Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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

[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)

[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.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Trump to win?

A grizzled old veteran around these parts once told me the Republican Party is a machine that get a monkey elected if they decide that's what they need to do. But the Democrats only win the White House when they have a serious policy wonk (Bill Clinton, Obama) heading up their ticket.

This time the Democrats most definitely have an experienced policy wonk. But those credentials do not seem the slam dunk with voters it has been in the past.

And the Republican Party can't seem to decide if it really wants to throw its machinery behind its own nominated candidate.

FWIW, here's a quick Garry Trudeau take on things:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e80b1ba2ecdc

The recent Atlantic Article speaks right to this.

The reason is that both party machines have been put out of commission by various legal reforms, including:

1) restriction on financial contributions to parties
2) increased transparency of congressional committees
3) election rules weakening the power of party kingmakers.
4) crackdown on pork, making it harder to punish disruptive behavior/reward cooperative behavior

In the past, the likes of Trump would never have made the ballot, in either party. The state and local
party chairmen would not have allowed it, regardless of what the voters wanted.

Related to that, the republican primary represents only a small minority of total voters, hence it's ability to choose
Trumps.

The "rogue candidates" of the past, such as Goldwater and McGovern, were not what the kingmakers wanted,
but they were not disruptive like Cruz. They had been in office for years, owed favors and were owed, did not interfere with the normal function of government.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

would concur with jk and lazyboy here.

methinks the donald isnt quite upto dealing/debating with pro political hacks like hitlery on this level.

and she gave him PLENTY of openings to throw BIG rocks at her, which - quite disappointingly - he failed to volley back with (not the least of which was her bringing up his tax returns, whereupon he should've fired back with: 'i'll show my tax returns if you'll show your 'charitable' foundation records')

all in all, quite a disappointment - all we can hope for now is that he's saving the best stuff for the next debates

like who - besides GS - are her biggest campaign contributors, bill's signing of repeal of glass-steagall, their allowing osama bin laden to walk away in the 90's when they had him jailed in the sudan, why they didnt return to AR in 2001, instead moving to NY, how she managed to become a NY senator with such short residency, how she and obozo - the nobel peace prez - launched 3 MORE WARS - continue to 'double-down' in the quagmire of afghanistan, WITH NO VITAL US INTERESTS 'at stake' - while they abandoned iraq, the loser/fraud of a deal with iran, the failure of the obomba dept of juicetess to put anybody away after 7years of documented financial crimes - involving those very same campaign contributors?

yeah, any luck at all, he'll get some balls going on the next one...

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.

For fun, I have to recommend Andrew Sullivan's live blogging as exemplary of the best and most hilarious #NeverTrump over the top, pearl clutching freak-outery, beginning at "9 p.m. Take a deep breath." and ending with "10:39 p.m. ...I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now."


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...al-debate.html

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

do you think if trump WON the debate adams would say that that lost trump the election?
it seems to me that adams is saying that trump won by virtue of not looking crazy: a low bar to clear, but perhaps it is indeed all he needed.

A grizzled old veteran around these parts once told me the Republican Party is a machine that get a monkey elected if they decide that's what they need to do. But the Democrats only win the White House when they have a serious policy wonk (Bill Clinton, Obama) heading up their ticket.

This time the Democrats most definitely have an experienced policy wonk. But those credentials do not seem the slam dunk with voters it has been in the past.

And the Republican Party can't seem to decide if it really wants to throw its machinery behind its own nominated candidate.

FWIW, here's a quick Garry Trudeau take on things:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0e80b1ba2ecdc

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

OTOH, Scott Adams thinks losing the debate won Trump the election.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077...e-first-debate

do you think if trump WON the debate adams would say that that lost trump the election?
it seems to me that adams is saying that trump won by virtue of not looking crazy: a low bar to clear, but perhaps it is indeed all he needed.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Trump to win?

OTOH, Scott Adams thinks losing the debate won Trump the election.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1510077...e-first-debate

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

would concur with jk and lazyboy here.

methinks the donald isnt quite upto dealing/debating with pro political hacks like hitlery on this level.

and she gave him PLENTY of openings to throw BIG rocks at her, which - quite disappointingly - he failed to volley back with (not the least of which was her bringing up his tax returns, whereupon he should've fired back with: 'i'll show my tax returns if you'll show your 'charitable' foundation records')

all in all, quite a disappointment - all we can hope for now is that he's saving the best stuff for the next debates

like who - besides GS - are her biggest campaign contributors, bill's signing of repeal of glass-steagall, their allowing osama bin laden to walk away in the 90's when they had him jailed in the sudan, why they didnt return to AR in 2001, instead moving to NY, how she managed to become a NY senator with such short residency, how she and obozo - the nobel peace prez - launched 3 MORE WARS - continue to 'double-down' in the quagmire of afghanistan, WITH NO VITAL US INTERESTS 'at stake' - while they abandoned iraq, the loser/fraud of a deal with iran, the failure of the obomba dept of juicetess to put anybody away after 7years of documented financial crimes - involving those very same campaign contributors?

yeah, any luck at all, he'll get some balls going on the next one...