Our Next President?

[jpatter666]

Re: Our Next President?

All this will be led by an independent party led by a charismatic leader that will capture enough votes to win, and begin the
process of replacing the two corrupt parties we have now. It will be a revolution of the center, totally inclusive, free competitive markets,
and bring back a much larger middle class.

That's been the dream for over 20 years. Still see no sign of it.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Our Next President?

I think you're right in that the two will come together even more closely. But I think you'll see tech becoming more like fire, not the other way around. As the pace of innovation computing continues to slow, they will turn to increasingly intrusive, damaging, and dishonest business practices (including more financing and monthly subscription payments with surprise fees) in a desperate attempt to keep growth figures looking good. But the truth is, speed, processing power, and storage are already not advancing in the 2010s as fast as they did in the 2000s or 1990s or 1980s. There's more room to go, but the old exponential curve is already flattening out.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

Can an anti-FIRE Economy candidate possibly win?

having read all the other input here up to now I want to present a contrarian viewpoint; that all of you, including EJ, have placed the cart before the horse. That the underlying problem is; the FIRE economy is right at the point of complete failure and thus the debate should be about who in politics, (either here in the UK or with most of you in the USA), has a capacity to adapt to a FIRE collapse?

The FIRE economy has been built from the ground up by bureaucrats changing the underlying rules of each sector in FIRE as a means to cover up their own failure. A very good example being the extreme complexity of the underlying rules governing insurance. What was a very simple concept is today a veritable minefield of detailed regulation; all of which is designed to deliver maximum protection, not to the insured, but to the executive. Again, as a regular attendee of the last few years of IFLR International Financial Law Review conferences in London, their program of keeping everyone up to date with the changes in law show, repeatedly, the desperate uncertainty of ability to trade under the new rules.

We all live today in a zero interest rate environment precisely caused by the executive to prevent their financial bankruptcy; as such, they have nowhere to go. The more they try to change the rules of engagement; the worse their situation becomes.

We are today as though watching a clearly bankrupt company in our locality desperately trying not to go bankrupt, when every sign we see tells us they have no way out of their dilemma. Bankruptcy is the hard end game of any organisation that loses focus and then tries to change the rules to suite their perceived problem.

My view is we must expect that the entire FIRE economy will collapse. Yes, EJ has successfully, in my opinion, shown us we do not have a recognisable timescale. That does not change the underlying predicament of the executive. So the question should be; After the total collapse of the FIRE economy as we know it today; who will lead the way forward out of the collapse? They will need to be up to speed with the debate and fully aware of why, and that turns the question around again. Who will be able to lead the complete rebuild of the executive, from the ground up with a new ethos and an acceptance of the need to change?

The underlying problem of the FIRE economy is not political; it is the complete failure of the executive to recognise the need to change direction and accept that past thinking has failed. That requires new leadership to rise to the front of the executive. They are at present invisible, other than a few such as FED chairs and the like.

Here in the UK it is blindingly obvious that the political classes are confronted by an executive they fear; that as such, they cannot set into motion the required change of ethos and underlying leadership, because they see the executive as the means to their success; regardless of the underlying failure of policies.

The coming complete collapse of the underlying economic rules that have created the FIRE economy, requires an abandonment of acceptance of the present leadership of the executive; that they have to accept the complete failure of their own moral, intellectual and financial leadership.

The challenge today is not political; it is to seek out and promote a new leadership, under new rules of engagement and especially ethos; among the younger members of the present executive and give them the wherewithal to complete the rebuild of trust that will serve to bring the ships of state back into a proper supporting relationship with the needs of a free and prosperous nation.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Our Next President?

having read all the other input here up to now I want to present a contrarian viewpoint; that all of you, including EJ, have placed the cart before the horse. That the underlying problem is; the FIRE economy is right at the point of complete failure and thus the debate should be about who in politics, (either here in the UK or with most of you in the USA), has a capacity to adapt to a FIRE collapse?

The FIRE economy has been built from the ground up by bureaucrats changing the underlying rules of each sector in FIRE as a means to cover up their own failure. A very good example being the extreme complexity of the underlying rules governing insurance. What was a very simple concept is today a veritable minefield of detailed regulation; all of which is designed to deliver maximum protection, not to the insured, but to the executive. Again, as a regular attendee of the last few years of IFLR International Financial Law Review conferences in London, their program of keeping everyone up to date with the changes in law show, repeatedly, the desperate uncertainty of ability to trade under the new rules.

We all live today in a zero interest rate environment precisely caused by the executive to prevent their financial bankruptcy; as such, they have nowhere to go. The more they try to change the rules of engagement; the worse their situation becomes.

We are today as though watching a clearly bankrupt company in our locality desperately trying not to go bankrupt, when every sign we see tells us they have no way out of their dilemma. Bankruptcy is the hard end game of any organisation that loses focus and then tries to change the rules to suite their perceived problem.

My view is we must expect that the entire FIRE economy will collapse. Yes, EJ has successfully, in my opinion, shown us we do not have a recognisable timescale. That does not change the underlying predicament of the executive. So the question should be; After the total collapse of the FIRE economy as we know it today; who will lead the way forward out of the collapse? They will need to be up to speed with the debate and fully aware of why, and that turns the question around again. Who will be able to lead the complete rebuild of the executive, from the ground up with a new ethos and an acceptance of the need to change?

The underlying problem of the FIRE economy is not political; it is the complete failure of the executive to recognise the need to change direction and accept that past thinking has failed. That requires new leadership to rise to the front of the executive. They are at present invisible, other than a few such as FED chairs and the like.

Here in the UK it is blindingly obvious that the political classes are confronted by an executive they fear; that as such, they cannot set into motion the required change of ethos and underlying leadership, because they see the executive as the means to their success; regardless of the underlying failure of policies.

The coming complete collapse of the underlying economic rules that have created the FIRE economy, requires an abandonment of acceptance of the present leadership of the executive; that they have to accept the complete failure of their own moral, intellectual and financial leadership.

The challenge today is not political; it is to seek out and promote a new leadership, under new rules of engagement and especially ethos; among the younger members of the present executive and give them the wherewithal to complete the rebuild of trust that will serve to bring the ships of state back into a proper supporting relationship with the needs of a free and prosperous nation.

I just don’t see a “complete collapse” of the FIRE economy with all of its existing incumbents.

A complete collapse would be a United States FIRE version of socialist Venezuela’s complete collapse on the other end of the continuum. Or possibly some version of the multi-decade slow motion crash in Argentina.

Is a complete collapse possible? Of course. But that means the world burns.

But is it probably or likely? I think not. Because we will not let the world(or at least OUR part of the world) burn if there are alternatives.

I think a more likely outcome will be a “disorderly transition” of incumbents from old to new.

From long established centralised FIRE incumbents to existing decentralised incumbents(FAANG lights their FIREs ��) and to “what’s next” truly distributed future incumbents in areas of extremely low incumbent trust, possibly in the developing world.

My personal perception of EJ’s investment thesis/mindset is as follows:

Gold as a defensive hedge to retain value through a disorderly transition.

StartupS(plural) as a riskier offensive play to create/capture/grow value through a disorderly transition.

My personal thoughts are that we will see something akin to an economic/financial cliche of Sebastian Junger Perfect Storm book.

1)Legacy centralised FIRE economy incumbents

2)Recent decentralised FAANG economy incumbents

3)Emergent distributed technology enabled future incumbents

4)Atomic level shift in social demography

#1 will be largely supplanted by #2 in a disorderly transition.

#2 will be largely(and more quickly) supplanted by #3, because of #4

Just my 0.02c

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

The underlying problem, as I see it are the changes made to the rules governing financial institutions, a good example being the changes made to ensure sufficient quantity of the savings of nations being re-directed into the executive to cover their shortfalls. The end result being that, as an example, here in the UK, we are constantly being told of the importance of "Inward Investment"; when what they do not say is that - we need such simply because the majority of the savings of the citizens is re-directed towards the executive and as such, there is insufficient savings, as capital; at the full, savings institutional level, to support the long term investment needs of the nation. The end result is all of the present Western economies are grossly undercapitalised. Here, we had to go cap in hand to China to fund a new electricity power station; something that represents a basic need. Over the last few decades, again, to cover the shortfalls, here the executive has sold to France a good proportion of the electricity infrastructure in the Southern counties.

Everything points towards the rapidly rising debt levels of the executive governments of Western economies, the FIRE economy, being caused by their being unable to pay their way.

That is classic bankruptcy.

To reverse they have to return the basic rules of engagement of financial institutions back to where they were in the late 1960's. The FIRE economy cannot do that; they have no power to set that into motion. That is the invisible core problem no-one seems to want to address; the underlying rules created to deliver the debt into the hands of the executive; are the children of the executive.

Politicians are simply there to deliver the rule changes described to them by the executive. The complete control of the Western economies is not in the hands of the savings institutions; they have no power whatever to change the rules that have been imposed upon them. The necessary leadership has to stem from the executive; we see no sign of acceptance of that need from the executive and tell me of a politician here in the UK that will, publicly, do anything other than say; again and again, how wonderful and professional they are.

The entire Western economic model desperately needs a complete revision; away from delivering debt to an unresponsive executive; towards a well capitalised free enterprise economy; that places the capital investment needs of the people before their own, now very obvious desperate need, to cover up their long term failure to create policy that keeps the expenditure of the executive within the capability of the nation to deliver such.

The Western economies are essentially bankrupt. Period! That cannot continue without a collapse back to sanity.

[EJ]

Re: Our Next President?

"You didn't build that" Warren would be a disaster.

We do however need a much smaller FIRE that provides what the financial sector needs, but with all of the corruption and excessive costs
carved out of it. You are seeing more of that with top teams leaving wirehouses and becoming lower fee managers and financial planner RIAs

The big banks will be massively downsized by Amazon, Square, and other innovators.

The insurance industry will need to jettison all the useless variable annuity scams, and trim down to life and disability coverage.

The real estate industry will also be massively eroded by technology and new innovative solutions. 90%
of the 1 million plus real estate agents will have to find other jobs.

All this will be led by an independent party led by a charismatic leader that will capture enough votes to win, and begin the
process of replacing the two corrupt parties we have now. It will be a revolution of the center, totally inclusive, free competitive markets,
and bring back a much larger middle class.

I'm in! Who's your candidate?

[vt]

Re: Our Next President?

Unfortunately he lacks charisma, but former Senator Jim Webb of Virginia has the requisite experience and moderation to lead.

The ideal leader may come from outside the political arena, but have enough experience or understanding of how government works.
I'm not able to identify anyone at the moment but will contribute ideas as they come forth. I encourage others to suggest
candidates too.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

I'm in! Who's your candidate?

In the past, certainly here in the UK, the very best candidates were from the business community that had then recognised their commitment to a greater good, by taking public office; thus an EJ would have seen that moment and moved forward to address that challenge. While you EJ, may well not believe that is your destiny, then who other has a long, very successful, track record of regard for the need for such a debate that could also follow through?

[Techdread]

Re: Our Next President?

The Western economies are essentially bankrupt. Period! That cannot continue without a collapse back to sanity.

I do agree with this assertion, but to whom is this debt owed?

It seems that major eastern economies face the same head winds.




I think the world could carry considerable more debt than it has now, looking at the case of Japan the US should be able to triple it's debt burden.

As for the UK too many policy mistakes, like the privatisation madness of the eighties & Gordon Brown selling Gold, and now Brexit we will have no claim on EU's gold hoard.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

I do agree with this assertion, but to whom is this debt owed?

It seems that major eastern economies face the same head winds.




I think the world could carry considerable more debt than it has now, looking at the case of Japan the US should be able to triple it's debt burden.

As for the UK too many policy mistakes, like the privatisation madness of the eighties & Gordon Brown selling Gold, and now Brexit we will have no claim on EU's gold hoard.

On the one hand you are correct, "the world could carry considerable more debt than it has now", except that it is not the lender that faces bankruptcy, but the borrower. Again, if one has maintained a stable and positive income over outgoings position, then additional debt is always a normal economic condition. What we all face today is the consequence of a historical considerable greater portion of the additional debt being sourced from the savings of the nation, rather than from external markets. That has, in turn, depleted the ability of the nation to invest into new industry. Ergo, why that inability to so invest created the recent trend to source almost all manufactured goods from the likes of China.

Again, your point about UK policy mistakes is central to the ongoing dilemma facing the UK. On the other hand, as I understand it, China is massively increasing their gold holdings, purchased by, one must assume, selling their US dollars for the Gold. In which case they face much less difficulty in maintaining economic stability over the next stage of the ongoing collapse. Then add their recognition of the power of their massive internal market for their own manufacturing capacity; the exact opposite of the Western economic condition; they did not seek to source their manufactured goods from the West.

The East is thus in a much better place than the West.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Our Next President?

A thank you to seobook for the link to this by Chateaubriand here http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...772#post313772

The New York Times "accidentally" forgot to link to Frédéric Bastiat in their job engine story.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

"In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference — the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, — at the risk of a small present evil

I might subject a host of other questions to the same test; but I shrink from the monotony of a constantly uniform demonstration, and I conclude by applying to political economy what Chateaubriand says of history:-

"There are," he says, "two consequences in history; an immediate one, which is instantly recognized, and one in the distance, which is not at first perceived. These consequences often contradict each other; the former are the results of our own limited wisdom, the latter, those of that wisdom which endures. The providential event appears after the human event. God rises up behind men. Deny, if you will, the supreme counsel; disown its action; dispute about words; designate, by the term, force of circumstances, or reason, what the vulgar call Providence; but look to the end of an accomplished fact, and you will see that it has always produced the contrary of what was expected from it, if it was not established at first upon morality and justice."

(Chateaubriand. Posthumous Memoirs.)

The tragedy today is that no one within the executive, seems to have given any thought to the long term consequences of changing the rules for the use of the savings of the citizens of the nations, (previously used firstly by the people themselves to capitalise new start-ups in their local communities and thereafter, by the savings institutions of the nation to re-invest back into productive industry); which savings were instead then taken by the executive, to pay to cover up their ongoing failures. Those savings are the capital base for the entire nation; it is just like taking the food from the mouth of a child, the child inevitably has less to eat and grows at a reduced rate; so too does a nation's economy.

"Whatever be the actual state of the skill, dexterity, and judgement, with which labour is applied in any nation, the abundance or scantiness of its annual supply must depend, during the continuance of that state, upon the proportion between the number of those who are annually employed in useful labour, and that of those who are not so employed. The number of useful and productive labourers, it will hereinafter appear, is everywhere in proportion to the quantity of capital stock which is employed in setting them to work, and to the particular way in which it is so employed." Taken from; Introduction and Plan of the Work, The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith.

To finish, first, I want to say how much I do care about the plight of those US government employees that have been refused income by the decision to shut down the government as a ploy to try and force through funding for a Mexico wall. There will be, in any nation's executive, a majority of very hard working people. My debate is all about the leadership within an executive and their ongoing failure to recognise the consequences of past decisions.

Secondly, bankruptcy is a very brutal process, it forces change. But that has always been its merit and why we retain the process; it brings forward new thinking by forcing a change in direction at the top of any organisation so involved. Its strength is speed; bankruptcy creates an immediate change and thus opens the door to new thinking that speeds renewal. The faster we set bankruptcy into motion; the sooner we will renew and move forward. The longer we wait, the harder it will become.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Our Next President?

Can an anti-FIRE Economy candidate possibly win?

Here is what I see. The FIRE economy is happy to elect any president that focuses on issues other than FIRE after they are elected. They will gladly let Warren talk about these issues but privately negotiate with her and give her wins on what to me the media/social justice warriors see as the most important and easiest issues to make people happy/get them to vote for you: race, patriarchy, intersectionality, LGBT.... and gender.

IMO those issues will be the rallying cry of the election. Anything that destroys the so called white male patriarchy is fair game and they expect laws to be enacted to counter "it."

Canada is already moving in this direction.

In a time when there is no national crisis economically or militarily, these issues will be the driver of the election.

Austin Allred is on top of it: "Americans are so bored and so far removed form any struggle of mortal urgency that their feigned outrage over petty offenses has become an embarrassing theater of the absurd, with social media encouraging ever-more ridiculous displays."

[jk]

Re: Our Next President?

i doubt eliz warren is a viable candidate, but if so she won't buy substituting identity politics for an attack on the finance industry.

[seobook]

Re: Our Next President?

Anything that destroys the so called white male patriarchy is fair game and they expect laws to be enacted to counter "it."

said crusaders should move to Saudi Arabia to better enjoy the fruits of their labor
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...818#post313818

[jk]

Re: Our Next President?

Here is what I see. The FIRE economy is happy to elect any president that focuses on issues other than FIRE after they are elected. They will gladly let Warren talk about these issues but privately negotiate with her and give her wins on what to me the media/social justice warriors see as the most important and easiest issues to make people happy/get them to vote for you: race, patriarchy, intersectionality, LGBT.... and gender.

IMO those issues will be the rallying cry of the election. Anything that destroys the so called white male patriarchy is fair game and they expect laws to be enacted to counter "it."

Canada is already moving in this direction.

In a time when there is no national crisis economically or militarily, these issues will be the driver of the election.

Austin Allred is on top of it: "Americans are so bored and so far removed form any struggle of mortal urgency that their feigned outrage over petty offenses has become an embarrassing theater of the absurd, with social media encouraging ever-more ridiculous displays."

it is possible you are right in these predictions, poz, but i sincerely hope you're wrong. both sanders and warren, neither of whom are likely to get the nomination imo, are very focused on the banking system and shadow banking system. it is my hope that their efforts will help the democrats keep economic realities as a focus, albeit certainly not their only focus.