Transitory Inflation: Is It Sticky Notes or Cast Iron (Part 1)

 

There has been a growing volume of discussion on “Transitory Inflation” around the US’s COVID-Recovery. One might say: Almost an inflationary amount of media coverage on the question of what will happen in the US Economy. Some, like the Fed and the Treasury, are espousing the view that the up-tick in prices/costs that have come with re-opening the US economy are ‘temporary’ or ‘transitory’ and due to conditions related to the pandemic and due in large part to the supply-chain disruptions occurring simultaneously with rebounding consumer demands. Of course, there are those, like some financial industry leaders or economists, who assert that these inflationary price/cost increases will persist and will not be ‘transitory’.

Yes, I know; what a shock that there are different projections about inflation and from those who’s views on the economy are supposed to be most informed. That the ‘most informed’ are interpreting the same state of affairs differently would seem illogical; but this is more common than one might think. This of course raises the question: Who’s right? And that is where the answer is much like the economy itself. The economy isn’t simple, it isn’t preordained to react in a highly deterministic manner based on a numeric measure which is well understood in the context of economic theory; but which is abysmally poorly defined in the practical terms of reality.

Who doesn’t know that ‘Inflation’ is “a general increase in prices and a decline in the purchasing value of money”? Some will say: “the cost of goods increases”. Now as to who doesn’t know that, well it is not clear but if you asked a systems analyst, they might say that these definitions are not adequately defined in that they doesn’t tell you what happens because of those conditions. Now, if we add the complicating notion of “transitory” to the mix, the picture doesn’t get any clearer.

Let’s reset the discussion. First, let’s attempt to define “Inflation” a little more specifically. This doesn’t mean that economists or financial experts will agree, but they already don’t so what do we have to lose?

A general and useful definition of “Inflation” is:

The price/cost of some item or items (henceforth call ‘goods’) increases, while the following conditions are also true.

Conditions:

·         The value of the money, capital, wages, assets, or any other items unrelated to the goods, whose price has increased, have remained unchanged.

·         The consumers/customers of the ‘inflated’ goods continue to purchase these goods at the higher price/cost.

·         The level of supply of the goods and the level of demand for the goods must be measurable/quantifiable as variables in assessing the impact that this ‘Inflation’ will produce in the economy.

·         Open criteria: yet to be determined conditions which are needed to produce the consequences of these goods’ inflationary impact.

This is a more useful definition of ‘Inflation’, at least from a systems analyst’s perspective, because it allows for a more calculable way to derive consequences.

I want to point out at this juncture, that this is the simplest example of Inflation, and it may also shed some light upon what adding a ‘transitory’ factor or dimension to Inflation would require.

So, what does this definition of Inflation tell us?

First, it tells us nothing about what caused the price/cost of the goods to increase. Basic economic theory indicates that the price/cost of an item will increase due to any number of factors:

1.       The Supply/Demand principle indicates that price will increase if ‘supply’ is inadequate to meet ‘demand’. So, if supply decrease then price will increase as long as demand remains that exceeds the available supply quantity. Or, if demand increases but supply does not respond to adequately meet it then price will rise.

2.       On the opposite side of the inflation coin, the price/costs of good can decrease if ‘supply’ exceeds ‘demand’. This is the counter-part to inflation; it is deflation.

3.       Price may also increase even if supply and demand themselves are not actually relevant factors at play. If the ‘producer’ of the goods sees or thinks that they can increase their revenues and profits by raising prices, then that would create an inflationary force. This decision by the producer is a risk. As long as there is a reasonable level of free-market competition then the assumptions is that competitors will gain market share as long as they offer lower prices/cost. If the free-market concept doesn’t operate efficiently then some level of inflation occurs.

4.       There are some bizarre or outlier situations which create an inflation-like effect but have a dubious connection to the economic principle of a “rational consumer” which renders explaining or modeling the effect and projecting it somewhat difficult to achieve. An example of such an economic event is a fad. If a good becomes a ‘fad’ item then its price may well become detached at least for a period of time from a real supply-side constraint.

Taking the conditions which define inflation together with the factors that create the underlying price/cost changes provides a way to assess and project impacts from inflation on an economy.

Before we go further, it is important to recognize a relevant aspect of the economic concept. There is an assumption which needs to be acknowledge that often goes unstated. In discussing any economic concept there is a finite amount of funds that exists within the consumer population. This finite amount has a meta-reality to it, because while it is finite it is not fixed. This may seem a contradiction, but it has to do with what constitutes the underlying ‘value’ of things in the economy (or the world). Resources are constantly changing and with those changes their value may change. This aspect of value doesn’t usually change for individual consumers that frequently or rapidly; however, it can change in broader contexts. Take as an example: corn. The cost/price of corn doesn’t usually change that drastically unless some event causes a very extensive change in the entire market for corn or on something that corn production relies upon. An individual consumer’s decision about corn, to buy or not, has no real effect; whereas if a significant number of consumers alter their buying decisions their collective impact could change the ‘value’ of corn and thereby have an impact upon whether inflation or deflation happens.

What then is creating the current Inflation during this initial period of the US’s COVID Economic Recovery? Well, there are many of the factors mentioned above that are at play.

A.      Supply:
There are innumerable goods that are not available in quantities to meet consumer demand. So, the producers raise their prices because there is a willingness and tolerance among enough consumers to pay higher prices for the same goods at the inflated prices. Consider just a few of the goods that have made the news while there are likely multitudes more with less media attention:

a.       New Cars/Trucks

b.       Used Cars/Trucks

c.       Lumber

d.       Energy: Oil, Gasoline, natural gas

e.       Housing – new, used, rental

f.        Food: especially fruits and vegetables

g.       Food: restaurants, fast-food / take-out, away from home

h.       Airline tickets

i.         Medical expenses

j.         Something you know of perhaps

Then there is the Resources dimension of Supply that are associated with the production or procurement of the goods. The COVID pandemic also impacts and continues to distort this part of the Supply side. This facet of Supply includes things like:

a.       Workers. Perhaps the most dynamic and diverse resource. One of the reasons there are Supply problems in goods is that to get the goods into the market/economy you must have workers that are a key component in producing the Supply. Someone must make the parts and assemble them to have a new car. Someone must harvest material: food, lumber, petroleum, minerals, … . Someone is needed to take your order and deliver it to your table; or issue your boarding pass, and of course fly the airplane. You even need someone to sell you what you buy at a store or have delivered to your home.

b.       Materials. Along with workers there are the substances/materials that those workers are needed for acquiring, producing, and distributing. That new car needs the materials which all of its various constituent parts require.

c.       Capacity. When the need for supply increases for whatever reason, there are constraints imposed by how ‘responsive’ the production process is or can be in reacting to that need. How much production capacity exists limits how much can be produced no matter if you have more than enough workers, more than enough materials, and more than enough money. The time required to produce ‘X’ units may not be within your ability to change or control. The number of units that you can push through the manufacturing process at some number can not be increased. The amount of things that you can move from where they are to where they need to be is dependent upon literally how much space there is for the processes that move things.

B.      Demand:
This ought to be the easiest part of the Economy to both relate to and to understand. Demand is what everyone buys. Every purchase that you make from the smallest five-cent piece of candy at the check-out register (for those of you who have every been in a physical store), to signing the mortgage papers when you buy a home, to buying a seat on one of the commercial space-flight ventures; and everything in between. Demand is transferring some of your financial resources to someone else in exchange for those ‘Goods’ that they offer in that exchange.

So, what does all this mean for Inflation?

It is actually quite simple, if you are comfortable with the concepts of Supply and of Demand and how they interact then Inflation is just a process consequence that works to find a point of economic (monetary value) stability. Hopefully, you have seen a Supply vs Demand chart that relates the cost/price of goods rising or falling as these two factors change.

Inflation is just a response due to consumer behavior. The ‘transitory’ aspect of inflation thus is exceedingly dependent upon the same Supply / Demand  relationship in economic theory and thus upon the same consumer behavior. How to understand the Consumer-behavior aspect of Inflation and the ‘transitory’ question around the COVID-Recovery Inflation will be discussed in Part 2 of “Transitory Inflation – Is It Sticky Notes or Cast Iron?”

Hoping My Deer Killer Reputation Is and Remains History

 

When you tell someone that you hit and killed a deer, you will get several different reactions but almost always someone will tell you about their own incidents or near-incidents with deer. Every driver who lives anywhere where deer are occasional road traversers will have seen deer on, next to or crossing a road. It is also highly likely that these drivers will have seen the carnage left on deer and cars alike from the frequent interactions between members of the herd and varied vehicles. These “let me tell you what happened to me” stories about deer encounters of the frightening kind are modern variants of the “fisherman’s tale” along with their one-upmanship enhancements. It is a strange and perverse form of accomplishment for drivers, akin to the “one that got away” stories except that it takes the “didn’t get away” fatal plotline.

My story isn’t solely about one particular ‘car and deer’ collision. No, I have a sequence of encounters which earned me the appellation of “The Deer Killer” at work. This title resulted from commenting to some colleagues at lunch that I had had a near-miss with a deer when leaving from our work location one day. On that occasion, the interaction between my car and the deer was of the most minimal nature. Upon seeing the deer bound out of the foliage and into the road ahead of me, I slammed on the brakes and the car bumper just clipped a back hoof as the deer passed with no meaningful harm done to either. Now this is not an especially dramatic or noteworthy deer story; but it did bring up the afore-mentioned one-upmanship competition.

The lunch group heard about a range of story lines dealing with different contestants’ various offerings of their harrowing confrontations betwixt car and deer. After we had heard the stories about:

·         A deer jumping from the roadside right in-front of the car

·         A deer standing in the road around a curve

·         A deer bolting from behind bushes in people’s yards

·         A herd of deer running onto the road and hitting one or even two

Most of the stories were some version of these themes. They may have happened at night, in the morning or during the day. Stories took place in suburban neighbors, around farm fields, in wooded areas (like around the building I worked at), or on heavily traveled highways. There were stories of the does and the many pronged bucks woven into the mix. The vehicles spanned the gamut of new to old,  of large and small, and truck to family auto. The intensity of impact and its resulting damage also covered a wide spectrum of outcomes, both for deer and vehicle. After hearing each of the others’ adventures with our indigenous fauna of the bumper, I though I may have the story that ‘one ups’.

At an opportune moment of silence, a rare incident indeed at the lunch table, I calmly asked: “Who has hit the same deer twice?”  One of the quicker skeptics asked with an incredulous tone: “And how do you know it was the same deer on those two occasions?”  Everyone took on the same expression of doubt. “On no,” I said, “I did not mean on two separate occasions, I meant twice on the same one.” I went on to explain.

I was driving from graduate school to my future wife’s house to fetch her to a party that the graduate students were having during the holidays. Most of the route was through state forests or undeveloped land. It was a late fall evening and dark enough to require headlights. There was next to no traffic on the road, so I was making a good run in the rather dated Volkswagen I drove at that time. The first thing I saw was a rather large brownish form immediately in front of the car’s windshield descend from the right side of the road. I hit it dead on. I slammed on the brakes as fast as my brain could react.

This is where the event gets unique. The deer hit the hood and was driven straight forward and a little up in the air, just enough that it landed on its legs just in time for my car to hit it dead on again. I can’t say which hit killed the deer. But when the deer and the car came to a stop, it lay in front of the car and did not move. The visual memory of the collision is quite vivid. I got out of the car to see how much damage had been done, to see the state of the deer, and to determine if I was going to be able to drive the car.

Fortunately, for me given the circumstance, I was able to bend the right front fender up and away from the wheel thus allowing me to be able to drive; albeit with only one headlight intact. I pulled the deer off the road and then my car. Not to long after the accident, a passing truck stopped. The driver asked if I was alright, and I indicated that I was fine. He then asked me what I planned to do with the deer. I was a little taken aback and said that I was just going to report the incident (it was required by law to report hitting a deer and its location). The man asked if he could take it, and I said that was fine with me. He then invited me to come to his house when I was able to have some of the deer. I helped him load the deer in the back of his truck and thanked him for stopping to help.

That story seemed to be the winner, but it wasn’t for that story that I earned the dubious title of “Deer Killer”. There were some additional deer-involved incidents that occurred over time. These occurrences would also get related to my coworkers from time to time. Remember the one at the start of this sage, the deer running out of the woods at work. Well, there was also one where a deer jumped out onto the road (again from the right) during a drive into work where I hit the hindquarters of the dear. The deer kept running after it recovered from skidding over the road. I was hurt enough to prevent it from running but did not seem to be running normally. Then there were at least two times when I was driving home from work on one night and volleyball on another where I saw the deer standing by the side of the road in someone’s yard. It was only when I got close that each deer bolted right out into my car. One died, the other I don’t know what happened after it hobbled off.

There have been a couple of near misses. Somewhere along the line, it was suggested that I had developed the reputation in the deer community for being “The Deer Killer”; and any deer that wanted to commit suicide would come looking for me. I decide to write up this narrative when returning from a night of summer evening volleyball, I passed three separate locations where there was a deer just off the road that looked up as I approached and passed. Fortunately, none of these apparently knew my reputation or where in a death-wish state of mind.

I am hoping that I won’t be able to add any future ‘tails’ to my story.

School Choice in the Age of COVID: The Mask Issue

 

With the recent recommendation(s) for mask wearing in US schools for the 2021 Fall openings the arguments, fights, debates, and political / partisan divides over this particular issue could help provide a reasonable path forward for competently addressing these disputed among different groups. This is particularly true for states that have passed legislation or had official mandates issued to prevent school districts from ‘requiring’ mask wearing in a public school. Now from a public policy perspective there is never going to be a single public policy agreed to and an accepted resolution in any state. In a large population it is just illogical to expect there is going to be a sound and reasoned policy accepted by public who cannot agree on anything.

However, this irreconcilable difference in positions may actually offer what would seem to be the obvious solution. Why need there be a ‘single’ school solution that must be imposed upon one side or the other? After all, there are other options and solutions that might not only be agreeable to all parties but which provides additional benefits to the schools, the states and the nation. Wouldn’t it serve the public’s interest much better if rather than spend the time, energy and resources fighting over who’s rights and freedoms, and who’s political alignment is being supported to have a solution which satisfies the positions taken by each individual family and the schools and state/local leadership? If not, why is it essential that the interests of some must be sacrificed at the expense of others?

As to the solution I would think it would be obvious to politicians or school administrators. Implement a two-choice voluntary system. Let individual families choose whether their students attend a class where every student wears a mask, or they can choose to attend their class with students who do not wear masks. This selection would be applied across all aspects of the school. This would require that the schools plan and organize the execution of the school programs and class around this separation scheme. Who doesn’t get what they want if you just operate along a principle of let each family choose their own level of risks.

Another advantage of this dual-track approach would be that it could even accommodate a Vaccinated and Unvaccinated dimension related to the families’ adults. Of course, the Vaccinated vs Not Vaccinated dimension may almost perfectly align or overlap with the mask versus no-mask dimension.

From a public health policy perspective, this voluntary choice policy would enable the healthcare entities to gather data on the efficacy of the two choices. Since each group would have made their choice based on the same information and recommendations that have been made available by the experts there is no reason that the schools or government should be held accountable for those choices and any consequential outcomes. It’s a perfect solution. Everyone gets what they want and any consequences are within the scope of their choice.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill: These Are Not the Taxes You Are Looking For!

 

There is an interesting facet in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill (BIB) that a group of five Democrats and five Republican Senators are proposing to ‘break’ the typical impasse between Democrats and Republicans in Congress on anything. As an attempt to ‘compromise’ it is a rather modest, at best, effort to achieve even the desired ‘pure’ infrastructure efforts proposed by the Biden Administration and Democrats. The ‘new’ Infrastructure items are absent in toto. But within the BIB is a small item that is included as an “option”. That option is to provide an ‘inflation-based indexing’ of gasoline taxes.

So, to accommodate an essential inviolate Republican ‘line in the sand’ the BIB is presented as a “no new taxes” bill. This is a common tactic among politicians, they use their phrasing and personal interpretation as to what anything ‘is’. Just the simple term “new” is highly nuanced. What “new” means is actually very important. Consider if I were to propose that I was going to build a dam but that ‘no new laws of physics’ were going to be used, what would that prevent me from doing? I still get to use all the ‘existing’ laws of physics. So, a promise of “no new taxes” only prevents the use of a tax that doesn’t already exist. What does it allow however?

This is where that pesky personal interpretation could come in, and in fact the Republicans have wedged in at least one such view. The Republicans seem ok with the use of an existing gasoline tax. After all, it is not a ‘new’ tax. Now, because that ‘sleight of hand’ maneuver is just to easily something that the public (even voters) can readily see as disingenuous the BIB provides it as an “option” that can be used. Wow! I feel much more that there are “no new” taxes now. But there is a second-order tactical evasion included in the “no new taxes” optional funding mechanism. The ‘optional’ “no new” tax is only applied as a “inflation indexing” adjustment. The ‘not new tax amount’ that might ‘optionally’ be used is simply to adjust the current gasoline tax-rate to account for Inflation. So, it is really not “new” but just an ‘adjustment’ because the increased amount of money that users will have to pay is only because if ‘Inflation’. Just like the dam I am going to build won’t change the flow of water because I only used the ‘existing’ laws of physics!

Now, you might think that we have covered this taxation issue pretty much completely. Except what about the reasoning* behind this ‘not a new’ tax notion beyond is it ‘new’ or not? [Note: * I am asking the reader to apply their ‘suspension of disbelief’ skill to the notion that politicians reason.] What about some other factors and considerations that we have to hope politicians think** about when proposing and crafting legislation. [Note: ** Just like first note, lets assume politicians think.] For example, who is being taxed? And, who benefits from the taxes? Oh yeah! What makes this approach ‘fair’ and ‘equitable’?

Who would be taxed? Well, it’s a gasoline tax; so, people who drive cars on the roads and bridges or who use gas in boats or other gasoline-powered devices like backup-power generators for instance. Well, everyone drives a car right? So, that makes it fair. Except even if millionaires and billionaires drive a car, is the cost of gasoline for them a ‘fair’ distribution of a tax policy? They don’t dry more than anyone else really, probably less actually. However, why are people driving vehicles on roads and over bridges?

We drive cars (and truck and such), for all the usual reasons. To get to and from work and school, and in the fields that grow our food. Cars are used by those whose jobs are in the transport industry, be that transport of produce, goods, or people. Folks use cars to go to stores in order to procure anything from food to furniture. We also use cars to go to entertainment events and take vacations; but this category of use is at a lower quantity than those above. We are thus taxing virtually everything in our economy and spreading that tax burden over everyone to the degree that those activities are part and parcel of their lives, life-styles, and economic rung.

Now, if you assessed how much everyone is taxed; how you measure that is quite significant. Is the amount of tax you pay fair compared to someone who makes half of what you do? How about compared to someone who makes ten, hundred or a thousand times what you do? If you think this is fair then there is a far better, cheaper, and more reasoned way to do all this without a gasoline tax. Wouldn’t it be better to have a cheaper way to obtain the same tax revenue? If you don’t think this is ‘fair’, then a gasoline tax approach is problematic, isn’t it?

What about who benefits? That should be a pretty easy answer. Everyone. But does everyone benefit equally or more precisely do we all benefit in what would be a consistent ‘fair’ manner given how the taxes are ‘fairly’ applied? We all get to go back and forth to work/school (unless you work/school-at-home). Farmers get to farm, truckers/deliverers/drivers get to truck/deliver/drive, customers get to purchase, and we all get to go out and enjoy as we choose. But once again there is that nagging question of did you benefit just like the person who earns half your salary, and just as much as those who earn ten, a hundred, or a thousand times what you earn? There seems to be some form of asymmetry happening here just like there was in the amount of taxes paid by everyone.

Is it possible that those at the top pay in relatively little but get out a much greater benefit? To be honest, this is an overly complex and difficult question to answer because it involves so many other factors and considerations. But has a quite real regressive, even repressive, attribute on putting more of the burden on those in the lower economic tiers than those in the top tiers. Consider corporations as some of those ‘persons’ at the top. They pay their mileage tax costs and any derivative gasoline-tax costs that flow-through to them and then pass those along to their customers. However, these same corporations earn their revenues from their customers who are paying for those same taxes in the prices they are paying the corporation for its goods. Their profits can be the same in an absolute sense, or even higher if they earn the same profit percentage on a higher priced product.

It is a difficult situation to determine what it mean to be ‘fair’ in with regard to a gasoline tax policy and structure.

So, when the politicians tell you, “These are not the taxes you are looking for” be very skeptical. These may be exactly the taxes you are going to pay.  

Grand Economic Experiment

 

This ought to be an exciting time and opportunity for economists. I know, I know, exciting and economists are terms rarely used together in the same sentence; but you must also consider that ‘exciting’ is a relative term and like everything needs to be understood in context.

Anyway, back to the Grand Economic Experiment! (GEE!). If the article’s topic doesn’t automatically convey what the GEE! Is then it is prudent to explicitly define it. GEE! is a voluntary selection by each state as to which experimental group they wish to belong. The groups differ in those that are choosing to end the COVID Unemployment Federal stimulus months earlier than required; and the other group are the states that are continuing to provide the Federal stimulus payments for the unemployed. That is what GEE! is at first glance. The reason that GEE! is a natural experiment is that this choice by the states is being done voluntarily and was not intentionally considered in the context of an economic experiment. But since each state is by default in one or the other group, we wind up with a ‘natural’ economic experiment, GEE!.

There is even a ‘natural’ hypothesis that is being tested. Again, those electing to join the “End Early” group are postulating that their states will be economically better off with that decision; while the other states are deciding or defaulting to the “Stay To The End” group. The Stay group’s hypothesis is that their economies will perform better by retaining the stimulus payments.

Now, if all other things were equal, this would be a classic experiment; but of course, everything else is not equal so there will be lots to factors and variables to consider and to tease out of the data. But the GEE! will occur and data will be generated, so there is no reason or excuse for economists not to use the data to see what we can learn from the GEE!

For example, do the states that End Early recover employment level quicker as predicted by their political leaders as the reason, or part of the reason, for why they are ending early. Alternatively, do the Stay To The End states’ economies do as well or even better with jobs recovery? That would be one reasonable question to try and answer. It won’t be as easy to answer as one might think since there are those pesky differences among the states not just between the two groups but within each group itself.

Then there is the issue of jobs/unemployment is not a singular or required measure of the economic performance of any given state. If the gross domestic product of a state goes up statistically more in one condition than in another, which can be one measure of economic performance, does that mean or require that its jobs/unemployment data must coincide? [Note: It does not. A state’s economy may be much better off and yet its jobs/unemployment could be comparatively average or even below average.]

This is why we are looking at a GEE! moment. There are many things that we (via the economists) could learn as long as we collect, analyze and explain what has been observed and hopefully learned. Consider the two hypotheses that are underlying the choices each states’ governor is making. To know who made a good choice and why, and who made a bad choice and why; we need to see what happens.

Do the extra unemployment payments to go to the states produce more economic value than an offsetting economic milestone that jobs/unemployment brings; or on the other side, are more jobs created with corresponding unemployment decreases causing those states’ economies to recovery and grow better?

In Stay To The End states, the stimulus money will go into those states’ economies, and some, most or all will be spent in those states. That spending will be to local businesses, which than is used to resupply, to grow business, hire employees, and those expenditures repeat at some rate. Producers in those states may thus sell more of their produce since more funds are in circulation.

In the End Early states, that stimulus money will not be used as it isn’t available. However, without those funds more individuals are expected to have to find jobs to sustain their and their families lives. This will produce its version of the economic cycle. People will earn money, spend it, and a similar cycle to that above will occur.

Which group will do better? We don’t know, yet! That is why is it the GEE!. The experiment may be so complex and there may be so many uncontrolled variables that the basic question will never be answered; but we might learn somethings and since the GEE! is happening anyway, we should avail ourselves of the opportunity to learn what we can. If there are winners and loser, we can hope to prevent creating more losers in the future and instead creating more winners.

Breaching Gerrymandering’s Defenses: An Attack Strategy

 

There have been many assessments on the dangers and damage that Partisan Gerrymandering does to a Democracy. In the US the principal front of the attack against Gerrymandering is centered on its diminution of one voter group’s rights (political influence) to the enhancement of another voter group’s control/influence over governmental officials and institutions. Most Americans disapprove of the corruptive and abusive consequences that Partisan Gerrymandering produces. Yet, Partisan Gerrymandering has proven to be extremely resistant to being reigned in or eliminated. Partly, this is due to its long history and court rulings that no law has been broken, no rights have been infringed, or that there is insufficient proof that provides a basis upon which the court, including the Supreme Court, could rule.

From a general assessment of the gerrymandering issue, it seems the bulk of efforts fall into grassroots efforts. There are the occasional lawsuit-based attempts to challenge the Redistricting maps which are created under the Constitutional requirement to fulfill the equal representation. On the political side, the grassroot efforts are educational, organizational and influence building oriented at getting the public to support and elect politicians that will implement anti-partisan gerrymandering or rely upon independent Redistricting processes or agencies. There are also research efforts that study and assess the degree to which Partisan Gerrymandering is being used by many states. This research has been used in support of some of the Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuits, but there has been a reluctance in the courts to accepting these assessments as “proof” of any law or right being violated. Justices have even indicated that the analysis and assessments are based of very complex and difficult to understand methodologies.

Partisan Gerrymandering is still present and deemed beyond SCOTUS’ ability to intervene due to several deficiencies in the Justices not having “Any standard for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims” that provide a “limited and precise rationale” and be “clear, manageable, and politically neutral.” Given this 2019 decision, Partisan Gerrymandering will remain viable and in all likelihood will be dominant in the 2020 Census Redistricting efforts taking place.

These reasons may have been true at that moment of the Justices’ decision in 2019 but are no longer accurate today. What changed? Well, the Majority Opinion that Chief Justice Roberts wrote. He provided, perhaps inadvertently, a roadmap for prosecuting a case against Partisan Gerrymandering that only lacks the effort to assemble, file and prosecute. Fortunately for the Court, the Roberts’ roadmap provides them with the entire basis for over-ruling their 2019 decision insofar as the Majority Opinion provided the reasoning that the Justices needed to have ruled otherwise. The Court would merely only be following and respecting their own logic and legal interpretations.

Thus the next steps includes that some decisions must be made. The many groups and organizations that are engaged in the local grassroots efforts will need to decide how they will proceed. Those national entities that support those state-level efforts will also have to decide how they will support any attempts to eliminate Partisan Gerrymandering and preserve and protect our citizens’ right to “equal treatment under the law.”

Should a decision be made to pursue a new Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuit, or lawsuits, some initial steps that need to be taken would include:

·         Assemble the basis for the case, which requires a group of citizens in a state(s) that will claim their rights and interests have been violated and infringed by the Gerrymandering in their respective state.

·         Obtain the relevant data and information that will be necessary to use Chief Justice Roberts’ roadmap to overturn the 2019 decision.

·         Formulate a messaging & communications framework that provides:

o   an engaging case for the public (why it matters beyond our American principles & values),

o   the “standard(s)” that SCOTUS needs to resolve claims,

o   the “limited and precise rationale”,

o   a “clear, manageable” means to resolve the rights violations/infringements,

o   a resolution which is “political neutral”,

o   and a coordinated effort to enable the grassroots groups to energize their communities.

·         Define the legal approaches to be incorporated in each or individual cases.

The alternative to pursuing new Partisan Gerrymandering lawsuits is to continue with the grassroots work until those efforts can garner sufficient public support to affect a legislative change. I have no way to accurately judge the timeline for such grassroot efforts, but I would put any realistic estimate in terms of years. This would have almost no chance to have much if any impact on any state’s elections for the near term. The chance of new lawsuits progressing to the Supreme Court is more likely to have some potential for a 2024 election cycle, but I have no view of any prospects for the 2022 Mid-Terms.

This is a step-up moment for those seeking to correct the abuses of Partisan Gerrymandering.

Internet Integrity: Fixing Section 230

 

To: NPR's The Indicator - April 22, 2021's "The 26 Words That Made The Internet What It Is"

Hosts:  Bobby Allyn, Shannon Bond,

This review of the Section 230 exemption of the internet from responsibility for mostly everything has been a recurring theme not just of late but for a couple of years now. What seems to be missing from any reviews and analyses of the Section 230 issues and problems is a perspective that the issues and problems are easy to solve. They have always been easy to solve. For the last 25 years, there have been solutions. Oh, and these solutions do not place the burden upon the companies that argued that there isn’t anything that they can practically do or should be expected to do; which they say because it is to difficult and impractical. Also, internet companies explain that they don’t want be placed in the awkward and inappropriate position of having to engage in “censorship”. These companies fail to mention that there is no requirement or necessity whatsoever that they engage in any form of censorship.

There may be many legitimate reasons for why the internet companies and their leadership hasn’t known that there are solutions, or for why they could not find these solutions. Just because there are solutions to a problem does not mean that everyone who is aware of the problem knows there is a solution. It could just be that they do not know. Now, not knowing is understandable but it is not a good look for corporate leaders. Even if they do not know themselves, they should know how to find out. It could be just a simple as asking, or in directing staff to find a solution.

Another insight into why the corporate leader couldn’t solve the problems could be that they may have been trapped in a preconceived or assumed approach for solving the problem. Given that perspective going in that restricted or distorted their ability to conceive of or recognize the simple and available solutions to the problem. This would just be a simple failure to have followed the well established STEM-oriented methodologies for solving problems. If there are twenty paths that might lead to a solution but you only look at two or three the solutions that you are looking for may not be found via those paths.

The corporate leaders and their technical organizations are not alone in failing to find the simple solutions. Congress and congressional committees have failed just a badly. Congress’s failure is much more understandable and to be expected. Members of Congress are not exactly proficient or experienced problem-solvers, despite there being a Problem-Solving Caucus in Congress.

At this point the news media should be asked: Why don’t you know about the easy solutions to the Section 230 related issues and problems? Has no one that the media has interviewed provided the easy solutions? Did the “The Indicator” ask?

What is solving the Section 230 problems worth to the nation, to the public, the government, and to the internet companies? Consider what the benefits are to resolving all problems and consequences that flow from the current state of affairs. Seems like just another terribly wasted opportunity.

As Congress, regulating entities, the internet companies, and various interest groups work to address all the ills that Section 230 has enabled through the normal process of unintended consequences, it is highly unlikely that the simple solutions will be derived. The answers that are available today will remain out of sight and out of mind. This is the real shame and problem of Section 230 and the harm it has enabled and promoted.