It’s a fluke of history that Apple turned into the world’s most profitable company. It didn’t have to be this way.

PDAs have been around since the 1980s, but they were clunky and had small screens until the Apple Newton in 1993. The Apple Newton lasted until 1998 and was replaced with the far inferior iPod in 2002. This gave Palm time to build on the strength of the Apple Newton and grow a highly successful business, which lasted until the iPhone was released. If Steve Jobs had built on the Newton instead of shelving it when he was brought back as CEO, Palm would not have had the opportunity to grow like it did in the 2000s.

With Apple out of the picture, Palm became the dominant player in PDAs, and Blackberry became the dominant smartphone player.

iPods before the iPod touch were good, but they were not significantly better than other MP3 players of the era. Apple did not have a significant edge.

Palm had everything it needed to become a trillion-dollar company in the 2000s. It had smartphones and PDAs, but it did not combine them into one device. So, while Palm was busy working on their PDA devices, they did not see the now obvious opportunity to combine them. The last few Palm devices released had a full touchscreen, but they didn’t add phone functionality.

Blackberry had its standard setup at the time, with the full tactile keyboard. But they did not innovate past their original design until it was too late.

I believe that in 2005 Palm was the company best set to become the dominant smartphone manufacturer. Apple was out of the PDA market until the iPod touch was released, Microsoft was busy releasing Windows Vista, and the opportunity was there.

But Palm missed it.

It’s easy to imagine Palm releasing a version of the Palm TX with phone functionality in 2005 and changing the world.

But they just didn’t do it.

So today iPhone is the most popular phone in the world.

You can choose to increase specific carbon free technologies, or choose to reduce emissions, but you cannot do both.

With a carbon tax or a good cap and trade you directly choose how much carbon emissions will be reduced by. But you do not have control on how much of the reduction will be from efficiency, reduced consumption, or substitutes.

With a subsidy you have direct control over how much of a technology will be increased and which technology will be used. But you sacrifice long term control on how much of this will be substituting existing polluting methods, or just increasing consumption of electricity.

That is the question facing policy makers around the world regarding climate change.

There is a lot of talk about how to cover inflation from both Democrats and Republicans. We are seeing various ideas like price caps, scrapping social security taxes, child tax credit, and more options. How do each of these stack up?

To find solutions, we have to divide the economy into sectors. The sectors with the highest inflation are housing, health care, transportation, and education.

The housing price crisis is simple. We did not build enough houses in the 2010s, which led to an increase in prices. Increased demand plus stagnant supply equals inflation. Build housing. That’s the Harris plan. It will work. However, it needs participation from local governments that control zoning laws. Local reforms will solve this problem.

When it comes to transportation, this is because of our addiction to oil and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia is not a major source of oil for the United States, but the oil market is a global market, so simply drilling oil is not going to fix the global price of oil as much as Republicans want you to believe. That’s before the environmental damage. Transition to hydrogen fuel cells and electric cars in rural areas and massively improve transit and implement congestion pricing in cities so transportation costs are reduced for the average American household.

Education has become more expensive because the government cut subsidies. Subsidize education like we used to, and control costs for universities where we can.

The way you do not solve inflation is by pouring money on the inflation fire. That only creates more inflation. That is the Republican plan by cutting corporate tax rates.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/16/harris-economic-policy-plan-00174336

When it comes to maximum benefit pensions, like exist in most developed democracies, you can pick two of the three when your population is not growing fast enough to cover future benefits:

1. Stable currency
2. High benefits
3. Low taxes (yes, really)

If you choose to keep benefits high and not increase taxes, you will need to print money to cover benefits at a sustained level level, which will likely cause inflation.

Tax rates need to increase if you keep benefits high and keep a stable currency.

Benefits will need to be reduced to keep taxes low and keep a stable currency.

Or you could just use superannuation like Australia and Singapore.

Kamala Harris is going to be the next president of the United States. She consistently leads in the polls, between 3 and 9 points. In the betting odds, her odds are -106 versus Trump’s +118.

She is going to win, and it is not a surprise.

The Keys to the White House is essential to my analysis.

The history of the Democratic Party over the last 100 years can be divided into three categories. Before 1932, the Democratic Party was the governing party of the Solid South. It was socially conservative and economically not much different from the Republicans. This era goes back to before the Civil War.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt founded the modern Democratic Party with the New Deal, the basis of its progressive wing. Democrats won 7 of the following nine elections, and our candidates were excellent. Roosevelt and Truman continued to deliver major policy changes, had no foreign affairs blunders, the economy was continuously improving and had no scandals. There was political chaos and a weak long term economy in 1952 among other issues, plus Eisenhower was extremely charismatic, giving him the win in 1952 and 1956.

The recession of 1960 and Russian advances in the space race gave Kennedy the win in 1960. Both Kennedy and Johnson were charismatic. I disagree with Lichtman’s belief Johnson was not charismatic, he was the most effective president in history in regards to passing human rights law.

The election of 1968 was close, and the Democrats became progressively more socially liberal over the period. The primary election was crazy with Bobby Kennedy being assassinated, and there was a lot of anger in the Vietnam War. I have a suspicion the anger over Vietnam was manufactured to bring down Johnson. We were obligated to defend Vietnam by treaty. Humphrey stood by our treaty and barely lost the election. Unfortunately, he did not convince the American people of the importance of the importance of standing up for our allies, and this is why he was uncharismatic. This was the end of the New Deal era. There was a primary contest, Johnson did not run for reelection, and a stalemate in Vietnam turned too many keys false, giving Nixon the Presidency.

Democrats then moved towards a defensive position and blaming the Great Society for America’s woes in the 1972 election. This was the beginning of the New Democratic caucus. Each Democratic candidate lacked charisma until 2008. We lost badly. We defeated Nixon (yes, I know Ford was running but we were campaigning against Nixon’s actions, and it worked) in 1976 because of Watergate. Carter was a relatively moderate Democrat. Without Watergate to run against we lost in 1980.

Mondale ran a relatively liberal campaign around the Equal Rights Amendment but also promised to raise taxes. 1984 was going to be a hard election no matter what. People perceived America as doing well under Reagan’s term, which prevented social unrest and prevented the scandals of the Reagan presidency from being reported on. Reagan was a professional actor, which increased his charisma. In 1988 the media still favored Bush by not reporting on Reagan’s scandals, and the Reagan Recession was finally over.

The economy was in recession in 1992, which gave Bill Clinton the win. By 1996, the economy was strong, giving Clinton the win.

In 2000 Al Gore would have won if all the votes were counted in Florida.

In 2004, a strong economy and removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan gave Bush the win. If Democrats had nominated a charismatic candidate and made the PATRIOT ACT into a political issue Bush would have been defeated, but we did not campaign on it. I disagree with the statement Bush did not make a major foreign policy chance, the PATRIOT ACT changed everything.

Most of the candidates since 1968 were relatively conservative and lacked charisma. That is why the Republicans won most of the

By 2008, Democrats had their first charismatic candidate since 1964, a weak economy and a faltering war in Iraq gave Obama an easy win. Bush had 9 false keys, the highest number since 1960.

I disagree Obama was not charismatic in 2012. But it doesn’t matter. Obama had the fewest false keys for any incumbent presidential candidate since Reagan and Bush.

In 2016 we lost because Clinton lacked charisma, barely losing against Donald Trump.

In 2020, we won because of COVID-19. Trump’s weak economy flipped two keys false, giving Biden the win. If there had not been COVID-19 or if Trump had handled it better, Trump would have had six false keys and won the election. In a world without COVID, Trump would have started with 5 false keys, meaning Democrats would have needed a charismatic candidate, and we would have won, giving Trump 6 false keys. I disagree that Trump’s tax reforms count as a major policy change.

This year’s election starts Harris off with a strong hand. Biden passed the most significant gun control legislation since Clinton and the Respect for Marriage Act, both of which are major policies. The economy is strong. There is no major social unrest, despite Likud’s actions in Palestine. The only false keys Harris will have this year are no party mandate since they barely lost the 2022 midterms, no incumbency advantage, and two foreign policy failures in Afghanistan and Gaza. If Ukraine wins before November or Israel withdraws from Gaza we will have a major military success. I’m not certain whether Harris is charismatic or not, but Trump certainly is not.

This is why Harris will win this year.

For 2028, President Harris needs to force a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, recognize Palestine, and, if Ukraine does not win before November, ensure they win as soon as possible. That will give her foreign military success. She also needs to maintain a strong economy, like every other Democrat over the last century.

Harris needs seven true keys to win in 2028. I think she could have 10 true keys. Here is what Harris needs to do to win in 2028:

1. Run for reelection.
2. Maintain a strong economy, like every other Democrat since 1932.
3. No recession in 2028.
4. Win in Ukraine or finally get a peace agreement signed between Israel and Palestine which will last.
5. Do not send weapons to Israel if they bomb civilians, for that is a military failure. Do not allow Russia to annex Ukraine.
6. Pass a major policy. Health care is a viable target. Pass either single-payer or a public option. Either would count as a major policy.
7. Do not have a scandal, which is unlikely since only one Democrat in the last century has turned the scandal key false: Clinton in 1992.
8. The previous keys being true will ensure she won’t have a serious third-party contender.
9. They also will ensure no social unrest.
10. They also will ensure she will not have a serious primary contender.

The only three keys remaining are whether she or her opponent is perceived as charismatic and whether she has a party mandate in 2028. She has very little power over these. The Party mandate key is controlled by the Democratic National Committee by how they support Democratic candidates for Congress. Charisma is either obvious, such as how Obama is charismatic or can be manufactured by the media through selective reporting. Regardless, the other 10 keys are in control of the administration no matter how the media reports on the President.

I was taking my walk today when I thought about how my company should offer four weeks of paid vacation.

To an average American, this might seem excessive, but in reality, most highly developed countries provide this by law. Twenty days is the minimum paid leave for all workers in the European Union. Regardless of their income or age. Of countries with a Democracy score over 6 and a GDP per capita over 20000, the only countries with less than 20 days paid leave are Canada, Israel, Japan, Singapore, and the United States out of 27 countries.

I believe the United States should mandate 20 days of paid leave by law, but I also believe the United States is the country that needs this policy the most.

We start with 193 member states in the United Nations.

Now, paid leave is a pro-family policy. In a small country like Austria, you can drive to see your family within an evening from anywhere in the country. You don’t need to spend vacation time to see your family. So, to argue this is about keeping families together mostly applies to countries where it takes significant time and money to get from one part of the country to another. The maximum amount of time I will generally drive in a straight shot without an overnight is 8 hours, so a distance of 800 km. 800 ^2 = 640,000 km2. I want to start by narrowing my list to democracies larger than 640,000 square kilometers.

We are left with only 17 countries that fit these parameters.

I want to narrow down my list further to democracies with incomes above $20,000, which is enough disposable income for the average person to afford to travel long distances. Countries with incomes below $20k have bigger issues and are out of the scope of this analysis.

The only democracies larger than 640 square kilometers with incomes over $20,000 are the United States, Canada, Australia, and France. They all have populations of over 10 million.

France barely makes the cutoff, and the train from Marseilles to Lille, from one side of the country to the other, takes only 4.5 hours. It is totally feasible for the French to take weekend trips to any other part of their country.

Australia is huge, but most of it is empty. Over 70% of Australians live in a straight line along the coast from Melbourne to Brisbane. Most Australians can see the majority of their family on a 3-day road trip.

Canada is similar to Australia. It is gigantic, but like Australia, most of its land is practically empty. Two-thirds of Canadians live in a straight line from Windsor to Quebec City. In a 10-hour drive, you can drive past most Canadians. Ontario makes the list by itself, but most of its area is empty. For family members in BC or Alberta, most of them can fly to Ontario and meet the rest of their family.

The United States is a completely different beast. Texas alone is larger than my 640,000 km2 cutoff, and California is not far behind. We have more land area than any other country except Russia and China. Boston to Washington, DC is almost an 8-hour drive; through that area, you only pass by around a third of Americans. Americans are extremely mobile because we have more choices of places to live and work without leaving our country than any other wealthy democracy. This leads to families being spread across vast distances, from Washington to Florida, California to Massachusetts. This example is from my family. Both of my grandmothers live in Washington; my paternal grandmother had siblings in Nevada, Ohio, and Florida, among other states, and my maternal grandmother has siblings in California and Massachusetts. The ability for families to get together regularly with only two weeks of vacation is not feasible in this country, unlike any other advanced democracy in the world. It is impossible to keep families together in a country this vast and this mobile with such a small amount of paid vacation.

If you have only two weeks of paid vacation per year and want to travel once abroad, assume you only have 14 days. The first and last day will be spent flying, and the first day you land somewhere, you will lose a significant amount of time to jet lag, leaving you with only 11 quality days to explore, assuming you only go to one city. For each additional location, subtract one day of true immersion in your destination. 4 destinations then leave you with only 8 days to really enjoy a place, only two days per location. That’s not enough to get to know a place. Not enough to get to know the people and the culture, and I believe this is by design.

If you have 4 more weeks and 4 destinations, you start with 28 days of total travel time, down to 25, including flying and losing one day to jet lag. You lose 4 more days, leaving you with 21 days to really enjoy yourself, or 4 days per city, which is enough time to truly explore a city. One day for the tourist destinations, one day to explore, one day to wander aimlessly or spend time with new friends you made. The quality of time and the experience of a place is totally different when you spend at least 4 days in a location to get to know the people and culture.

That’s when American tourists might start to learn about things like modern healthcare systems and take those ideas home with them.

Even if I don’t leave the United States, with 4 weeks of paid vacation, I could choose to spend one week exploring New England with my family, one week down in Georgia with my aunt and cousins there, one week in California visiting my aunt and uncle and cousins, and one week back in Washington with my parents and grandparents.

4 weeks of paid leave is a family value, and it should be the law of the land.

Remember a few months ago when every pundit from the NY Times to the Nation called Ukraine to do a ceasefire? Russia is now losing territory as Europe has allowed Ukraine to attack the Russian military. The rest of NATO has chosen to completely bypass the leadership of the United States, openly supporting Ukraine to do whatever is necessary within international law to win the war this year.

The reality is that Biden was telling the truth when he said, “Nothing will fundamentally change.” He was telling the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_q2LBA38NI

Over the last 8 years, we have seen the terrorists take over Afghanistan, Russia has invaded Ukraine, and almost 40,000 civilians have been killed in Gaza. The Trump/Biden administration is responsible for the withdrawal of Afghanistan; while the US has delivered weapons to Ukraine, we have limited what they can do with them, creating a war of attrition. We have failed to enforce international law in Gaza, which only feeds the terrorist’s narrative that the United States and Israel are enemies of Islam.

We have seen the ratcheting of border restrictions across the world as eVisas are becoming more common. The world is less free today than when Obama was President.

He also was telling the truth when he focused on how he would focus on working with people he disagreed with. This is not a bad statement, but it necessitates the follow-up question of how you will work with your allies. Will Biden prioritize working with ilk like McConnell, Netanyahu, Putin, and the Saud dynasty over working with allies like Warren, Macron, Scholz, and Trudeau? Back in 2015, that might have been seen as a silly question, but today, it is a question we must ask of every future candidate.

When you focus on how nothing will change, the question is, why vote for you? If someone wants to argue that well when Biden said that it was 2019 and the economy was good. But Trump had already laid the groundwork for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

We need to focus on more than just being better than Trump. We need to reach for more.

I think Harris will win the election, and I think she will be fundamentally different from Biden. She does not talk about Israel on the campaign trail, and Tim Walz has openly criticized the way Netanyahu has conducted the war in Gaza. That means I believe that by January 20th, time is up for Netanyahu, which is good. Removing Netanyahu will obviously improve safety in Palestine, but also in Israel, as that will open the door to recognition of Palestine and a normalization of relations between Israel and its majority-Muslim neighbors. She cannot say it on the campaign trail because she is running for the incumbent party, but her vice presidential candidate makes it clear where she will go.

She could have chosen a conservative Democrat like Manchin or Sinema, a strategy similar to what Obama did in 2008, but she chose not to. She chose a fairly progressive Democrat the same age as her. She has chosen an ally who will strengthen the ticket. We have a former sexual assault prosecutor running alongside a former teacher. This is a ticket that is going to take the rights of children in Gaza and Ukraine seriously.  This is a major departure from the policies of Trump/Biden/Blinken/Sullivan.

I hope I am right.

Many cities in the US have built their transit systems around their highway networks because all they need to buy are vehicles, and they can quickly have reasonably competitive transit services up and running for cheap.

This brings us to West Seattle. West Seattle has numerous buses that go downtown; they all go along the West Seattle Bridge, up Highway 99, and then into downtown Seattle towards the 3rd Ave bus jam.

However, the Alaska Way viaduct no longer exists, so the only express part of the ride is now the West Seattle bridge, which is clogged until the exit to WA-99. Without the Viaduct, the bus stops being as fast as it used to be, increasing demand for driving.

If you are dependent on buses and highways for transit, the issue is that when you have a major corridor for transit using highways, you need to replace it in a way that does not punish transit riders.

If you simply remove a bus highway and do not replace it with rail, you will end up with worse transit. Worse transit will lead to a higher car modal share, which puts more pressure on politicians to increase parking, reduce density, and make all infrastructure more expensive. When demolishing a highway carrying mass transit, you need to replace it with a rail that is better than bus lanes. Otherwise, you might make your transit less urbanist.

This is why the West Seattle Link is a good project. Even light rail carries more people than buses and for a lower cost per passenger kilometer.

You can either have a car-dependent city or a rail-dependent city.