Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Next President?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • vt
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • EJ
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    "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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpatter666
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    FIRE will be totally tamed by a renegade within the industry who teams up with technology and business innovators.

    The alliance of Buffett, Bezos, and Dimon will be a huge aid to the business process, but will not be a part of the political
    leadership.

    This will likely happen in the next two presidential cycles.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by jk View Post
    i agree with you in a way. however, even in the unlikely event she would get elected she would face a hostile congress on BOTH sides of aisle.
    I'm not sure that's true. I've said it before, but the last time Republicans held as many federal and state offices as 2016 was 1928. An as in 1930 (although a bit smaller in magnitude, Dems gained 52 in 1930 and 41 in 2018), a large shift happened in 2018, not just in terms of numbers of seats won, but also in terms of the ideology of people who won those seats. There are 26 new members of the progressive caucus in the House of Reps as of today, bringing the total to 95 out of 235. That's quite near the tipping point of majority of Democrats in the house. They're bigger than the New Democrats now (the biggest difference between a New Dem and a Progressive is probably friendliness to FIRE), and the Blue Dog caucus is down to about 24. Just as in 1930, the Senate stayed in Republican hands. And like back then, the next two (the 2020 and 2022) Senate maps are unfavorable to Republicans.

    Oh, I don't doubt the Senate will be the stumbling point, as it usually is. But we're late in the expansion in volatility land. We've got a President who already has shitcanned over 400 of his own appointees just 2 years in, and who's under the most serious investigation probably at least since Watergate. And we've got a background milieu of both accelerating political polarization and accelerating inequality. Thanks to the 2018 election, it doesn't seem too far off in the tails of probability to me that the Progressives pick up another 20 or 30 seats in the House on the coattails of a Presidential wave election in 2020. If that happens, the new speaker's going to be ideologically somewhere between Pelosi and AOC, and Hoyer's going to lose his position. Put plainly, the House would look nothing like the 2008 House. It doesn't even look like it today.

    Like I said before, the Senate's stickier. But a President Warren might end up with a much friendlier House than you'd think. And even in the Senate, the most Conservative Democratic Senators on economic issues like Claire McCaskill (MO), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), and Joe Donnelly (IN) lost. Only Manchin held on. Think about that. The Dems only lost with their most Conservative economic candidates. Claire McCaskill lost campaigning against a minimum wage increase on the same ballot that won. Now, it's possible all this means nothing in the tea leaves. But I don't think so. I think it reflects an electorate that's changing. I think the moment the Washington Consensus cracked was 2016 when both Trump and Clinton were campaigning against TPP.

    I strongly suspect that 2020 is not going to be a squeaker decided by Ohio or something. It could be. But I don't think so. I think we're looking at a disjunctive president on the eve of a realignment. Maybe that happens in 2024 and not 2020. But I doubt it. Domestically, a generational shift is occurring. For the first time in a generation, Fox News is not the number one cable news channel any more. Turnout in 2018 absolutely smashed records, highest in a midterm in a hundred years. This is not the type of thing that happens before another textbook humdrum Presidential election.

    Plus, for the first time in half a century, I think there's a more or less concrete policy platform on the left that's leaking into the larger Dem party, and the Right is pretty much out of ideas. Not much more top bracket or corporate tax cutting to be had. Nobody wants the damned flat or fair tax; nobody's even trying to push that crap anymore. Nobody really has the stomach for tossing grandma off her Medicare. Border wall's kind of a sideshow, but whatever, wasting a couple billion for a goofy fence won't hurt any more than wasting a couple billion on some viaducts in Afghanistan that get blown up two years later. They've all but given up on having a healthcare plan of any kind.

    Meanwhile, foreign policy's in shambles. UK's prepping for a hard brexit crashout. Italy and Brazil have all but gone fascist. China's grinding to some sort of a slowdown. Russia's more likely to try to absorb Belarus to create a real Union State and keep Putin in power under a new constitution. Incidentally, this move totally surrounds Ukraine. And US' soft power has been roughly dismantled, while Lord knows what's happening on the strategic hard power front. Long story short, odds are Uncle Sam's largely sitting this one out.

    So anyways, who knows what will happen in the Primary. There's so many people rumored to be running, I can't keep track of them all. It's gonna go sequential as always, but the rules have changed a lot. In about 13 mos we'll have Iowa, then New Hampshire, then presumably a long three week wait to South Carolina. Warren could out-perform in NH. Not sure how she'll do in IA. But there will be so many people, it's going to come down to pluralities and whatnot. And New England punches above its weight in Democrat primaries, it's worth more delegates than Texas even though it's half the population. So combined with the timing, a strong showing there can be decisive. It's not necessarily. But it can be. Important thing is showing 'momentum,' even if you don't win outright, doing better in NH than you did in IA sets up that whole 'comeback kid' narrative.

    It's all odds and I don't even know what the field looks like yet. But it doesn't seem so implausible to me as it does to some others here.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by vt; 01-03-19, 02:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shiny!
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Perhaps a good follow-up question is: Even if an anti-FIRE candidate DID manage to beat the odds and get elected, could s/he actually get anything accomplished given how FIRE interests have so successfully taken over our political and economic systems? I would bet on massive, generated hysteria over anything and everything they would attempt to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • jpatter666
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by lakedaemonian View Post
    I could see here as a very potent running mate, but would she defer to another?
    Now that's a very good question.

    Leave a comment:


  • lakedaemonian
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    I think Warren is unelectable in a similar way to Howard Dean and his “Dean Scream” in 2004.

    Dean could argue his was the first campaign to effectively leverage the internet for campaigning.

    But one gaffe and the opposition pounce ruthlessly.

    Warren has had a few gaffes already and completely lacks the charisma to connect with large audiences.

    But I believe she has the right mindset and the ability to connect one to one and one to some, just not one to many.

    I could see here as a very potent running mate, but would she defer to another?

    Leave a comment:


  • jpatter666
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Originally posted by EJ View Post
    Can an anti-FIRE Economy candidate possibly win?
    It was possible in 2016. Not now.

    The reactionaries are in charge and Warren isn't seen as a radical alternative anymore. She missed her window IMO.

    The DNA testing did her no favors either as per the Trump tweet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...240896/photo/1

    I think whomever is the Democratic candidate might well campaign as anti-FIRE, but I'm expecting it to be an unholy alliance under the covers. Warren actually was (at least she was then in 2010 -- I haven't looked at her closely recently).

    Leave a comment:


  • BK
    replied
    Re: Our Next President?

    Sorry - I believe Elizabeth Warren lacks to charisma of Presidents Obama, Bush (both), Trump.

    The masses like to be sold and follow a charismatic leader. Every top elected leader has an ability to mesmerize a crowd in their own way.

    Reading a great book of Nazi Germany and Hitler had the special sauce to mesmerize the crowd. The Elites of Germany loved Hitlers oratory skill and figured to use him as a puppet to manipulate the masses. Hillary Clinton did not/does not have the ability to mesmerize and was able to win lots of states with her platform/resume, but not enough to secure the office.


    Just my theory and I may be completely wrong. Take a look at Elizabeth Warren drinking beer on Instagram which comes across as an awkward way to relate to voters.
    Then take a look at Ann Richardson (Democrat) former Governor of Texas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtIFhiqS_TY

    I think Ann Richardson had the special sauce and perhaps would have become President if alive today.
    Last edited by BK; 01-03-19, 12:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X