this country, right? That there are more people on food stamps today than have ever been, and it is not because of some stupid right wing craziness about lazy people. That 9 out of 10 startups fail, right? You know that, right?

They just looked at me in horror and turned away.

Sorry to spoil their party, I guess.

NY Tech Meetup:

http://nytm.org/
________________________________________

This PS may be unnecessary, it may actually be in a comment.  So read the comments!  -- MW

P.S. Ok, the point has been made by one of our NY correspondents that this is a bit too negative.  In fact, even if 9 of 10 fail, the 1 surviving may end up hiring all the others. Also, we should not fail to encourage those who might improve themselves by their own initiative.   OK, sure, I agree with this, but let us not on the other hand have unbounded optimism either.  Many will fail, and failure can be painful and destructive.

Also, I feel rather strongly that if you want to succeed in America, it is helpful to have a lot of money. It is possible to succeed without a lot of money, but it is a lot harder.

The Rich Make Sacrifices Too

Although it seems as though America has just in the last few years gone into a structural collapse, sending its manufacturing to an enemy who has vowed to destroy us, impoverishing vast numbers of Americans, it is not only the lower and middle classes which have suffered.   Not only do the rich care deeply about the poor and middle classes as has been shown by their creation of the right wing of the Republican party and their economic policies, but the rich themselves have suffered, terribly suffered, more than most people know.

I am here to testify to you that I have personally witnessed some of the ways that the rich have suffered. These sacrifices have been made behind the scenes and hidden out of shame.  Yes, the cold wind of poverty has blown on the faces of the rich as well as the poor, and yes even the owners of the biggest corporations who laugh at the misery of the poor, even they have had to cut back on essential services.

I got to witness this firsthand when my brother was by accident elevated to the upper classes on a trip to NY.   

Many years ago, my brother, the famous film editor, came to NY to show the movie he was working on at a preview screening. The way this works is that the film editor flies out with a print of the film, works with the projectionist and makes sure that everything is done right, and then returns home with the film. These days of course, there is no film, and the film editor just loads the work print up on his thumb drive and flies to NY.   But back then, the editor flew with the film and kept it under his or her control.   In this case, I think the screening was for World War II submariners as part of a documentary being made for the History Channel, sometimes called the Hitler Channel, and the film was U571 (2000).

Although my brother is certainly not rich, his hotel reservations were made on the director's credit card, and when there was some sort of confusion, they did a complementary upgrade to a suite. And I visited him in this suite and got to see how far down the ladder the rich have been forced to descend.

The suite was a pretty good size, it seemed to be about one quarter of a floor of the 4 Seasons Hotel with a nice view of the Chrysler Building. There were several large bedrooms, and the main living room was of modest but acceptable size, you could have a party for perhaps 200 people in it.   Off on the side, there was a nice room which served as a library / study with built in bookcases. There was a goofy but expensive and large tube television (yes, must have been just before flat panels took over) that sank into a concealed space and then would automatically raise itself on command and other televisions, less ostentatious perhaps, in various rooms.  There was a kitchen for entertaining and a bar or two of course.   There were windows on three sides of the 4 Seasons and at least two entrances.   A sensible hotel room, with the basic amenities.

But you could see, you could tell, that already people were counting pennies and cutting back on essential services.

The suite only had four bathrooms, that I recall. The first three, the master bath and two others had all the normal features, with shower, bath, sauna, a telephone and a television. But the fourth bathroom, although it did have a telephone, did not have its own television.

Its shocking, isn't it, how far down we have come so quickly? One of the bathrooms does not have its own television, so its come to this? When I finally asssured myself that this was indeed true, despite my disbelief, when I figured out what this meant, I had to sit down I was so shaken.

That our rich should have to suffer so cruelly was a shock to me. America was such a great country once.

U571 on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0141926/