Thursday, January 3, 2019

GLOBALIZATION


Jobs dry up for travel 
agents and IT workers

By Peter Blakeborough

“If you’re a travel agent or an accountant, you could be facing extinction by 2017,” wrote Alanah Eriksen in the New Zealand Herald business pages on August 13, 2012.

She predicted also, just as many others often do, that car manufacturers, retail and IT workers would also need to look for new career paths. Eriksen pointed to Balance Recruitment as an agency that had compiled a list of top jobs that would disappear within five years. But two years after the jobs should have disappeared, it is mostly the job seekers that are disappearing as the world economy and employment continue to boom.

When the NZ Herald article predicted that travel agents and accountants would disappear by 2017, they were clearly wrong. The Herald article was one of the most masterly written pieces of doom and gloom ever published. 
It is true that over time some occupations do disappear, but the evolution of business and employment is, in some ways, just like the evolution of nature; as one species becomes extinct many new species take its place. There is a popular saying that as one door closes another opens, but in reality it is often a case of many new doors opening.

Many people like to blame the internet for the so-called hard times that exist today. Let’s examine that.

At the start of the twentieth century, www could have meant wooden wagon wheel because the whole world was busy bemoaning the expected demise of the wooden wagon wheel maker. But the wooden wagon was inefficient, few individuals owned one and, often as not, the wheels fell off between one town and the next. To add to the woes of wooden wagon owners, they needed to own a horse and have somewhere to graze it. If the wagon was needed to transport produce to a market, they needed a team of horses.

Nowadays people will tell you that motor vehicles, and their exhaust fumes, are destroying the world, but think where the world would be without motor vehicles. With today’s population the world would be literally knee-deep in horse manure.  

The evolution of business and employment has been going on for thousands of years and the invention of the wheel and the wagon has been a vital part of that evolution, but the development of motor vehicles has been crucial. Before the Industrial Revolution few people lived beyond the age of 40 and the main causes of death were starvation (chiefly from unemployment) war, plague, murder and suicide. 

Industries and occupations are lost when more efficient industries and occupations take their place and efficiency ultimately puts more spending power into more pockets. Granted, there can be pain during transition but in the end commercial and industrial progress means wealth for more people and that can be seen in the growing range of occupations, products and services available that are available and affordable today.
When the wooden wagon wheel disappeared cars, aircraft and telephones were rare. Only the exceptionally wealthy owned them. Radio, television, computers and music tapes and discs, play station and thousands of other products and services now available were yet to be launched. Launching those products and services was not just a simple matter of inventing them and selling millions. They would have been next to useless until the masses of people had the money to buy them.


Outsourcing is a dirty word to many but it has positive benefits. It helps reduce the cost of goods and services and bring them within the reach of more people.

India, with more poverty and unemployment than any other country in the world, benefits enormously from outsourcing and that is just part of the evolving economic globalization in which ultimately everyone wins. As India becomes more wealthy, there are spin-offs for the rest of the world. Indians are now travelling more than previously thereby creating jobs in travel and tourism. They are also able to import more products from the rest of the world. 

Everyone ultimately wins from globalization.


Wednesday, January 2, 2019

FACTS ABOUT WORK HOURS

Second richest man has a radical opinion on work hours


FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2014, THIS ARTICLE IS STILL RELEVANT IN 2019
Carlos Slim, the world’s second richest man wants you to work just three days a week. But don’t get carried away just yet. The 74 year-old, who is chairman of Telmax, didn’t say that he wants to hire you. Telmax is the dominant telecommunications provider in Latin America.
Carlos Slim
According to an article by Jenna Kagel in the Financial Times, Slim wants to slim down the working week to just three days to improve productivity by allowing people more rest and recreation. He says the downside would be that workers may have to work until they are 70 or even 75 years old. Carlos Slim is believed to have a net worth of about $80 billion USD and it can probably be safely assumed that he didn’t acquire his wealth without lots of radical ideas.
But is his suggestion really all that radical, or is he suggesting that progressive trends in working conditions over the centuries are simply due for the next step forward?
We’ve come a long way since the earliest agricultural workers worked in the fields until they fell asleep, where they worked, and when they awoke again they immediately started work again, seven days a week. We hear terrible things about working conditions during the industrial revolution when an 18 hour day was normal, six days a week, and the workers went home after work. That was a miserable existence, but it was an improvement on the earlier work conditions.

A chart from the Economist showing the relationship between work hours and productivity

During the 20th Century the 40 hour/five day working week became normal for many workers, and nearing the end of the century some workers were allowed to go home for the weekend after only 35 hours. Annual leave not only became normal during the 20th Century, but the amount of leave increased from two weeks to four weeks a year. Other entitlements that became acceptable during the 20th Century included sick leave, bereavement leave, maternity leave and long service leave.
Shorter working hours can have many benefits for society other than increased productivity. Not the least of these is work place safety. Take the case of long distance truck drivers in places like the USA, Russia and Australia with vast distances to drive with primitive conditions and laws, compared with Europe. These drivers sleep in their trucks and drive each day until they are ready to fall asleep and there is always pressure to deliver on time. The most common cause of single vehicle truck accidents is drivers falling asleep at the wheel. These drivers are stuck in a time warp somewhere between the first agricultural workers and the factory workers of the industrial revolution.

Another Economist chart showing average working hours for OECD countries
But there are other important benefits to be gained by society from shorter working weeks and work days. Family life is one of the first things to spring to mind. The children of long hours workers often grow up poorly adjusted for life and may embark on a life of crime or anti-social behavior. Long hours workers are more likely to divorce than shorter hours workers, and they are also more likely to have health issues. It is common to hear from people who live to an exceptionally old age, that they achieved their old age with hard work. But the reality is that people who work hard and long generally have shorter lives.
Life expectancy has improved with better working conditions, shorter hours and better wages.
There is one more important benefit of shorter working hours that is often overlooked. In the days when workers slogged from daylight to dark every day for poor wages (or in slavery), they had no discretionary spending power to buy the products that they produced, or any non-essential items.
Starting in the 20th Century and continuing into the 21st Century, workers have had discretionary spending power, and the reduced working hours give them the time to spend their surplus wages. This is good for the well-being of the individual and it is good for the national economy.
As workers spend their wages they help keep others in work, and the more a particular product is purchased the cheaper it can be produced and sold. As they used to say about money: It’s made round to go round.

YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
The Cost of Living
Government Blamed for Housing Woes
Voters Hold the Key to Housing Problems
The Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor are Getting Poorer

However, the suggestion by Carlos Slim that the retirement age may have to go up to 70 or 75 must be challenged. To prove his assumption wrong, we must go back again to the slaves and workers in primitive agriculture. For them there was no retirement. They worked until they died. It was the same during the industrial revolution and it wasn’t until the 20th Century that workers started receiving a meagre retirement pension. As the century progressed more people qualified for the pension and the qualifying age moved steadily downward.
Retirement itself became an industry, taking from and giving to the national economy. Without pensioners the economy would revert back to the hard times prior to the introduction of pensions. Baby boomers joining the ranks of the retired is no reason to raise the retirement age. In fact most WWII baby boomers are now receiving a pension and the economic effect has been zero.
In summary, shorter working hours leads to improved safety and productivity, better home life, increased industrial creativity or a wider range of products for workers to buy and enjoy. It is better for everyone including governments, businesses and workers. Bring it on!

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

DR TIM BALL ON CLIMATE


𝐀 𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐏𝐂𝐂
(𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐃𝐫 𝐓𝐢𝐦 𝐁𝐚𝐥𝐥 - 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝟏𝟓, 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟖)
Dr Tim Ball, aged 80, is a renowned environmentalist and retired professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. His awards include Clarence Atchison Award for excellence in Community Service and the Clifford J. Robson Memorial Award for Teaching Excellence. He has published several peer-reviewed papers in the field of historical climatology and is the author or co-author of several books.
Dr Tim Ball

1) Why was the definition of climate change used as the basis for the IPCC research limited to only human causes?
2) How did this allow them to ignore water vapor, by far the most important and abundant greenhouse gas?
3) Why were they allowed to build computer climates models when they knew the data was inadequate?
4) Why was the IPCC membership and participation in Reports limited to only those chosen by bureaucratic members of the WMO?
5) Why are almost all the people involved in the IPCC unqualified in climatology?
6) Why did the IPCC only examine temperature and warming?
7) Why didn’t the IPCC report on the positive effects of warming?
8) Why don’t they release the Working Group I (WGI) Physical Science Report first?
9) Why did they set up a separate group of politicians and bureaucrats with a few selected scientists to produce the Summary for Policymakers?
10) Why was it released before the scientific evidence of WGI?
11) Why were the forecasts made in the first IPCC Report in 1990 so wrong?
12) Why did the second Report in 1995 stop providing forecasts?
13) Why did they switch to providing scenarios or projections after 1990?
14) Why did they ignore all the legitimate critiques of the early Reports?
15) Why did they finally establish a method of feedbacks and critiques?
16) Why did most of these never make it into the Reports?
17) Why did approximately 30,000 attend the recent climate conference in Poland?
18) Why were a majority of them environmental activists with no qualifications in climatology?
19) Why were industry and business so poorly represented from the start?
20) Why does that continue at the recent climate conference?
21) Why is the IPCC the source of e annual production of human CO2 for their computer models?
22) Why does a CO2 increase cause a temperature increase in their computer models when it doesn’t exist in the empirical data?
23) Why are similar computer models unable to forecast weather much beyond 72 hours?
24) Why were all the IPCC projections from 1995 to the present incorrect?
25) Why has most of the global temperature record been altered?
26) Why did all these alterations only change the record in one direction?
27) Why did those adjustments only lower early temperatures?
28) Why do major agencies that calculate the annual average global temperature get different results?
29) Why did skeptics become deniers?
30) Where is the evidence that climate change deniers deny climate change?
31) Why, in fact, do all the deniers claim that climate change occurs?
32) Why do the media never ask Al Gore about his climatology qualifications?
33) Why in IPCC AR4 did they provide a completely different definition of climate change that they claimed, falsely, they used in their Reports? They didn’t even use it in the one in which they claimed it.
34) Why, if the science is so clear, do most nations act hesitatingly or fail to act?
35) Why did the Kyoto Protocol fail?
36) What replaced the Kyoto Protocol?
37) Why is China entitled to and now demanding $2 billion from the IPCC through the Paris Climate Agreement?


YOU MAY ALSO WANT TO READ:
Overpopulation and Deadly Myths
Failed Climate Predictions
Global Cooling Could Be Devastating
Peer Review Not the Holy Grail
Warmer Could Be Better


Friday, September 28, 2018

PRESIDENT KNOW NOTHING


What happens when the President doesn’t know, and won't listen

From The Guardian 27 September 2018

Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball and The Big Short, reveals how Trump’s bungled presidential transition set the template for his time in the White House
Chris Christie noticed a piece in the New York Times – that’s how it all started. The New Jersey governor had dropped out of the presidential race in February 2016 and thrown what support he had behind Donald Trump. In late April, he saw the article. It described meetings between representatives of the remaining candidates still in the race – Trump, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders – and the Obama White House. Anyone who still had any kind of shot at becoming president of the United States apparently needed to start preparing to run the federal government. The guy Trump sent to the meeting was, in Christie’s estimation, comically underqualified. Christie called up Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to ask why this critical job had not been handed to someone who actually knew something about government. “We don’t have anyone,” said Lewandowski.
Christie volunteered himself for the job: head of the Donald Trump presidential transition team. “It’s the next best thing to being president,” he told friends. “You get to plan the presidency.” He went to see Trump about it. Trump said he didn’t want a presidential transition team. Why did anyone need to plan anything before he actually became president? It’s legally required, said Christie. Trump asked where the money was going to come from to pay for the transition team. Christie explained that Trump could either pay for it himself or take it out of campaign funds. Trump didn’t want to pay for it himself. He didn’t want to take it out of campaign funds, either, but he agreed, grudgingly, that Christie should go ahead and raise a separate fund to pay for his transition team. “But not too much!” he said.

And so Christie set out to prepare for the unlikely event that Donald Trump would one day be elected president of the United States. Not everyone in Trump’s campaign was happy to see him on the job. In June, Christie received a call from Trump adviser Paul Manafort. “The kid is paranoid about you,” Manafort said. The kid was Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. Back in 2005, when he was US attorney for New Jersey, Christie had prosecuted and jailed Kushner’s father, Charles, for tax fraud. Christie’s investigation revealed, in the bargain, that Charles Kushner had hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, whom he suspected of cooperating with Christie, videotaped the sexual encounter and sent the tape to his sister. The Kushners apparently took their grudges seriously, and Christie sensed that Jared still harboured one against him. On the other hand, Trump, whom Christie considered almost a friend, could not have cared less.
Christie viewed Kushner as one of those people who thinks that, because he is rich, he must also be smart. Still, he had a certain cunning about him. And Christie soon found himself reporting everything he did to prepare for a Trump administration to an “executive committee”. The committee consisted of Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr, Eric Trump, Manafort, Steve Mnuchin and Jeff Sessions. “I’m kind of like the church elder who double-counts the collection plate every Sunday for the pastor,” said Sessions, who appeared uncomfortable with the entire situation. The elder’s job became more complicated in July 2016, when Trump was formally named the Republican nominee. The transition team now moved into an office in downtown Washington DC, and went looking for people to occupy the top 500 jobs in the federal government. They needed to fill all the cabinet positions, of course, but also a whole bunch of others that no one in the Trump campaign even knew existed. It is not obvious how you find the next secretary of state, much less the next secretary of transportation – never mind who should sit on the board of trustees of the Barry Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Foundation.
By August, 130 people were showing up every day, and hundreds more working part-time, at Trump transition headquarters, on the corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. The transition team made lists of likely candidates for all 500 jobs, plus other lists of informed people to roll into the various federal agencies the day after the election, to be briefed on whatever the federal agencies were doing. They gathered the names for these lists by travelling the country and talking to people: Republicans who had served in government, Trump’s closest advisers, recent occupants of the jobs that needed filling. Then they set about investigating any candidates for glaring flaws and embarrassing secrets and conflicts of interest. At the end of each week, Christie handed over binders, with lists of names of people who might do the jobs well, to Kushner, Donald Jr and the others. “They probed everything,” says a senior Trump transition official. “‘Who is this person?’ ‘Where did this person come from?’ They only ever rejected one person: Manafort’s secretary.”
The first time Trump paid attention to any of this was when he read about it in the newspaper. The story revealed that Trump’s very own transition team had raised several million dollars to pay the staff. The moment he saw it, Trump called Steve Bannon, the chief executive of his campaign, from his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, and told him to come immediately to his residence, many floors above. Bannon stepped off the elevator to find Christie seated on a sofa, being hollered at. Trump was apoplectic, yelling: You’re stealing my money! You’re stealing my fucking money! What the fuck is this?
Seeing Bannon, Trump turned on him and screamed: Why are you letting him steal my fucking money? Bannon and Christie together set out to explain to Trump federal law. Months before the election, the law said, the nominees of the two major parties were expected to prepare to take control of the government. The government supplied them with office space in downtown DC, along with computers and rubbish bins and so on, but the campaigns paid their people. To which Trump replied: Fuck the law. I don’t give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money. Bannon and Christie tried to explain that Trump couldn’t have both his money and a transition.
Shut it down, said Trump. Shut down the transition.
Here Christie and Bannon parted ways. Neither thought it was a good idea to shut down the transition, but each had his own misgivings. Christie thought that Trump had little chance of running the government without a formal transition. Bannon wasn’t so sure if Trump would ever get his mind around running the federal government; he just thought it would look bad if Trump didn’t at least seem to prepare. Seeing that Trump wasn’t listening to Christie, he said: “What do you think Morning Joe will say if you shut down your transition?” What Morning Joe would say – or at least what Bannon thought it would say – was that Trump was closing his presidential transition office because he didn’t think he had any chance of being president.

See also:
White Supremacists
Political Extremes
Alarmist Hot Air
Media Bias and Fake News

Trump stopped hollering. For the first time he seemed to have listened.
“That makes sense,” he said.
With that, Christie went back to preparing for a Trump administration. He tried to stay out of the news, but that proved difficult. From time to time, Trump would see something in the paper about Christie’s fundraising and become upset all over again. The money that people donated to his campaign Trump considered, effectively, his own. He thought the planning and forethought pointless. At one point he turned to Christie and said: “Chris, you and I are so smart that we can leave the victory party two hours early and do the transition ourselves.”
At that moment in American history, if you could somehow organise the entire population into a single line, all 350 million people, ordered not by height or weight or age but by each citizen’s interest in the federal government, and Donald Trump loitered somewhere near one end of it, Max Stier would occupy the other.
By the autumn of 2016, Stier might have been the American with the greatest understanding of how the US government worked. Oddly, for an American of his age and status, he had romanticised public service since he was a child. He had gone through Yale in the mid-80s and Stanford law school in the early 90s without ever being tempted by money or anything else. He thought the US government was the single most important and interesting institution in the history of the planet and could not imagine doing anything but working to improve it. A few years out of law school he had met a financier named Sam Heyman, who was as disturbed as Stier was by how uninterested talented young people were in government work. Stier persuaded Heyman to set aside $25m for him so that he might create an organisation to address the problem.
Stier soon realised that to attract talented young people to government service, he would need to turn the government into a place that talented young people wanted to work. He would need to fix the US government. Partnership for Public Service, as Stier called his organisation, was not nearly as dull as its name. It trained civil servants to be business managers; it brokered new relationships across the federal government; it surveyed the federal workforce to identify specific management failures and success; and it lobbied Congress to fix deep structural problems. It was Stier who had persuaded Congress to pass the laws that made it so annoyingly difficult for Trump to avoid preparing to be president.
Anyway, from the point of view of a smart, talented person trying to decide whether to work for the US government, the single most glaring defect was the absence of an upside. The jobs were not well-paid compared with their equivalents in the private sector. And the only time government employees were recognised was if they screwed up – in which case they often became the wrong kind of famous. In 2002, Stier created an annual black tie, Oscars-like awards ceremony to celebrate people who had done extraordinary things in government.
Every year the Sammies – as Stier called them, in honour of his original patron – attracted a few more celebrities and a bit more media attention. And every year, the list of achievements was mind-blowing. A guy in the energy department (Frazer Lockhart) organised the first successful cleanup of a nuclear weapons factory, in Rocky Flats, Colorado, and had brought it in 60 years early and $30bn under budget. A woman at the Federal Trade Commission (Eileen Harrington) had built the Do Not Call Registry, which spared the entire country from trillions of irritating sales pitches. A National Institutes of Health researcher (Steven Rosenberg) had pioneered immunotherapy, which had successfully treated previously incurable cancers. There were hundreds of fantastically important success stories in the US government. They just never got told.
Stier knew an astonishing number of them. He had detected a pattern: a surprising number of the people responsible for them were first-generation Americans who had come from places without well-functioning governments. People who had lived without government were more likely to find meaning in it. On the other hand, people who had never experienced a collapsed state were slow to appreciate a state that had not yet collapsed.
That was maybe Stier’s biggest challenge: explaining the value of this enterprise at the centre of a democratic society to people who either took it for granted or imagined it as a pernicious force in their lives over which they had no control. He would explain that the federal government provided services that the private sector could not or would not: medical care for veterans, air traffic control, national highways, food safety guidelines. He would explain that the federal government was an engine of opportunity: millions of American children, for instance, would have found it even harder than they did to make the most of their lives without the basic nutrition supplied by the federal government. When all else failed, he would explain the many places the US government stood between Americans and the things that might kill them. “The basic role of government is to keep us safe,” he would say.
The US government employed 2 million people, 70% of them one way or another in national security. It managed a portfolio of risks that no private person or corporation was able to manage. Some of the risks were easy to imagine: a financial crisis, a hurricane, a terrorist attack. Most were not: the risk, say, that some prescription drug proves to be both so addictive and so accessible that each year it kills more Americans than were killed in action by the peak of the Vietnam war. Many of the risks that fell into the government’s lap felt so remote as to be unreal: that a cyberattack left half the country without electricity, or that some airborne virus wiped out millions, or that economic inequality reached the point where it triggered a violent revolution. Maybe the least visible risks were of things not happening that, with better government, might have happened. A cure for cancer, for instance.
Enter the presidential transition. A bad transition took this entire portfolio of catastrophic risks – the biggest portfolio of such risks ever managed by a single institution in the history of the world – and made all the bad things more likely to happen and the good things less likely to happen. Even before Stier created an organisation to fix the federal government, the haphazard nature of presidential transitions drove him nuts. “We have a legacy government that hasn’t kept up with the world we live in, largely because of disruptions from bad transitions,” he said. “People don’t understand that a bungled transition becomes a bungled presidency.” The new people taking over the job of running the government were at best only partially informed, and often deeply suspicious, of whatever happened to be going on before they arrived. By the time they fully grasped the problems they were dealing with, it was time to go. “It’s Groundhog Day,” said Stier. “The new people come in and think that the previous administration and the civil service are lazy or stupid. Then they actually get to know the place they are managing. And when they leave they say: ‘This was a really hard job, and those are the best people I’ve ever worked with.’ This happens over and over and over.”
Most of the big problems inside the US government were of the practical management sort and had nothing to do with political ideology. A mundane but important example was how hard it was for any government agency to hire new people. Some agencies couldn’t hire anyone without 60 different people signing off on him. The George W Bush administration had begun to attack that particular mundane problem. The Obama administration, instead of running with the work done during the Bush years, had simply started all over again.
Stier’s Partnership for Public Service had helped to push through three separate laws related to the transition. In 2010, Congress gave free office space and other resources to the nominees of the two major political parties immediately after the summer conventions. “The reason campaigns didn’t prepare is that they thought it would cost them politically: no one wanted to be seen measuring the drapes,” said Stier. “The idea was to give the nominees of the major political parties cover to do what they should do.” In 2011-2012, to enable the president to put people in jobs more quickly, Congress reduced the number of presidential appointments that required Senate confirmation from about 1,400 to roughly 1,200 – still more than 1,000 too many, in Stier’s view, but a start. Finally, in 2015, Congress required the sitting president to prepare in various ways to hand the government over to his or her successor. The person who had already taken the test was now required by law to help the person who may not have studied for it.
As the 2016 presidential election approached, Stier was about as hopeful as he had ever been that the US government would be handed from one leader to another with minimum stupidity. His partnership had worked with both the Clinton and the Trump campaigns. “Their work was good,” said Stier. He was disappointed with Obama in some ways. Obama had been slow to engage with the federal workforce. He had appointed some poor managers to run some agencies. The fiasco of the rollout of HealthCare.gov was not an accident but a byproduct of bad management. But Obama’s preparations to hand over the government had been superb: the Obama administration had created what amounted to the best course ever on the inner workings of the most powerful institution on earth. What could go wrong?
Chris Christie was sitting on a sofa beside Trump when Pennsylvania was finally called. It was 1.35am, but that wasn’t the only reason the feeling in the room was odd. Mike Pence went to kiss his wife, Karen, and she turned away from him. “You got what you wanted, Mike,” she said. “Now leave me alone.” She wouldn’t so much as say hello to Trump. Trump himself just stared at the TV without saying anything, like a man with a pair of twos whose bluff has been called. His campaign hadn’t even bothered to prepare an acceptance speech. It was not hard to see why Trump hadn’t seen the point in preparing to take over the federal government: why study for a test you will never need to take? Why take the risk of discovering you might, at your very best, be a C student? This was the real part of becoming president of the US. And, Christie thought, it scared the crap out of the president-elect.
Not long after the people on TV announced that Trump had won Pennsylvania, Jared Kushner grabbed Christie anxiously and said: “We have to have a transition meeting tomorrow morning!” Even before that meeting, Christie had made sure that Trump knew the protocol for his discussions with foreign leaders. The transition team had prepared a document to let him know how these were meant to go. The first few calls were easy – the very first was always with the prime minister of Great Britain – but two dozen calls in you were talking to some kleptocrat and tiptoeing around sensitive security issues. Before any of the calls could be made, however, the president of Egypt called in to the switchboard at Trump Tower and somehow got the operator to put him straight through to Trump. “Trump was like ... I love the Bangles! You know that song Walk Like an Egyptian?” recalled one of his advisers on the scene.
That had been the first hint Christie had of trouble. He had asked Kushner what that was about, and Kushner had simply said, Trump ran a very unconventional campaign, and he’s not going to follow any of the protocols. The next hint that the transition might not go as planned came from Pence – now, incredibly, the vice-president-elect. Christie met with Pence the day after the election, to discuss the previous lists of people who had been vetted for jobs. The meeting began with a prayer, followed by Pence’s first, ominous question: “Why isn’t Puzder on the list for labour?” Andrew Puzder, the head of CKE Restaurants, the holding company for the fast-food chains Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr, wanted to be the secretary of labour. Christie explained that Puzder’s ex-wife had accused him of abuse (although she later retracted the allegation) and his fast-food restaurant employees had complained of mistreatment. Even if he was somehow the ideal candidate to become the next secretary of labour, he wouldn’t survive his Senate confirmation hearings. (Trump ignored the advice and nominated Puzder. In the controversy that followed, Puzder not only failed to be confirmed, but also stepped down from his job.)
After meeting with Pence, Christie was scheduled to brief the Trump children, Kushner and the other members of Trump’s inner circle. He was surprised to find, suddenly included in this group, retired army lieutenant general Michael Flynn. Flynn was a jobseeker the transition team had found reasons to be extremely wary of. Now he wanted to be named Trump’s national security adviser, which was maybe the most important job in the entire national security apparatus. The national security team inside the Trump transition – staffed with senior former military and intelligence officials – had thought that was an especially bad idea. Flynn’s name was not on the list. But here he was, in the meeting to decide who would do what in the Trump administration, and Ivanka was asking him which job he would like to have.
Before Christie could intercede, Bannon grabbed him and asked to see him privately. Christie followed Bannon to his office impatiently. Hey, this is going to have to be quick, said Christie.
It’s really quick, said Bannon. You’re out.
Why? asked Christie, stunned.
We’re making a change.
“Okay, what are we changing?
You.
Why?
It’s really not important.
The method of his execution was unsurprising: Trump always avoided firing people himself. The man who played Mr You’re Fired on TV avoided personal confrontation in real life. The surprise was that it was being done now, just when the work of the transition team was most critical. Only when Christie threatened to go down and tell reporters that Bannon had fired him did Bannon concede, “It was Jared.”
In the days after the election, the people in the building on 17th and Pennsylvania were meant to move to another building in downtown DC, a kind of White House-in-waiting. They soon discovered that the lists that they had created of people to staff the Trump administration were not the lists that mattered. There was now this other list, of people allowed into the new building, and most of their names weren’t on it. “People would show up to the new building and say: ‘Let me in,’ and the secret service would say: ‘Sorry, you’re not on the list,’” said a civil servant who worked in the new building.
It wasn’t just Christie who had been fired. It was the entire transition team – although no one ever told them so directly. As Nancy Cook reported in Politico, Bannon visited the transition headquarters a few days after he had given Christie the news, and made a show of tossing the work the people there had done for Trump into the bin. Trump was going to handle the transition more or less by himself. Not even Bannon thought this was a good idea. “I was fucking nervous as shit,” Bannon later told friends. “I go, ‘Holy fuck, this guy [Trump] doesn’t know anything. And he doesn’t give a shit.’”
They were about to take control of the portfolio of existential risks managed by the US government. Only they weren’t. On the morning after the election the hundreds of people who had prepared to brief the incoming Trump administration sat waiting. A day became a week and a week became a month … and no one showed up. The parking spots that had been set aside for Trump’s people remained empty, and the briefing books were never opened. You could walk into almost any department of the US government and hear people asking the same question: where were these people who were meant to be running the place?
The department of agriculture was an excellent case study. The place had an annual budget of $164bn and was charged with so many missions critical to the society that the people who worked there played a drinking game called Does the Department of Agriculture Do It? Someone would name a function of government, say, making sure that geese don’t gather at US airports, and fly into jet engines. Someone else would have to guess whether the agriculture department did it. (In this case, it did.) Guess wrong and you had to drink. Among other things, the department essentially maintained rural America, and also ensured that the American poor and the elderly did not starve. Much of its work was complicated and technical – and yet for the months between the election and the inauguration, Trump people never turned up to learn about it. Only on inauguration day did they flood into the building, but the people who showed up had no idea why they were there or what they were meant to do. Trump sent, among others, a long-haul truck driver, a telephone company clerk, a gas company meter reader, a country club cabana attendant, a Republican National Committee intern and the owner of a scented candle company. One of the CVs listed the new appointee’s only skill as “a pleasant demeanor”.
All these people had two things in common. They were Trump loyalists. And they knew nothing whatsoever about the job they suddenly found themselves in. A new American experiment was underway.
• Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.
This is an edited extract from The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis, published by Penguin on 2 October.To order a copy for £17.20 (RRP £20), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.



BEYOND THE SEAS

This is my latest historical novel  Beyond the Seas When twelve-year-old orphan Nathaniel Asker is shipped from the back alleys of London to...