Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

fwiw, the financial markets scored the debate for clinton.
the mexican peso rose during the debate.
the betting markets increased the odds of a clinton win.

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

Did not watch. Insomnia and shoulder pain got me up at 3:00 to read the msm commentary and the Trump-sided press. Bar was set pretty low for Trump and by the commentariat, more or less made it.

Trump was himself and HRC was herself and neither surprised us. No minds changed, but it does seem the ones most critical of Trump's less polished "performance" is the Trump hard corps...

well.. you certainly didnt miss much - would say that this seems like a great summary of his options/tactics going forward:

This Is What Trump Should Do In The Second Debate

"Fuck all these skewed polls. The debate didn't matter, and it didn't change anyone's mind..Trump should have been hammering the Clintons (that's right, Hillary and Bill) on putting Wall Street in change of America's economy, but he spent far too much time defending himself...Trump needs to paint the Clintons as the tag team that gave the country away to the banksters, and forced 76% of Americans into living a paycheck to paycheck lives..."

• Sep 27, 2016 6:17 PM

and can not understand why he did not (other than saving 'the good stuff' for later)

fwiw, the financial markets scored the debate for clinton.
the mexican peso rose during the debate.
the betting markets increased the odds of a clinton win.

yeah, but...
methinks THAT is the spin from the usual finance media suspects
(most of whom no doubt are pulling for the status quo, as it keeps THEIR gravy train rollin)

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

here's another beauty (whether you like him or not, at least he isnt afraid to skewer the political class)

"The Donald Nailed It" Stockman Screams "We Are In A Big Fat Ugly Bubble"

Most of the 90 minutes last night was a waste - with both candidates lobbing well-worn clichés, slogans and sound bites at the audience and each other.But there was one brief moment that made it all worthwhile.

• Sep 27, 2016 9:35 PM

i esp like this part:

Trump thereby landed a direct hit on the false Wall Street/Washington postulate that the Fed has been the nation’s economic savior. And he also elicited an almost instant defense of its destructive, anti-capitalist regime of Bubble Finance—-albeit in the guise of a “fact check” by the New York Times’ Fed reporter, Benyamin Appelbaum.


To be sure, there were actually no “facts” to check in Trump’ statement. It was simply an entirely correct judgment that the utterly unnatural interest rates engineered by the Fed have fueled an egregious inflation of financial asset prices and that “some very bad things” are going to happen when the Fed’s market rigging operation is finally halted.


Still, and opinion or not, Appelbaum emitted a barrage of harrumphing and scolding, implying that Trump is some kind of yokel who does not understand the sacred independence of the Fed:

In attacking the Fed, Mr. Trump is plowing across a line that presidential candidates and presidents have observed for the past several decades. There has been a bipartisan consensus that central banks operate most effectively when they are shielded from short-term political pressures. Indeed, President Richard M. Nixon’s insistence that the Fed should not raise rates in the early 1970s played a role in unleashing a long era of inflation — and in convincing his successors that it was better to leave the Fed to its technocratic devices.

Technocratic devices? Now that is downright balderdash because what the Fed is doing is profoundly and resoundingly political.


To wit, after 94 months on the zero bound the Fed has executed the most massive income and wealth transfer in American history. Upwards of $2.5 trillion has been extracted from the hides of main street savers and retirees over that eight year period (@ $300 billion per year). All of that and then some was gifted to the banks and Wall Street speculators.


Needless to say, a wealth redistribution that monumental in scope and capricious in impact would never see the light of day among the unwashed “politicians” that Appelbaum apparently thinks are too benighted to be involved in monetary policy. That’s because whether or not they embrace the Keynesian nostrum that saving is bad and debt is good, the nation’s politicians are smart enough to know that the sweeping fiscal transfer at the core of Fed policy would be shouted down by the voters in a thunderous chorus of denunciation and derision.


Stated differently, the politician at least know that if the Congress were to enact anything remotely similar to the Fed’s savage and relentless attack on savers and wage-earners, they would be on the receiving end of the torches and pitchforks that would descend on the Imperial City.


In fact, this wanton redistribution from savers to debtors and speculators is occurring only because a happenstance of history has put lethal financial power in the hands of an insulated, unelected monetary politburo; and one that has been taken-over by a tiny posse of delusional and power-hungry Keynesian academics, to boot.


Journalistic hacks like Appelbaum, along with Steve Liesman of CNBC and Jon Hilsenrath of the Wall Street Journal, not only exhibit the worst kind of access-driven mendacity; they also faithfully perpetuate all the myths, shibboleths and outright lies that insulate the Fed from any policy accountability whatsoever.

but read the rest of it (no sacred cows here, on either side of the aisle, esp his side)

and:

The truth is, Janet Yellen is a paint-by-the-numbers academic fool who has no clue about the havoc she and her posse have unleashed on the American economy. Yet she gets away with it exactly owing to the “Fed independence” cover story so mendaciously peddled by the likes of Appelbaum, Liesman and Hilsenrath.


Thank heavens for the Donald. He knows a rigged job when he sees it, and, at least last night, was undomesticated enough to let 100 million voters hear the truth.

+ 1000 to the 10th power

[FrankL]

Re: Trump to win?

fwiw, the financial markets scored the debate for clinton.
the mexican peso rose during the debate.
the betting markets increased the odds of a clinton win.

The 'financial markets' were claiming victory for the EU remain vote in Britain until the actual votes had been counted.

...Also based on (exit)poll results.

I suspect that a certain number of individuals don't want to admit they would vote for a choice for which they may be 'attacked', but they are comfortable voting for in the privacy of the voting booth. This goes for UKIP / Brexit in the UK, many nationalist parties in Europe (e.g. Le Pen), and who knows, maybe Trump in the US?

He probably would need to improve on his debate skills, as that was a pretty poor show, last night, imo...

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...I suspect that a certain number of individuals don't want to admit they would vote for a choice for which they may be 'attacked'"

Ya think?

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

I actually think this is where Eric could weigh in, or weigh in again. It's easy to dismiss Greenspan, Bernanke, and Yellen as being out of touch with the real economy, but same goes for Stockman. He's the mother of all cherry pickers. In the 5 weeks surrounding the contested 2000 election, the NASDAQ lost 25%, and I have seen this fact show up in several recent columns where writers are predicting stock market turmoil or crashes if the current election is super close. They all fail to note that the DJIA remained unchanged during the same time period.

I rarely watch or read much financial news anymore, but the guy on Bloomberg whispering/shouting, “Watch the peso!” That was funny.

[Bundi]

Re: Trump to win?

Oh, c'mon! Doesn't anyone have an opinion on the debate? I fell asleep halfway through and my Tivo didn't record the last half hour. Nobody's nose grew two feet long, nobody burst into flames. Disappointing, really...

Amen to that Shiny.

Call me naïve for continuing to hope but I missed the part where either or both addressed the structural changes required to transition the US and world economies to something more sustainable without emergency policy supports. And the relevant discussion on the context behind any limitations imposed/work arounds proposed in the process of achieving those structural changes, by one or another past, present, or future potential systems.

Otherwise, great job by both.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Amen to that Shiny.

Call me naïve for continuing to hope but I missed the part where either or both addressed the structural changes required to transition the US and world economies to something more sustainable without emergency policy supports. And the relevant discussion on the context behind any limitations imposed/work arounds proposed in the process of achieving those structural changes, by one or another past, present, or future potential systems.

Otherwise, great job by both.

Your sarcasm is well noted.

Did anyone else hear Hillary's call for profit-sharing, saying that employees "should" be able to share in company profits? Venezuela, anyone?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsil...is-in-trouble/

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Did anyone else hear Hillary's call for profit-sharing, saying that employees "should" be able to share in company profits? Venezuela, anyone?

I'm obviously on record as a voter in the camp of this candidate but I found that statement confused. A salary is a contract to pay someone a specified amount whether the company makes money or loses money. No employee has the expectation they will participate in loss-sharing. If they had that tolerance, they would be an entrepreneur. HRC is just pandering to the Sanders crowd, that's why she said "should". Very little will change from the current administration to an HRC administration. I'm happy to support that direction. I noticed today that the Arizona Republic is doing the same. They've never supported a Dem in their 125+ year history, they do today.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Trump to win?

Amen to that Shiny.

Call me naïve for continuing to hope but I missed the part where either or both addressed the structural changes required to transition the US and world economies to something more sustainable without emergency policy supports. And the relevant discussion on the context behind any limitations imposed/work arounds proposed in the process of achieving those structural changes, by one or another past, present, or future potential systems.

Otherwise, great job by both.

This series is making an attempt...2nd link on Rochester explains a lot.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...eck-is-stacked

http://longform.marketplace.org/can-...g-save-america

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I'm obviously on record as a voter in the camp of this candidate but I found that statement confused. A salary is a contract to pay someone a specified amount whether the company makes money or loses money. No employee has the expectation they will participate in loss-sharing. If they had that tolerance, they would be an entrepreneur. HRC is just pandering to the Sanders crowd, that's why she said "should". Very little will change from the current administration to an HRC administration. I'm happy to support that direction. I noticed today that the Arizona Republic is doing the same. They've never supported a Dem in their 125+ year history, they do today.

She does pander to every crowd she addresses, so it's hard to say which lie she's leaning toward on any given day. Very little may change from an Obama to a Clinton administration, as little changed from the Bush to Obama. I think for the larger part of the electorate, that is precisely the source of Trump's surge in the face of unified opposition from the political and media elites and the financial crooks who bankroll them.

But two things we can be sure of is that taxes will go up in an HRC administration and she will lead America into the next neocon war.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Meanwhile we continue to see the same old tired Democrook rant complaining about voter ID laws as discriminatory. My mother, who died in 1998, never had a driver's license but she was able to easily get a state ID in North Carolina in the 1980's.

The voter ID issue is a cover for rogue elements in the Democrat party to cheat:

http://www.richmond.com/news/virgini...aa70012f9.html

The Republicrooks have their own dirty tricks of course, but let's put a stop to the voter ID discrimination crap.

[Bundi]

Re: Trump to win?

This series is making an attempt...2nd link on Rochester explains a lot.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...eck-is-stacked

http://longform.marketplace.org/can-...g-save-america

Thank you for the references. Interesting perspectives and also an avenue to attempt to make a difference in general understanding.

Much appreciated.

I don’t understand politics that well so typically get lost in what sounds to me more like noise than nuance. Add in the reality that politicians say what they feel will get them votes and it is hard to discern actual practical vision and in office intent from the trench warfare messiness of day to day campaign messaging. The former is hard enough to figure out and the latter is just boring to me as it feels like a power grab for the sake of it, hence the sarcasm to cover up my frustration and ignorance about what is going on.

The last time I voted was 6 years ago, in a US Senatorial election cycle. I regretted that vote and made it known to lots of folks, some of whom were local and connected. Suffice to say that feedback (much of it learned by participation here on this site) was not well received and the ensuing few years or interactions with folks taught me a fair amount about my own limitations as well about the pursuit and use of political power.

First off, I realized that I do care a lot about the outcomes. I always kind of have cared but more in a debating sense of things, on the particular issues. Over the last several years though in a deeper sense because it was personal and things seemed and still seem to be out of whack to a degree that calls for some real transformative political leadership.

So I have followed this thread because the forum helps me understand what I really think about things. It is helpful and I very much appreciate the inputs and perspectives from so many of those here smarter and more experienced than me! I wish though I could say I share the passion or conviction for either candidate that some seem to feel, but I don’t. Turns out I am like many here, full of ambivalence about what either candidate really offers, in the way of upside anyway, yet desiring to cast a vote to make a difference and be accounted for in the process. Still don’t know which way I would go but I at least hope to convince myself to participate this time. Even though it feels like options don’t feel well defined, at least on the big picture issues that I think matter most.

In any event, this is a reminder that there are ways in addition to casting votes that can possibly make a meaningful difference.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

...little changed from the Bush to Obama.

• Unemployment down from 10.1% to 4.9%
• 3X as many jobs created under the Obama administration than Bush
• Forbes magazine says Obama outperformed Reagan in jobs growth

...two things we can be sure of is that taxes will go up in an HRC administration

If you make $400,000 a year or more, congratulations and yes, your taxes will most likely go up...as they should.

...she will lead America into the next neocon war.

Bold statement but of course it's pure speculation. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld wars in Iraq and Afghanistan massively destabilized the Middle East. We'll continue to pay for that until their oil runs dry and we can sufficiently support ourselves with renewable energy sources and non Middle East energy supplies.