It’s fascinating how much of an effect people allow a ‘big boogeyman’ to have on their psyche, especially those we can ignore if we choose to: whether it’s the ‘big, bad rich guy’, or the ‘big, evil corporation’, or the ‘big foreign strongman leader’, etc.  Throw OPEC into this mix.  Some feared they would totally crush the reborn U.S. energy industry when they declined to cut production a couple years ago.  The price duel was indeed costly for all parties, but we’re still here, and we’re not likely going anywhere.
 
Our continual improvements kept domestic production on the upswing for more than a year after the price of oil started tumbling in June 2014.  Over that time, the active rig count was dropping by almost two-thirds, assets were being sold off and the first waves of layoffs were occurring.  Yet our oil kept flowing.  It wasn’t until July 2015, eight months after OPEC made the fateful decision not to support prices, that U.S. output started experiencing a downward trend. 
 
U.S. Crude Oil Production (thousand barrels per day)

​(Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
 
By that time, the gutting of prices had been done.  The increased productivity that resulted from the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) innovation converged with OPEC’s defense of market share to totally overwhelm demand to the point of pushing the price all the way down to $26 in February 2016.  Adjusted for inflation, oil & gas were at historic lows.  More asset sales, layoffs (by now numbering in the hundreds of thousands) and even bankruptcies ensued.  Within OPEC, dissension started to stir.
 
As 2015 gave way to 2016, the non-Arab contingent of OPEC, who didn’t have near the savings to draw on during this market correction as Arab members, started to push for organized output cuts.  Everyone had lost a piece of the pie to the shale producers, and were now possibly set to lose more as the U.S. government lifted the oil export ban in December 2015. 
 
At last, in late 2016, as a slight recovery had already taken hold, OPEC & Russia agreed to remove more than a million barrels of oil per day from the market.  Since then, the price has fluctuated around $50.  

​Perhaps as a result of this massive market adjustment, a prospect unimaginable just a decade ago has started rising above a whisper; the ‘end of OPEC’.  Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.  It might be more likely that we’re witnessing a taming of the boom-bust nature of the industry.
---
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries was formed in 1960 “to coordinate and unify … policies … and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure a … regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.”  It’s a cartel, something we don’t see in the U.S. because it’s illegal for firms to collude in price/supply fixing. 
 
Oil is a perfectly competitive good.  It’s a homogenous product in that it differs very little from one producer to another.  ‘Your oil is like my oil is like his oil.’  A producer in such an industry is a price taker, and in a perfectly competitive market free of collusion, all profit is eventually drilled away.  Moreover, as are many other commodities (agricultural products), oil is an inelastic good.  Demand is less sensitive to price because food & energy are more valuable to consumers than say, another pair of sneakers or earrings or T.V. 
 
Combine those two characteristics, and one motivation for OPEC’s formation becomes apparent.  Add a flexible & nimble independent wild card like shale producers, and the result is the 2-year battle for market share from which we’ve only recently begun to emerge.
 
Perhaps the catalyst to OPEC’s current predicament was the growth of the developing world, the various international skirmishes & conflicts and dollar weakness during the dawn of this century.  These forces came together to push the price of oil up to almost $150 in 2008.  Compounding matters was the particularly low level of spare capacity it had, precluding its ability to bring the price down with more supply.  This turned out to be the price signal that was needed to make fracking viable.  And once that genie was out of the bottle, there was no putting it back. 
 
OPEC Spare Production Capacity (million barrels per day)

​(Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration)
---
From the current juncture, there are multiple directions price could go.
 
According to OPEC’s website, the oil industry makes up an average of almost half of the gross domestic product of member countries, and accounts for 90% of export revenues.  Some plan, or have attempted to put their economic eggs into other baskets. 
 
Under the direction of King Salman’s son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia last year announced a plan with the goal of diversifying its economy so that it relies less on oil.  It appears as much social advances (more women in the workplace and defanging religious police) as financial ones, the latter of which includes expanding their sovereign wealth fund into the world’s biggest, and selling almost 5% of the state-owned oil company, Saudi Arabian Oil company (Saudi Aramco). 
 
If other countries succeeded in such efforts, as Nigeria has tried for a number of years in developing their digital economy industry & mining of other natural resources, the supply of oil could theoretically decline, as inputs such as capital & labor would be pulled in other, possibly more lucrative directions.  That’s what shale producers are facing as they attempt to respond to a firming market; laid-off workers have moved on, in some cases picking up stakes & moving to other states altogether.  This raises expenses beyond which some companies can afford.  Hence, supply dries up, and upward pressure on oil prices is felt. 
 
On the other hand, some non-OPEC countries have opened the door to foreign participation in their respective industries. 
 
In 2014, Mexico did so for a small portion of its proven reserves, and a large chunk of exploration for new resources.  There also may be opportunities for these firms to work with the state company, Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX).  While down on the other side of the equator in Latin America, Petróleo Brasileiro SA (Petrobras), Brazil’s scandal-plagued, mostly-state-owned petroleum company, has fielded interest from Shell et al regarding the so-called pre-salt oil fields in the deep waters off its coast. 
 
Even Russia’s state-controlled company Rosneft is selling off chunks of itself.  And while Russia does have significant shale resources, international partnerships to exploit them ground to a halt as a result of diplomatic sanctions put in place after its annexation of the Ukranian territory of Crimea.  As it is, the most prominent case of diffusion of fracking technology looks set to take off in the Vaca Muerta region of a more business-friendly post-Kirchner Argentina.
 
If such foreign direct investment bears fruit, it would likely introduce efficiencies into the sectors of the respective countries.  Consequentially, they would realize the dropping breakeven points experienced here.  Hence, more product would flow into the international market thereby pushing the price down.  
 
Conversely, if they suffered the same fate of asset seizure that many companies of varying industries have experienced in Venezuela (most recently GM), this would tend to restrict supply, sending prices in the other direction. 
 
Venezuela is an extreme case in that it has been poorly governed under the late Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro.  They have so mismanaged the largest reserves in the world that they can barely afford to bring any to market.  Theirs is a classic case of the distortions introduced into an economy by government meddling; their production should have been on an upward trend until prices tanked.  As it is, they serve to put a floor under prices.  And if Venezuelans continue to ramp up their dissent in the face of increased government efforts to ineffectively assuage (six hikes of the minimum wage in the last year!) and/or suppress it, the result could be something that causes further drops in production; armed conflict.  

Nigeria & Libya were exempted from the recent OPEC cuts for just such reasons.  The former has suffered attacks mainly from the terrorist group Boko Harem, while the latter endures civil strife in the battle to control production since Muammar Gaddafi was deposed in 2011.  Closer to home, Mexico has experienced a surge of pipeline thefts recently, partially at the hands of the notorious drug cartels that operate within its borders.  All these countries have experienced drop-offs in production, which pushes the price up.
---
All the while, the U.S. shale producers have emerged as a new type of ‘swing producer’. 
 
We have a comparatively stable society where the risk of armed conflict is low, and the chance to strike it rich with technological innovation is encouraged by the presence of intellectual property protection.  And now, not only do we have the opportunity to export that know-how, but for the first time in a couple generations we can export some of our resultant abundance to the rest of the world (not to mention possibly a little more security to our allies, subsequently fostering more peace). 
 
The lifting of the export ban enhanced efficiency by reintroducing the U.S. as a major international player, comprised itself of hundreds of autonomous participants.  It provoked what was, for all intents & purposes, a free market response from OPEC in the fight for market share. 
 
The evolving nature of our industry could actually serve to stabilize prices from here forward.  As the Wall Street Journal reported a month ago, a recent 4-month trading range of oil was the tightest such stretch in 14 years.
 
Moreover, our industry isn’t directly burdened with the responsibility of funding the state; it makes up only 5-10% of our diverse economy.  We have been able to produce more & more at less & less cost, while redeploying resources that got us here to the other 90+%.  OPEC countries et al can no longer afford the higher breakeven prices necessary to support their relatively more bloated bureaucracies. 
 
OPEC’s next official meeting is May 25th.  It’s looking to be somewhat anti-climactic however, given the signs they have been sending lately pointing to continuing the cuts instituted last November.  While we are certainly witnessing the end of the old OPEC, the organization itself probably isn’t going anywhere.  Given its recent outreach to Egypt & Turkmenistan, not to mention its closer cooperation with Russia, its ranks might actually swell a bit.
 
U.S. shale producers aren’t going anywhere either.  In fact, we’re likely going to keep on improving.  Just the other day, I toured a 2-year old rig that’s even more nimble than our 4- & 5-year old rigs.  Technology does not recede; it only advances.
 
In the past, some of the U.S.’ competitors blamed ‘the Great Satan’ for theirs & the world’s ills.  Ironically enough, they would be correct this time, but for all the right reasons.

“Aggrandize”
Years ago, I saw that word in a George Will column and was intrigued; “what does THAT mean??”  I found the answer using a fairly simple exercise; I consulted a dictionary: “to widen in scope, increase in size or intensity”.   These days, I have my Dictionary app handy whenever a word stumps me.  When that doesn’t work, I simply go to the website itself.
In a sign that our stagnating educational outcomes of recent decades might start at the top, those who shape & influence our public policy in government and the media seem too often to be grammatically-challenged.  In few places does this manifest itself more than in discussing & debating tax policy.
---
“The rich are now paying their fair share in taxes.”
“Across-the-board income tax cuts would benefit the wealthy disproportionately.”
The U.S. has a progressive income tax structure, with seven rates ranging from 10% to 39.6%; the more you earn in wages & salary, the greater the percentage you pay in taxes.  As a result, one-fifth of American households pay roughly two-thirds of federal income taxes.  We’re already in ‘disproportionate’ territory.  Logic dictates therefore, that those who pay more would experience a greater absolute ‘benefit’ from an ‘across-the-board’ cut in income taxes.  Although one might say that ‘benefitting’ from Uncle Sam taking less of our earnings is akin to ‘benefitting’ from him spying on us less.
Moreover, the concept of ‘across-the-board’ income tax cuts is itself erroneous when almost half of all Americans pay no net income tax (either they have no taxable income, or it’s cancelled out by all the deductions, exemptions, credits & other loopholes).  It’d be more accurate to say ‘halfway-across-the-board’, though that admittedly doesn’t roll off the tongue as smoothly.
---
“The border adjustment tax … is needed to help pay for a steep cut in corporate and income taxes.”
“… costs a great deal of revenue …”
“I just don’t see how we can afford these tax cuts.”
Taxpayers ‘can afford’ to fund the National Institute of Health’s study of tobacco use in Russia, the National Park Services research into how bugs respond to lights, and the National Science Foundation’s $1.6 million project programming robots to dress senior citizens and see how well it works in their dating life (all info courtesy of Oklahoma Senator James Lankford’s “Federal Fumbles” report) … but we have to find a way to ‘pay’ for the ‘revenue’ forgone when we forcibly extract (by threat of imprisonment) less from productive citizens?? 
The poor essentially subsidize the rich via the National Endowment Of The Arts, but it ‘costs’ Uncle Sam to withhold less from our paychecks?  In a world of seemingly infinite television channels, tax dollars support PBS, but we have to find a way to ‘pay’ to be taxed less?  The federal government spends $70 billion yearly on the department of education (constitutionally a state responsibility), but our elected representatives don’t think we ‘can afford’ to allow graduates to realize the full rewards of the skills/intellectual capital they gained??
---
“Tax cuts pay for themselves.”
Indulging the notion for argument’s sake, it’s hard to tell for sure whether or not tax cuts ‘pay for themselves’.  The Congressional Budget Office doesn’t even try, preferring the use of static scoring to predict the effects; a tax cut of $1 necessarily means a loss of revenue for Uncle Sam of $1. 
However, it’s probably safe to say that the vast majority of us do not take any increased disposable income and simply stuff it under the proverbial mattress.  And by virtue of that fact alone, it contributes to increased economic activity no matter what we do with it.  Many of us may go shopping (we are Americans after all; we buy so much ‘stuff’ we have to rent storage in which to put said ‘stuff’).  My uncle stuffed most all his lifetime raises into savings, which banks typically turn around & lend to those who have a more immediate use for it.  And then there are folks like a couple friends of mine.
In the last couple years, they have branched out, either expanding an existing business to another location, or opening another different business altogether.  That requires buying capital equipment, wiring a new building for electricity, water & the like, and hiring new staff.  That new staff will pay some income taxes (not to mention payroll & sales taxes).  If they left another job, it’s possible they were lured away by higher pay.  And the jobs they left vacant maybe had to be filled. 
It’s activities like those that have historically produced greater revenues in the wake of income tax cuts than the CBO originally predicted.
---
“Tax cuts cause deficits”
When a person’s income declines (as has happened to many in my industry in the last few years), his credit card balance doesn’t automatically increase as a result.  It increases only if he doesn’t reduce his level of credit expenditures. 
It’s spending that ‘causes deficits’; not lower tax rates.
---
“Tax cuts” vs. “tax reform”.
These are not the same thing.
The former now seems to require the use of budget reconciliation in the Senate to get around the sixty-votes necessary to invoke cloture (i.e. breaking a filibuster), and pass with a simple majority.  The problem is that the tax rates must revert to their former levels in ten years should deficits increase (see ‘tax cuts cause deficits’ above) over that time, thereby introducing impediments to peoples’ & entities’ long-term planning. 
The latter on the other hand, would require all sides to marshal up a filibuster-proof majority who could resist the urge of social engineering via the tax code and agree on one rate that would apply equally to all citizens (something that might even be a challenge in the House, where few hurdles to a majority vote exist). 
The former can be used to bestow favoritism on this demographic or that, while the latter takes political courage to eliminate such benefits that arguably shouldn’t have been conferred in the first place.
The former has therefore turned into political red-meat, something on which to campaign nearly every congressional cycle, while a comprehensive, ideal version of the latter would strip busy-bodies of something ‘to do’, allowing us to shift our collective attention to real issues.
On one side opposing true ‘tax reform’ you have folks like ‘conservative’ talk show host Hugh Hewitt, who recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Generations of Americans have relied on (mortgage interest, charitable contribution and state taxes) deductions in making enormously consequential decisions(.)”  In an unscientific poll of my friends, I found that little (though not totally zero) attention is paid to the charitable deduction in that vein.  Same goes for the mortgage deduction.  As my wife & I near closing on a house, that consideration never came up.
On another side of opposition you have the likes of former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who doesn’t think ‘the rich’ pay enough in taxes.  One of the first & most regular things I tell all my classes is to see things from the supply side.  ‘The rich’ that are invariably in these crosshairs aren’t always the mansion-dwelling, sports-car-driving, private-jet-owning people we see on T.V.  They are just as likely to be my students’ employers.  “We’re all demanders” I tell them; we already know how prices & incentives work on us.  For every extra dollar their managers have to pay in taxes or tax-preparation however, they’re that much closer to hiring one less employee.
---
“Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society.” 
This quote is attributed to an opinion rendered by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a 1927 court case about business insurance premiums in the Philippines, which was a U.S. territory at the time.  Before it was bandied about as a rationalization for the size of our government (by some who don’t even pay net income taxes; see above), ‘civilized society’ had a simpler meaning: to protect the private property that fosters widespread prosperity; to provide a police force & court system to take the place of duels in settling disputes; to carry out a democracy & setting up a government.
Is it really ‘civilized’ for someone to commandeer the earnings of her neighbor to pay for her pet project, when what the coerced is really paying for is her requisitioner’s haughtiness & lack of initiative?
---
Part of effective communication is ensuring the message gets across.  It’s a fine line between being understood, and using the most accurate, appropriate word possible.  I feel it’s my duty as an educator  to talk UP to people.  Even though our (elected) leaders are primarily an extension of us, they should rise above the heated fray & carry out the best, fairest public policy.  A good start in conveying what that might be is using accurate, objective terminology.
Last year one of my friends posted on Facebook “I fear there is too much eleutherophobia in our society today.”  When I looked up ‘eleutherophobia’, I discovered that it’s an ancient Greek term for a “fear of freedom”.  I countered with “you could add epistemophobia & hypengiaphobia to the mix.” 
Don’t know what those words mean??  Prove me wrong & look ‘em up.

​It’s a good time to be a fan of thrash metal!
 
Not since 1990 have so many thrash albums been released by the very same bands that were doing it when I was a kid.  It’s nothing short of thrilling, and kind of amazing in the music industry of today, that they’re finding the requisite receptiveness to keep recording new material.  For me, the ones that provide my earliest memories are Metallica, Slayer (my personal favorite) & Anthrax.
 
My first favorite band was Ratt.  Then a friend popped in something different.  I heard one acoustic guitar, then another, yet another, etc. until BOOM!  Metallica ripped into “Battery” and I was hooked.
 
On a trip back from a football game, our fullback let me listen to what he was playing.  The lyrics were aggressive & uncompromising.  The drums were crisp, the vocals as clear as they ever would be, and the guitar solos were just flying all over the place on Slayer’s 4th album “South Of Heaven” (SOH). 
 
One day I turned on MTV and saw 5 guys in jams shorts exuding a generally goofy vibe while playing “Indians”.  Anthrax made thrash seem kinda fun. 
 
It wouldn’t be long before I dove into Megadeth & Testament as well, and discovered the breathtaking speed of Sepultura (who was recently sandwiched between Testament & Prong at a show here in San Antonio). 
 
I’m sure I’m not the only one who had doubts as to whether or not these bands would be able to keep up such aggressive artistry so many decades later.  It hasn’t come without a cost though.  Both Slayer vocalist/bassist Tom Araya & Megadeth vocalist/guitarist Dave Mustaine have neck ailments from years of headbanging.  Araya’s late bandmate, guitarist  Jeff Hanneman, died of alcohol-related cirrhosis of the liver 2013.  Anthrax drummer Charlie Benante has struggled with carpal tunnel syndrome (he was not behind the kit when I saw them last October).  Overkill frontman Bobby “Blitz” Ellsworth survived cancer.  And that’s not to mention the predictable hearing loss that afflicts numerous thrashers.   
 
But here they are.  Led in by late 2015’s “Repentless” by Slayer, and bookended by Overkill’s “The Grinding Wheel” and Sepultura’s “Machine Messiah” released this year, six of these bands put out albums last year, capped off by Metallica’s “Hardwired … To Self-Destruct” (HTSD).
 
----
 
Slayer credits producer Rick Rubin with convincing them to junk the reverb when making their seminal masterpiece “Reign In Blood”.  That’s ironic, since HTSD sounds clearer with Greg Fidelman (Slipknot’s “.5: The Gray Chapter” & Adele’s “21”) producing than 2008’s “Death Magnetic” (DM) did with Rubin at the controls.  James Hetfield alluded to as much recently, saying “I wanted HTSD to be more palatable to the ear. I think DM is very, very powerful, and I love it, but it abuses the ear quite a bit.”
 
The album starts out with three songs as good as any starting trio on any of their records. 

Summoning the spirit of “Whiplash”, from their first album, “Kill ‘Em All” (KEA), the title track is as thrashy as any song released in recent years.  And it serves to plug them directly into the renaissance of the last decade or so.  “Atlas Rise!” brings “… And Justice For All” (AFJA) to mind regarding its complexity.  In addition to having some of James Hetfield’s best vocals, it’s one that brings to the fore how well they (primarily drummer Lars Ulrich) incorporate & arrange the multitude of riffs they come up with. 
 
And the third of that threesome, “Now That We’re Dead”, has earned one of the highest marks a song can in my household; “DaaaAAAD; how many times are you going to listen to that?!?”  The drumbeat is infectious enough to include in my regular routine (either behind the steering wheel OR my own kit).  When I first heard it, it felt feels like a quasi-companion piece to “Hell And Back” from the “Beyond Magnetic” EP of 2011.  In the ensuing months however, it has reminded me of the groovier rock songs found on the “Load” albums of the 1996 & 1997, but with a definite, metallic-sounding edge.
 
I found a lot of that on HTSD, a melding of different parts of their catalogue.  Ulrich’s drums on “Spit Out The Bone” are the energetically best I’ve heard since AJFA.  Kudos to them for including “Lords Of Summer” in the deluxe issue.  When I heard it a couple years ago, I imagined it as what an AJFA-crafted number would have sounded like if it had been included on (KEA). 
 
Many of the middle tracks are reminiscent of stuff they recorded in 1990s.  Say what you will about those “Load” records, but taken for what they were, there was much good stuff there. 
 
“Here Comes Revenge” hearkens back to “Thorn Within”, while “Halo On Fire” strikes me as a beefier “Until It Sleeps” initially, before lifting off & soaring in its latter half.  On the flipside, “Am I Savage” and “Dream No More” bring back to mind tunes I thought managed to forget, like “Poor Twisted Me” or “Ronnie”. 
 
As it is, HTSD represents further progression from 2003’s “St. Anger” (SA) & DM.  Releasing the blistering title track as a first single was a sure way to grab everyone’s attention.  One can’t help but wonder if not for a lost iPhone, riff contributions from lead guitarist Kirk Hammett might have made this album even better.  After all, “Enter: Sandman” was his creation, as was the crowd sing-along bridge to “Creeping Death”.
 
Consider it added motivation for the next record.
 
----
 
After Metallica & Slayer turbocharged the genre in 1986 with “Master Of Puppets” (MOP) and “Reign In Blood”, respectively, the floodgates opened with 25 releases from these bands between 1987-1990, and I lapped it up. 
 
The music appealed to me.  It felt like a release.  It was something aggressive that I could pump my fist & bang my head to.  It was something to provide me extra fuel at the gym, or on the track. 
 
And the lyrics fascinated me.  I was a good kid with a good upbringing.  I wasn’t particularly rebellious.  I didn’t dabble in devil worship.  I wasn’t cruel to animals.  But here came these pissed-off sounding words about issues that I was as yet unfamiliar.  Anthrax shining a light on homelessness in “Who Cares Wins” off 1988’s “State Of Euphoria” (SOE).  Flotsam & Jetsam raging against censorship in “Hard On You”, from their first effort without bassist Jason Newsted (who had jumped ship to fill Cliff Burton’s big shoes in Metallica), 1988’s “No Place For Disgrace”.  My mom even understood a paper I wrote in junior college about Slayer’s take on abortion, “Silent Scream”, from 1988’s SOH. 
 
Nowadays, metal is something more intense than my incredulousness regarding all the stupidity that surrounds us as adults.  It soothes me.  And the lyrics are still as pointed as ever, from Slayer’s anthemic “Take Control” from their most recent record, to Exodus’ echoing what many of us think in “Burn, Hollywood Burn” off 2010’s “Exhibit B: The Human Condition”, to Megadeth’s self-explanatory “United Abominations” from the 2007 album of the same name.
 
After that late ‘80s wave of albums though, the bottom fell out. 
 
Grunge took over the airwaves.  Some of these bands made good hard rock.  Some experimented further in other directions.  Nevertheless, most of it was decidedly less thrashy. 
 
Some dropped off the radar altogether.  Exodus & Death Angel suffered crippling record label friction, while both Death Angel & Testament saw key members sidelined for health reasons.  During this time, Slayer & Testament were the only ones in my catalogue that kept the pedal to the metal. 
 
Thrash seemed to go so far underground as to be buried, reaching a nadir or sorts in 2002, when nary a thrash band issued an album.  That was the only such year since the genre’s inception. 
 
Some of the seeds of its resurrection nonetheless, were planted the year before. 
 
----
 
‘Thrash Of The Titans’ was a concert organized in early 2001 to benefit Testament vocalist Chuck Billy and Death’s Chuck Schuldiner, both of whom were battling cancer.  Anthrax and Flotsam & Jetsam were there, and after more than a decade of being inactive, the event saw the reunions of both Exodus & Death Angel, each of which would release new albums a couple years later.
 
While Testament and Anthrax were hamstrung at the vocalist spot (2003’s “We’ve Come For You All” would be the last John Bush would record with the latter), Metallica dipped their toes in speed again on SA.  Exodus overcame a sudden change in vocalists and released crushing albums with Rob Dukes out front.  Slayer welcomed drummer Dave Lombardo back into the fold, culminating in 2009’s “World Painted Blood”, their best since 1994’s underrated “Divine Intervention”.  And just before bassist David Ellefson returned to the band he cofounded with Dave Mustaine, Megadeth recorded one of their best albums that year in the form of “Endgame”. 
 
Homages that had heretofore almost exclusively been in tribute to the big boys started to filter out to the rest of the players.  Alongside the likes of Pro-Pain’s take on Slayer’s “South Of Heaven” and Hatebreed shining a light on Metallica’s underexposed “Escape”, Arch Enemy covered Megadeth’s “Symphony Of  Destruction” while Ultimatum took on Overkill’s “Powersurge”.  As Fury turned the century with Testament’s “Dog Faced Gods”, Ignitor put their spin on Exodus’ “Lesson In Violence” just a few years ago.  Imitation is after all, the purest form of flattery.
 
The seeds of resurrection were emerging above the surface into a bloom of revival … and then the ‘Big 4’ got together.
 
----
 
With Metallica starting to round back into form with DM (and performing fewer & fewer songs from the previous 10-15 years), and Slayer & Megadeth having recently issued top-notch albums, December 2009 seemed like a primo time to announce that they would all join an Anthrax just reunited with singer Joey Belladonna to play a number of Sonisphere festivals in Europe the following summer.  The thrash universe subsequently soiled its collective breeches!  These four pioneers of the movement had never played the same stage before, much less toured together.  The closest thing that had ever happened was when Slayer, Megadeth & Anthrax toured as the “Clash Of The Titans” in 1990 & -91, and two decades later on the second leg of the American Carnage Tour.
 
The Bulgaria stop was simulcast in almost 1000 movie theaters worldwide, and was later released in a deluxe boxset with CDs & DVDs.  Included was a behind-the-scenes chronology of the day’s events, from the bands respective rides to the venue, to Ellefson playing tour guide of the grounds, to the bands’ mingling & prepping, to the group rehearsal of Diamondhead’s “Am I Evil”, which they would all play toward the end of Metallica’s set.  (Not included unfortunately, was an impromptu jam of AC/DC’s “Whole Lotta Rosie”, with Lombardo on drums, and Anthrax drummer Charlie Benante showing off the lead guitar chops heard on their best record with Bush, 1995’s “Stomp 442”.)
 
Since then, the bloom of revival has grown into a full-fledged tree of thrash metal.
 
Just two days before a ‘Big 4’ show hit their backyard in Yankee Stadium the following year, Anthrax released the well-received “Worship Music” (WM), their first with Belladonna since 1990’s “Persistence Of Time”.  In Belladonna they have what very few other metal bands have; a full-throated, yet smooth-sounding vocalist.  No one has pipes like him.  Bassist Frank Bello said recently, “(Joey’s) better now than he has ever been.  I stand on stage with him every night and the dude is just a phenomenon.  I'm a fan of his voice.  He has a gift from God, and it's a beautiful gift.  I'm thankful to be in a band with him.” 


WM was followed up last year with their best ever effort, and what could very well be the best album by a thrash band in decades, “For All Kings” (FAK).  Just as Metallica did with HTSD, FAK sounds like a reflection of multiple Anthrax records, concluding in the best thrashy tradition of late 1980s records … TIMES 3!  The record is nearly devoid of a weak spot.  The powerful vocals make the well-written music soar, and new lead guitarist Jon Donais’ solos fit in nearly perfectly.  FAK is in the same flawless league as MOP.  That’s no misprint. 


Perhaps no thrash band has improved as much however, as Death Angel. 
 
What Nick Menza did for Megadeth, when he joined before they recorded their thrash-terpiece “Rust In Piece” in 1990, is what Will Carroll has done for Death Angel; embody a drummer that simply blasts doors down.  Their last 3 albums have been awesome!    
 
Still, that’s secondary in their ascendancy to the beast that frontman Mark Osegueda has become.  He didn’t have the most metal of vocals when they were starting out.  They had some cool tunes on “Frolic Through The Park” and “Act III”, but he didn’t add to it.  Fast forward 20 years and no one belts it out like he does, on record OR in concert.  It’s as if someone removed the reins from his larynx & kicked him in the ass!  He’s right up there with Billy. 
 
But that’s not to say Testament hasn’t contributed to this resurgence.  Lead guitarist Alex Skolnick & bassist Greg Christian rejoined to record 2008’s “Formation Of Damnation” and 2012’s step-up “Dark Roots Of Earth” (DROE) (Christian has since left and been replaced by one-time bassist Steve DiGiorgio). 
 
Perhaps the most pleasant surprise for me has been Kirk Hammett’s first band Exodus.  Growing up in Victoria, TX (population 65K), the only exposure I had to them was the video for “Toxic Waltz”.  And if I’m being honest, I took a buying interest in them only after Gary Holt stepped in to fill the big void that Hanneman’s death left in Slayer (you can hear his leads on “Repentless”).  Holt has a chainsaw-sounding rhythm guitar to rival anyone, which might explain why Slayer guitarist Kerry King likens him to Glenn Tipton of Judas Priest.  Throw him & drumming machine Tom Hunting around Rob Dukes or (now) Steve “Zetro” Souza vocals and Exodus has sounded monstrous! 
 
It seems only fitting that 2016 was brought to a close by Metallica’s HWSD.  The speed & aggression therein makes undisputed their place at the top of what would be an awesome traveling thrash festival.
 
----
 
I don’t know what the future holds for thrash, at least beyond my years.  Just like anything, music evolves over time.  New subgenres are created, and those are influenced by the evolution of non-metal music.  These things can’t be predicted.   
 
But at least with these guys continuing to chug along in the ‘rock-til-you-drop’ spirit of the late Lemmy Kilmister, thrash metal like the kind that I grew up with has a chance to make a longer-lasting impression than merely the hearing & neck flexibility that’s been lost along the way.

Imagine a day when Uncle Sam does not tax your income, and takes nothing from your paycheck: no withholding for income taxes, none for social security taxes, none for medicare taxes …. NOTHING!   April 15th would be just another day on the calendar.  That could happen if Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson & almost a hundred congressional co-sponsors have their way and enact a national consumption/sales tax.

The so-called Fair Tax has bounced around congress for almost 20 years, gathering presidential-level support when Mike Huckabee ran on it in the 2008 campaign.  Then, as now, it suffers from a couple misconceptions. 

The first is that consumer prices would rise by the amount of the tax.  On the contrary, a $100 pair of shoes becoming a $128 pair of shoes (after the application of the 28% rate proposed by Governor Johnson) is NOT how it would work.  In fact, after a period of adjustment, prices on average wouldn’t rise at all.  That $100 pair of shoes would still cost you $100.  Of all the costs the average company incurs to produce a final good, 28% is estimated to be the cost of paying taxes.  That gets passed along to us, the consumer.  It’s embedded in that $100 price tag.  With the Fair Tax, all other taxes would be gone, replaced by one simple 28% rate paid at the register. 

The second knock is that it’s regressive.  Our current income tax code is progressive; the more you make, the higher marginal rate you pay.  A sales tax applies to a product no matter who buys it.  If Mary, who makes $10,000/year, pays the same $100 for a T.V. as Jane, who makes $100,000/year, the tax Mary pays would be higher proportional to her income.  The mitigating factor however, is that it’s a voluntary tax; you don’t buy anything, you don’t pay taxes.

Another qualifying feature is a prebate.  This would be a disbursement by the Social Security Administration to “lawful U.S. residents … based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines”; almost $12,000/year for adults & $4,000 for children.  This is similar to another idea making the rounds lately; a universal basic income.  Expenditures for either would be in the trillions of dollars.

Would such prebates even be necessary?

For one, most Americans subject to state and/or local sales tax don’t pay it on the food they buy to eat at home.  Why not make single-ingredient, non-processed food exempt from a national sales tax?  How about having a national sales-tax-holiday every year for clothes, or maybe two to accommodate shopping for seasonal wardrobes?  That’s something I imagine I would have taken advantage of when I was in college, living solely on less than $1000/month from two jobs. 

Furthermore, some prices would likely settle lower than they were before, like the food & clothes where neither producer NOR buyer would now face taxes.   Plus, the rate Governor Johnson is proposing is arguably too high.  The same might even be said of the 23% rate in the congressional bill.

He claims it would be “revenue-neutral”.  When you factor in the portion of our $18T GDP that is consumer expenditures (~68%, ~93% of which is non-food), plus that he says his first budget will be 20% smaller than the previous budget ($3.8T in 2015), in a static sense he’s probably in the ballpark.  However, when you consider all that now will NOT be taxed, and the fact that we live in a dynamic society/economy, it’s hard to see how the economy doesn’t surge, increasing potential GDP.  No more taxes on income.  No more payroll taxes.  No more taxes on investments.  No more taxes at death.   Billions of hours & dollars saved that would otherwise have gone to filing taxes.  All that money will not merely be stuffed under the proverbial mattress.  It will be spent.  It will be invested.  It will be converted from a deadweight loss to productive endeavors. 

The only real obstacles would be rent seekers and the constitution.

A ‘rent seeker’ is roughly the technical, economic term for lobbyist.  It’s someone who seeks to convert what is referred to as consumer surplus into their own economic profit (the aforementioned resources expended to do & pay taxes).  Any sector that benefits from this feature or that in our current tax code is a rent seeker.  These industries are populated by decent people.  The tax professionals I know all realize that tax simplification could very well put them “out of a job”.  But most of them also know the pros far outweigh the cons of doing so.  One of them was quick to mention that he’d just redirect his attention to state & local tax issues.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle is the need for constitutional action.  Unless we want both our purchases AND income taxed, the 16th amendment would have to be repealed.  After previous efforts to tax income were rejected by the Supreme Court, a sufficient majority in congress and of state legislatures enshrined the ability in the constitution in 1913.  This is probably one reason we hear more politicians propose a one-rate, no-deductions flat tax on income when talking of reform.  That, and the fact that it’s more consistent with Adam Smith’s recommendation that citizens “ought to contribute … in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”
​
Either route of simplification would be far superior to the system we have today.  Regardless, it’s imperative that all options are seen clearly, without the fog of misinformation, demagoguery or envy.  Most people understand the need for some level of taxation.  After all, who’ll build the roads??

​“You know your candidate has no chance to win, right?”
“You’re just taking a vote away from (preferred candidate) and helping to elect (undesirable candidate).”
“You’re wasting your vote if you vote for him.”
 
If you’ve ever voted 3rd party in America, you’ve probably heard one or more of these bromides.  I’ve been hearing them, from people I like & respect, ever since I cast my first vote for president for H. Ross Perot in 1992.  One former coworker told me that I “basically helped to elect (Bill) Clinton.”  Why do some folks say such things? 
 
Any implication that Mr. Perot had ‘no chance to win’ was mathematically untrue since he was on the ballot in all 50 states.  Regardless, when did voting for president become akin to going to the racetrack to pick a winner??  Your vote is an expression of your beliefs.  The collective will of all who vote for the same person could influence public policy.  Look at the effect socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had on the democratic platform.  The only wasted vote is for someone not seeking the office.
 
My friend likely knew about Perot’s ballot presence.  I believe he was coming from the ‘herding the sheep’ point-of-view.  When I started paying more attention to politics years later, the caricature of a politician started becoming clearer to me: kissing babies, photo-ops of feeding the homeless, speaking from an aircraft carrier, etc.  These are public relations efforts to present themselves in the best possible light to voters who pay the least possible attention to politics.  Sheep.   
 
Some sheep feed you the ‘wasted vote’ drivel themselves.  That could emanate from their insecurity, since you’ve likely given it comparatively more thought, and your principles are probably more firm.  You know what republicans & democrats working to “get things done” means; $19,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, 10s of 1000s of pages of onerous regulations, compromised freedoms, excessive foreign intervention, etc.  A sense of inadequacy overcomes them and they get defensive.    
 
The ultimate peddlers of the ‘wasted vote’ silliness are those who derive their power from the status quo.  It’s the politicians, like Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who recently bent reality when he said “you don’t get a third option.”  It’s the ‘party strategists’ who flow seamlessly from campaigns to cable news.  It’s the favor-seeking lobbyists, “80% of whom would get pink slips” if former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson could “wave a magic wand” and institute the Fair Tax.
 
My friend is a party guy, once a delegate to a national GOP convention.  He’s currently a local elected official here in Texas.  In recent years however, he’s credited me for his move in a more libertarian direction, going so far as to possibly voting for that party’s nominee this year, Governor Johnson.
 
When you stick to your guns, and can civilly back up your position with more than mere talking points, you’ll get people’s attention.  I’m not even 100% comfortable with the label ‘libertarian’.  All I’m doing is voting based on the principles of our founding, as I understand them: freedom, liberty & the constitution.  Those values are simple to understand & maintain.  The constitution itself is only 21 pages long.  Add a little humility regarding issues you know less about and reasonable people will listen.
 
If you encounter such an opportunity, here are a few questions to put to them:
 
Why do some on the left think I should be forced to serve someone?  According to the 1st amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.  If I refused service to someone based on her ethnicity or sexual orientation, how long would it take to be publicized?  Only as long as it takes to post on social media.  There is no better way to succeed in a free society than to treat others fairly.  Why do we need Big Brother to enforce that upon us??
 
Why do some on the left think the government knows best how to allocate charitable giving?  According to one of their ads I saw recently, HEB grocery donated enough food in 2015 to feed 21,000 people three squares a day.  If the 16 bigger, Texas-based public companies made commensurate charitable donations, 1.2 million more Texans would be equally fed.  If all the time & monetary donations of every company & household in Texas is taken into account, is it much of a stretch to think that all those who truly need help could get it??
 
Recently, a young, homeless black man was found by police under a tent he pitched in the bushes of the college in Georgia where he was waiting for his dorm to open.  Instead of arresting him, they put him up in a hotel for two nights.  The rest community paid to keep him there until the dorm opened, also donating tens of $1000s to help him out.  And, a local pizzeria gave him a job.  He knew none of them had to help him, and that they were taking some measure of risk in doing so.  Isn’t that the kind of thing tightly-woven communities are made out of, rather than a faceless government bureaucracy?
 
Why do some on the right feel the need to regulate what goes on in my house if no one gets hurt?  If a man & woman want to marry, one stay at home with their kids, eschew every drug right down to caffeine, great!  Not everyone chooses the same path, though.  Some may choose a partner of the same sex.  Some may choose daycare.  Some may not want kids.  Some may choose to drink coffee, or ingest other drugs.  Some may divorce.  If the kids are well-cared for, going to school, and not running afoul of the law, why is THEIR business any of YOUR business, or that of your neighbor, or someone 5 states away?? 
 
Why do some on the left feel a higher rate of taxation is in order the more I earn?  When Adam Smith said we should “contribute towards the support of the government … in proportion to … the revenue which (we) respectively enjoy under the protection of the state”, he didn’t mean increasing proportion. 
Only ignorance or envy could explain that.  At first glance, it’s understandably counterintuitive that tax revenues rise when taxes are cut or streamlined.  Yet that has always been the result.  We don’t live in a static society.  Private funds freed up for productive endeavors create more taxable activities.  Once that’s learned, we’re left with envy.  How else to explain the forfeiture of adequate tax revenues to fund the social programs the left so cherishes? 
 
I was fortunate to grow up with people who make productive contributions to society.  They help people rehabilitate their bodies.  They ship goods across the country.  They keep us up to speed technologically.  They make our downtowns sparkle.  They keep our neighborhoods aesthetically pleasing.  They’ve defended our country.  They promote healthy & sustainable living.  They give to charity.  They adopt orphans.  Must have been something in the water down in Victoria, Texas …
 
They shouldn’t have to hassle with regulation borne of laziness, willful ignorance & bruised feelings.  They shouldn’t have to spend countless hours & resources to learn how much they have to fork over to Uncle Sam.  Insult, meet injury.  In economics, we call this deadweight loss.  Moreover, we have whole industries, run by good & decent people, built to help companies deal with such hindrances.  Tax preparers/departments, expanded audit outfits, compliance professionals/lawyers, etc.  They’re like barnacles attached to the freighters of commerce. 
 
Why do some on the right feel the government should be run by God’s will?  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”  Yet some folks vote republican because it’s the “party of god”, or protector of religious liberty.  The latter has some relevance since the left seems uptight about religious public displays, or prayer in public school, etc.  I’m no expert on first amendment court cases, but the text is pretty clear.  We neither need the government to promote God, nor to protect our delicate sensibilities.
 
Why do some on the right feel they need to control the art I enjoy?  Fortunately, my parents never came down too hard on me as my musical tastes progressed from Hall & Oates to Slayer.  I check out the music my girls want to buy.  That’s my job as their parent.  What’s troublesome are the groups of moralists like those in the Kevin Bacon movie “Footloose”.  Gene Simmons of KISS once hit the nail on the head when he said “If you don’t like what you’re hearing, change the channel.”    
 
Why does the left fail to comprehend the logic of human nature? 

• Low skilled workers earn low wages.  If wages are artificially propped up by government, such folks are less likely to find jobs;
• If someone wanting to do harm knows a place is ‘weapon-free’, she knows she’ll face little-to-no resistance.  If private citizens can carry a concealed weapon, such an attack is less likely;
• If a person can pull more from unemployment, ‘disability’ or some other form of public assistance than he would earn from a job, he’s less likely to take a job.

Do they want to prevent young & low-skilled people from self-improvement?  Do they want people to be couch potatoes dependent on the state?  I shudder to venture a guess on gun control, nevermind the whole “right of the people to keep & bear arms” bit.
 
Why do some on the right feel the need to meddle in the affairs of other countries?  Since World War II, we’ve established hundreds of military bases around the world in an effort to contain the Soviet Union and secure a reliable supply of oil.  Today, the U.S.S.R. is gone, and American ingenuity has produced so much oil that the world price recently cratered by 3/4!  So why can’t the defense budget be trimmed?  Is there some unwritten rule that we have to spend more than other countries, while they maintain their social welfare states (nevermind that ours is on track to cripple us)?  Why do we need to maintain such a permanent global footprint?  Moreover, why do we remain so involved in a region so steeped in internal strife, switching sides depending on the decade?  Why, when many of them have values so different than ours? 
 
I count as friends almost a dozen former military folks, as well as an active-duty colonel.  A majority of them are supporting Governor Johnson for president, while a couple more say they might, too.  One of them tells me that “a majority” of the soldiers with whom his daughter serves are also pro-Johnson.  This is borne out in a recent poll of active duty military that finds Governor Johnson leading businessman Donald Trump & former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 39 to 31 & 14, respectively.  Maybe a more authentic way of ‘supporting the troops’ is giving some respect to these figures, rather than reflexively supporting more funding for military operations about which their preferred candidate is skeptical.
 
I was a sheep when I voted for Perot back in 1992.  When I asked that future colonel who he was voting for, he replied “I dunno, probably that billionaire.”  Based on some polling, young voters today indicate they’ll vote for Governor Johnson over Mr.  Trump.  And that figure will probably grow now that the support they gave to Senator Sanders is unlikely to shift en masse to Mrs. Clinton. 
 
We do a disservice to those younger folks if we allow ourselves to become so jaded that we vocally ‘choose between the lesser of two evils’.  I wonder how many of those folks tell pollsters that America is on the “wrong track”, or that they expect future generations to be worse off.  How hypocritical to then so disparagingly dismiss a more reputable 3rd option. 
 
What’s more ‘evil’ than such prophetically self-fulfilling behavior?

So here's the final tally on publications:
https://fee.org/articles/taking-the-low-road-on-free-trade/
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/2016/06/24/candidates_take_the_low_road_on_free_trade_180450.html
https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2016/jun/27/taking-low-road-on-free-trade/
https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2016/jul/04/properly-understanding-the-trade-deficit/
​http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/Taking-the-low-road-on-free-trade-8347965.php

​During the holidays, I took my daughters to my aunt & uncle’s house in Rogers, TX.  Over the last few years, when not working their day-jobs at Scott & White hospital in Temple, they have grown a large garden of marketable produce, devoting more than 4 acres to the operation.  I sent some photos to a friend of mine who has his own backyard garden.  His enthusiasm was palpable.  This is a guy who once told me “everyone should have a garden.”
 
Fast forward to this spring.  I finally got around to buying a bookshelf.  As I set about putting it together, I started thinking “I could put together a nicer, sturdier one than this.  All I’d need is some wood, sandpaper, stain/paint, braces … nevermind.  This one will do for now.” 


I don’t have all the tools at my disposal to carry out that sort of a project, any more than I do for gardening.  My interests lie elsewhere.  In a free society like ours, each person is allowed to pursue their own preferred interests.  Eventually, however, we do require other goods for sustenance, and leisure, so we trade with each other. 
 
Since I can’t exactly barter my accounting & teaching skills on the open market, I provide them to my respective employers in exchange for monetary compensation.   Otherwise, I’d have to figure out how many hours of my labor to trade for such goods.  Money is the instrument that greases the skids of all levels of commerce.
 
In what has been the most unpredictable & surprising election season of my lifetime, one issue that has come under unusually widespread attack is free trade. 
 
Resistance to free trade (agreements) has typically been found in the Democratic Party.  Its union supporters fret about their jobs being “shipped overseas”, and environmentalists express concerns about trading with countries that lack “adequate” protections thereof.  A few decades ago, that bloc was countered by the more market-friendly Democratic Leadership Council, whose influence peaked with the election of Bill Clinton as president.  He signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, and a bill granting ‘permanent normal trade relations’ to China in 2000. 
 
Remaining democratic opposition was joined by a couple of protesters from the center-right, H. Ross Perot & Patrick Buchanan.  Mr. Perot famously claimed during a 1992 presidential debate that we would hear “a giant sucking sound” of manufacturing going south to Mexico as a result of NAFTA.  Four years later, while seeking the republican party nomination for president, Mr. Buchanan campaigned on a fear of losing nationality as goods & labor move more seamlessly across borders. 
 
Nowadays, the DLC is defunct (2011) while the spirit of Messers Perot & Buchanan has morphed into this election seasons wild card, Donald Trump.  The similarities amongst the three are many: businessmen (Perot & Trump), populist streaks, insurgent outsiders, meticulously crafted coifs, etc.  They also share a skepticism of free trade. 
 
A few Trump talking points have jumped out at me: “we don’t make things anymore”, we’re in “imbalance (deficit) with” other countries & threatening a 45% tariff on Chinese goods.
 
Trade protectionism has been around for ages.  Our Founding Fathers supported tariffs, which used to be a prominent source of government revenue.  Alexander Hamilton even coined the “infant industry” argument, whereby the government shields from international competition new & developing industries deemed important to self-sufficiency & independence. 

In trade debates of modern times, republicans have typically argued for “free” trade, whereas “fair trade” was sought by democrats.  Mr. Trump has picked up the mantle of the latter, saying the 45% tariff is merely a threat to achieve such fairness. 
 
I’m reminded of the interrogation scene in “Starsky & Hutch” where Ben Stiller tries to coerce some information out of a suspect … by pointing the gun at his own head.  Why threaten the American consumer with price hikes?  Why not, for example, allow domestic steel-input consumers to benefit from rock-bottom prices that result from Chinese overproduction?  How does it make sense to protect the American steel industry with a tariff of more than 500% if employment in, and value produced by, those input consumers is greater?? 
 
The answer also happens to explain why we’re lagging behind the rest of the world in the sugar trade: concentrated benefits (domestic industry) vs. dispersed costs (artificially inflated prices for consumers).  Such beneficiaries typically have more clout with policymakers than consumers do.  It’s this kind of rent-seeking that prevents us from being able to take advantage of the shortcomings of a centrally-planned (though certainly less so than a couple generations ago) economy like China’s, or the fact that some countries just flat out produce something more efficiently than we do.
 
Ironically enough, if Mr. Trump is so concerned with illegal immigration from our south, perhaps he should first take a look at the agricultural & dairy subsidies Uncle Sam doles out that put Mexican farmers out of business & drive them north to get a piece of our artificially inflated industry.
 
Moreover, when he asks “(w)ho the hell cares if there’s a trade war?", someone should remind him of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930.  In an effort to protect domestic agricultural & industrial interests, President Herbert Hoover signed it into law over a petition signed by a thousand economists.  Other nations retaliated & the world headed toward depression.  And that was when trade was a smaller part of the global economy.
 
Lesson learned, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations shortly after WWII ended, with the goal of lowering trade barriers.  A hundred nations were added by 1994 as it evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO).  In that time, our real exports of goods & services rose steadily, accelerating in the mid-1980s, belying the claim that “we don’t make” stuff.  Furthermore, since NAFTA was enacted, the proportional makeup of our exports (food, industrial supplies, physical capital, autos & consumer goods) hasn’t changed more than 3% one way or the other for any category.

​As Harvard professor & former Chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers Greg Mankiw recently pointed out in The New York Times, manufacturing is currently at an all-time high.  The problem, as it were, is that we’re doing it with less manpower.
 
That very transformation is currently underway in the energy industry.  Even after the price of oil started tanking, and rigs were idled, and jobs were being eliminated, production still increased.  We became more efficient.  It won’t take the same quantity of capital & labor to respond to $50 oil the next time it rises to that level.  The displaced resources can be redeployed to other areas of the economy. 
 
There are undoubtedly industry shakeups in freer markets.  Labor, capital & entrepreneurs are reshuffled.  But our society encourages innovation by safeguarding intellectual & property rights.  That allows us to find new & better ways of doing things.
 
This is just the latest example of our capacity to achieve the self-sufficiency that was the goal of our first treasury secretary (Mr. Hamilton) when he submitted to the second congress suggestions of “encouragement” and “protection of government” in his “Reports on Manufactures”.  All the “protection” we need for the aforementioned “encouragement” is between our ears.  The human capital that we’ve built up over the years doesn’t go away, but rather accumulates. 
 
Without free trade, there might be an erosion of two of its most important exports: peace & freedom.  The world has to cooperate & get-along if we all want to prosper.  And the freer the people, the likelihood of greater prosperity.  Besides, should that peace unfortunately break down again someday, the 2nd amendment & our bread basket give us time to dust off & tap that know-how to rev up the necessary industries.
 
Nevertheless, more trade liberalization is afoot.  My industry has a new market: the rest of the world, thanks to the repeal of the oil export ban last December.  That’ll surely alleviate something else nearly all our leaders are prone to complain about; our trade deficit.

​It’s a curious thing that you rarely hear that it’s actually only half of an equation, but it is.
 
The balance of payments (BoP) is basically an accounting of our international transactions.  The current account (trade) is the one we always hear about when it’s in deficit.   Interestingly enough, it tends to trend back toward breakeven only when we’re heading toward recession.  It makes sense that imports rise in good times.  “We’re Americans,” I tell my students, “we like to buy stuff.  We like to buy stuff so much, we rent storage facilities in which to put all our extra stuff!”  Regardless, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a trade deficit.
 
The counterbalance is the capital account.  We have a big example of that in our backyard; the Toyota plant in south San Antonio.  This is foreign direct investment.  That plant is in the heart of truck country.  It gives Toyota direct access to that market here.  And, they employ highly-skilled Texans.  That seems like a win-win, a sign of strength perhaps, when a foreign company wants to locate operations here.

​YOU actually contribute to the capital account when you crack open a Bud Light after feeding Purina to Scooby, who was hungry because you forgot to feed him while you were eating a Smithfield ham steak (that had been stored in a GE freezer) for dinner before going to see “X-Men: Apocalypse” at the AMC Rivercenter 11.  All those companies are foreign-owned.  The profit portion of the prices paid for those goods is exported to another country.  Foreign entities saw value in the brand recognition of items Americans know & love.  And they were able to buy those companies in part because they do more of something that we don’t; save. 
 
When the consumer expenditure portion of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP] started climbing in the 1980s from 60% to almost 70% today, it was arguably fueled by the concurrent proliferation of the all-purpose credit card.  Perhaps it goes without saying, but when you’re spending, you’re not saving.  And when you’re borrowing, you are dissaving.  Much of the consumer savings derived from more efficient global production of goods could go to more savings.  Instead, it seems to go toward buying more stuff.

​When you think about it though, our incentive to save has slid right alongside available interest rates.

​A couple years after they were pushed way up to break the inflation of the 1970s, interest rates have been on a steady march downward~ 7-8% in 1980s, ~ 5% in the 1990s, half that in the 2000s, and now near 0%.  Monetary policy that could be enticing us to invest in learning new skills, opening a new business, guarding against unforeseen events, etc. instead has nudged us toward $1,000,000,000,000 in both credit card AND automobile debt this year.  What was the current trade deficit again??
If bringing down the trade deficit is the goal, increasing domestic savings & investment is preferable to erecting trade barriers.  And if curbing interest-bearing consumer indebtedness happens as well, all the better. 
 
While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems like little more than a 21st century version of the pandering, “meaningless platitude-spouting” Kevin Fogerty from a classic episode of “Cheers”, Senator Bernie Sanders & Mr. Trump have been more consistent in their views toward free trade.  But the aggressive tone they sometimes take toward it and our trading partners reminds me of when my four daughters (average age, 9) bicker with one another.  Only it’s more understandable that my girls have to be taught to take the high road.
 
As for me, one of these days I could take up woodworking, or gardening, or some other hobby/trade that produces tangible output.  Right now though, my spare time is best served educating.  It’s what I like to do.  It’s where I feel most productive.  And given this season’s crop of presidential aspirants, there seems to be a need for it. 

If your concern is voter disenfranchisement, democrats are not the answer, and here’s why, IMO.

Voter disenfranchisement needs to be snuffed out, just the same as voter fraud.  That should be the goal, knowing, as in any other aspect of life, we’ll never do so 100% (it’s a challenge to impart such advice on my daughters).  Getting an ID card isn’t a tall order in my book.  If you can get a ride to vote, you can get a ride to DMV for an ID.
As I’ve said before, I think it’s too sweeping a generalization to tag the GOP in its entirety of supporting voter suppression, including the south.  If it was so widespread, how would the likes of Artur Davis, Angela McGlowan & Tim Scott rise to prominence (not to mention Nikki Haley)??  The media can blow up whichever stories they want, whatever suits the purposes of whomever wants to make a point.  We, along with the aforementioned folks, can exert pressure to squeeze out such nefarious behavior, just like we can on the folks who choose not to bake cakes for this demographic or that (the only real thing that bothered me about Gary Johnson in the debate last Friday).  The 1st amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech & to “peaceably assemble” empowers US to affect such change toward a more desirable society.
​
Once they get into office, the majority of democrats’ policies are destructive to everyone.  And what Bernie wants to do is that on steroids!  Those policies tend to foster dependence & entrench in power the already-strong/wealthy.  I usually tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, so I don’t subscribe to the notion that they do it on purpose … but maybe they do.  If that’s a rap on the GOP, democrats, being human, can’t be immune to the possibility.  Perhaps they are driven solely by the power derived from handing out freebies to those in lower income quintiles with one hand, while simultaneously handing out favors with the other hand to those at the other end of the income spectrum, to help them maintain their status. 
 
Kinda abbreviated, but there it is.