How to do a Tariff

 There are two ways to do tariffs.

First, the classic way. Gather a group of "experts". These are academics, economists etc. Then gather tons of data. Do a detailed analysis. Gather a group of better "experts" to review the options. Select a small number. Get the final decision makers together to determine the "best" That takes years.

Second, is to tariff everything at a massive number in a short period, say week. See who screams the most. Then tariff those left shouting the least That takes about a week or two.

Guess what just happened?

And we did not need a single "expert". It also was cheap.

An example is the atomic bomb project. Yes there was a bit of study but the explosion was necessary.

Words Mean Something

 The argument of English being the official language is floating about the NY Times. The most recent one bemoans the fact that someone from Peru had to learn English and they note:

It was a preview of what the next five decades would bring, as the two languages jostled for primacy in my mind. Our moves back and forth between the United States and Peru during my childhood compelled me to latch on to whichever language I needed most at different times, even while striving to retain the other. Sometimes my English was stronger, sometimes my Spanish. No one had to tell me which language mattered when, or whether one or the other was “official.” Wherever I was, I knew. In his March 1 executive order designating English as the official language of the United States, President Trump asserts that a single shared language is “at the core of a unified, cohesive society,” that it serves to “streamline communication,” promote efficiency and “empower new citizens to achieve the American Dream.” On these points, I have little disagreement. Just about every immigrant I’ve ever known in the United States — starting with my father — has sought to learn English for just those reasons. It was relatively easy for my sisters and me to pick it up as kids, and my mother had learned it well from the beloved American nuns who taught her in Peru. But my dad, coming to it later in life, always had to work at it.

 The author misses the point. When the scholars wrote the Pentateuch they took a collection of languages of the Old Testament and organized it, one may wonder how many changes as languages changed over time as well as over geography.

 We know well the battle over the Council of Nicaea using Greek and Latin. One can see English Law change over a millennium,  Words mean something. The Supreme Court issues opinions in English, often parsing English words to render their opinions.

Now if we  say that any language can be used we will admit that words can mean whatever we want them to. We align with the folks in Alice in Wonderland! The argument of no official language admits to open chaos. 

What Language?

 The NY Times has a piece bemoaning the issuance of a dicta that English is the language of the United States. They note:

President Trump’s executive order making English the official language of the United States reached into history to argue its case, noting that the country’s founding documents were written in English. But it turns out, not only in English. After the Constitution was drafted in 1787, supporters of ratification printed translations for Dutch speakers in New York and German speakers in Pennsylvania, so they could understand the arguments for a “vollkommenere Vereinigung” — a more perfect union.

Now I speak somewhat reasonable French, if and only if I am NOT in Paris. Paris you see speaks "perfect" French and they can tell how far away you come from. At a bar once on Rue de l'Opera is was told I was from Mauritania, that was how bad my French was! After 9/11 I spent 10 days in Normandy, no problem at all. By the time I returned via De Gaulle via Montreal my French was acceptable as a non-Parisian.

I also tried to write a contract once in French. What a mistake that was. My choice of French words for English equivalents made no sense!

I often think of early Christianity where the Eastern Christians used Greek the western used Latin. Massive battles occur over translations. Greek does not easily go to Latin nor Latin to Greek! The whole religion was collapsing on a poorly constructed dictionary!

Thus having one language as the standard is essential. Look at the mess in Canada. In Quebec one uses the French version and in Ontario the English. Subtle but material differences. 

Literal translations always have problems. Thus having a standard single language is essential. Even then things get misunderstood. See Supreme Court cases. Many cases are arguments over a word or two.

Thus anyone who has tried to work in two languages knows very well that culture, language, and meaning do not convey!

Why Does Someone Publicly Blow Up a Negotiation?

 I have negotiated hundreds of negotiations over the years. I learned a great deal in the 70s with various negotiations where I was a mere observer. By the 80s I was now negotiating, at Warner and then when I started to do investments with "turn arounds". I always wanted something as did the other side. By the early 2000s I became a "dream merchant" in that I saw what the other side wanted and managed to align my needs with theirs. Always give and take and always non-confrontational.

In the late 90s when dealing with my Eastern European partners I learned to sense their un-sensed concerns. Russian a different negotiators. I had a Ukrainian General, interesting but not as strong as Russians. 

I was at times exposed to the Press and once made a comment that got to my European investors in less than 12 hours, and I was pummeled by saying something that was not well received. Simply I compared Silicon Valley VCs with Zurich banks. It was true but I learned that Zurich banks do not like ever being mentioned, especially in public. I learned, I recovered, and the lesson is never ever speak of your potential partners even making what one thinks of as a truism. 

Now this gets to Zelensky. One wonders why he did what he did. Some thoughts:

1. He is just a bumbling idiot. Possible, but unlikely.

2. He was told that this was the way to deal with the President?  Very possible. He may have been "advised" that to get what he wanted he should have the Press intervene.

3. He did not expect anything from the President but wanted to raise support from Europeans who saw him standing up to the President. Likely, but the idea most likely came from elsewhere. The problem is that the only strong player in Europe is Poland, the rest have old decaying military and crumbling economies. Just look at the UK, France, Germany. 

4. He feared a peace settlement wherein he lost territory and just wants the war to continue with him as head. Possible, but the war is unwinnable. 

We can continue but we should return to the question; why did Putin start this whole thing in the first place? Did Putin want to take over Ukraine, did he have bad intelligence, was there an assumption that the Ukrainian President would fold, that the US would not respond and so forth. Did the CIA have a clue? If so what did the White House do?

 In a sense this seems to have been a combined Intel failure and Executive failure. But what was it really? Still an open question.

Russia, Ukraine, the US

 

I started to learn Russian in the Summer of 1961 when I was a Lifeguard in NYC Beaches. My helper was a Ukrainian immigrant Lifeguard who would help me in pronunciation. Little did I know but my pronunciation and even words would later betray me as Ukrainian taught. But that is a tale for later. In 1961 Russia was our biggest enemy. It would take another year to get to the Cuban Missile Crisis but clearly 1961 was a nuclear threat environment.

 In the late 60s at MIT I took Russian in my foreign language requirement, by then you had a dictionary and all you needed to do was translate a technical paper abstract. I got through.

 In the early 70s I got involved in some [politics in what was then the Coalition for a Democratic Majority, a right wing Democrat organization which later became the Neo Cons. In the process I had the opportunity to work with Professor Richar Pipes, and got educated on Russia, its history, and the current Russian threats.

 By the late 70s I was seconded to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, ACDA, negotiating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, with the Soviets. I had several meetings with the Russians and even attended receptions in the Soviet Embassy.

 In the early 1990s I went to St Petersburg, just as it was opening up. The old Soviet styles still lingered. We stayed in an Intourist (KGB) hotel and since I had a modest facility in Russian managed to see the city that most westerners missed. I saw ballets for $0.50 whereas the other westerners paid $50.00! My Russia was workable and my attire was not classic western.

 By the mid-1990s I started my international company with a Polish partner and an émigré Russia associate. Off to Moscow. Not as some American executive, but again as a bit of a man in the shadows. No ego, not American attitude. Luckily my wife was a Russophile, Czarist era, and when my Russian partners (most former KGB) took her on a tour of the Kremlin, she could explain all the paintings and history. For a moment people though her as a tour guide and praised her for her English! My Russian partners were impressed.

 Thus for almost ten years I worked with them, 1996 to 2005. We parted friends and I still get annual birthday greetings from Moscow!

 As for Ukraine, I had dealt with many Ukrainians and even went to Lvov to examine the Soviet satellite earth station.

 The current state of Russian and American relations are in my opinion and my experience a result of American overstepping. It started with the American academics telling the Russian how to do business. They did so with no understanding of Russia and its culture. The result was a disaster. Then they expanded NATO, while Russia was just trying to develop a stable economy. The Russian dreadfully fear threats on their borders. Thus as NATO expanded so did the internal fears of Russia. However if one looks at the Baltic States and especially Poland one sees reasonable concerns, thus NATO could be justified but was seen as a threat to Russia. From these two issues; the economy and the border security, came Putin.

 Putin is clearly former KGB. I had run across an East German STASI operative who was his counterpart. She made Putin understandable. Also it was clear that he harbored a dread of the West and a bubbling anger over the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus the short steel eyed Slav evolved into what we see today.

 Now as to Ukraine. It always had some separate stance especially the Western part. The Ukrainian in the west is akin to Polish whereas in the East is Russian. Just thinks of “thank you”. Thus borders were always somewhat flexible.

 Now come to the current fiasco in the White House. First think of Churchill and Roosevelt. Think Lend Lease. Churchill came hat in hand and understood how to deal with FDR. He was prepped by MI6 as regards to FDRs mannerisms, how to approach him, how to cajole and persuade. Churchill was a quintessential salesman. He got what he needed. In contrast the current Ukrainian President came demanding and complaining and clearly lacked any understanding of the current US President. One suspects he may have been told but his own arrogance could not accept the advice. Churchill dressed appropriately, the Ukrainian did not.

 Understanding the current US President dictates a style of communications which many other foreign leaders have understood. Letters from a King gets one a good trade deal. Hugs from the French assures low tariffs. It does not take much. But scolding anyone in front of the Press gets one the door, permanently.

 The question then for the US is; do we still have productive issues to discuss with Russia? Clearly the current president and the DOGE head are no Nixon and Kissinger, but there can be an argument made. Also we import nothing from Russia, except minerals such as vanadium, critical in our fighter aircraft.

 Thus what can we expect for the next steps? The US wants to try to neutralize the Russia/China/Iran axis. We have no means to deal with Iran. China is a real problem under the current leaders. Russia feels it “just gets no respect”. Thus, the Kissinger strategic mindset needs to become available; one should think strategically and one who can work the ego of the President.

 But the controlling conditions the US must deal with are; (i) Ukraine cannot joint NATO, it would be seen as an existential threat to Moscow, (ii) Ukraine is now a force amalgam of east and west. Perhaps the demands are that the east which is predominantly Russia become such, (iii) the notion of “peacekeepers” is fraught with peril, (iv) the current Ukrainian president seems committed to continuing the battle, it is clearly a no win situation, and how does this get resolved, (v) the US has a limited strategic interest, proxy wars never end well, (vi) the US should engage Russia independent of Ukraine. Fortunately the current Ukrainian president has facilitated many of these. But we still need a Kissinger.