Donald Trump


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I have become tired of saying the obvious, that when you make more money you can spend more money, so I'm just going to wait until people see it.

I used to think this was common sense, that everyone knows rich folks can buy more stuff than poor folks can and they don't even need credit if they have enough money, but apparently, grown adults no longer see this as true.

You're not the only one who doesn't understand it, either. [snip]

Baal, I won't be so condescending to you. You also probably know there is a difference between making money and taking money. The lady pictured at the top of this webpage knew that very well, too. One can spend more money by taking more money. Governments are very good at taking money. That is the IRS's job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

I have become tired of saying the obvious, that when you make more money you can spend more money, so I'm just going to wait until people see it.

I used to think this was common sense, that everyone knows rich folks can buy more stuff than poor folks can and they don't even need credit if they have enough money, but apparently, grown adults no longer see this as true.

You're not the only one who doesn't understand it, either. This denial is pretty widespread.

I'm with Rush when he says people are "gonna be shocked. They're gonna be blown away by what's possible." 

What he means is that rich folks can do a lot more than poor folks. And since we are going to be rich, we are going to do great things, both individually and collectively as a country, without adding to any debt. Including the military...

On the contrary, I think the US is going to do like the rich folks do and pay off its debts.

Michael

The US will never pay off it's debts--because it doesn't have to since all its debts are in its own currency. In fact it should not even try. That would precipitate a recession if not depression, especially if combined with a global trade war of depreciating currencies and tariffs.

Other dollar debts are another matter and you can apply your thesis to those.

--Brant

actually, the federal debt does not even exist except as a legal fiction--and in just the same way private debts would not exist if one merely had to go down to the basement and turn on the printing press to make a payment (I'm tired of pointing this out [ho, ho, ho])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I hope Trump does not fall in the same hole as did Ronald Reagan  who (with his party) delivered $1.75 worth of government  for ever $1.00  collected in taxes.   RWR's  Laffer Curve based strategy was a complete bust and it lead to the biggest increase in the deficit in U.S.  history.   RWR  was a Stealth New Dealer  in Republican Garb. 

Trump has talked about pumping up the military.  If he does he will have to cut somewhere else.  It is the only way he can do it without increasing the deficit. 

There is no problem per se with increasing the deficit. (The problem may come with the effect of the new money on the economy.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much of the economy--the US and world-wide--is built on too much debt. For one thing, the over-hang of inventories financed by cheap credit has to be worked out of the system first. All Trump can do about that is to keep pumping the dollar pump. Deregulating will help but won't be able to overcome this problem of necessary economic pain. If the government puts $2 into the economy and only generates $1 in economic activity today while yesterday that generated $1.50 it's likely tomorrow to generate $.50. That's the current downward slope.

--Brant

Trump may be the next Herbert Hoover and generate depression and war and Democrat supremacy for generations except it's doubtful democracy will survive overt empire (and Trump's too old to be emperor but might give it a stab)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, merjet said:

The lady pictured at the top of this webpage knew that very well, too.

Absolutely.

That is one of the reasons why I supported Trump and still do. He knows how to create wealth by producing values and he expects others to do so, also. If not, he fires them.

Everyone else seems to be calculating about how to divide up a cadaver in some sick zero-sum game.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw - I forgot to mention, Trump has the power now. His critics do not.

They will not be able to stop him from getting people to produce wealth and creating an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before.

And that's because Trump has the power now. His critics do not.

I don't know if I mentioned that.

About Trump having the power and others not.

I just wanted to make sure so there would be no misunderstanding.

:evil: 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

They will not be able to stop him from getting people to produce wealth and creating an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before.

 

On 12/8/2016 at 10:02 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Good, good. An empirically testable assertion. We shall see.....

MSK has lots of faith. Can he be more specific? For example, what will real GDP per capita, or nominal GDP, growth be for years 2017-20? How much is he willing to bet on his answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump has the power now. His critics do not.

They will not be able to stop him from getting people to produce wealth and creating an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before.

And that's because Trump has the power now. His critics do not.

I don't know if I mentioned that.

About Trump having the power and others not.

Trump will have even more power when he assumes the office next month.  His power will extend beyond that vested in the office constitutionally as head of state and head of government. He will use the "bully pulpit" and his command of media and an extra somewhat-intangible power of Trump the persuader.  His every word will be news. 

He  will use that institutional and personal power.  He will devolve some power to his Cabinet and alphabet agencies. He will act as the Manager, the Inspiration, The Voice of America.

The power of a President, however, is not unlimited, bound by the Second Estate, the Third Estate, the fourth estate, ultimately vested in the free people, divvied up by the republican-federal nature of the polity.

So, Trump will certainly have the power of a Bush, a Reagan, a Roosevelt.  

Others?  Well, depending on how one sorts out the proportions,  residual power remains with 'the people' in federal design, some sub-federal jurisdictions may not be entirely on-board with Trump policies, and free-world  'opposition' and 'scrutiny' abounds.  The opposition might be found in the non-nation California, for example, in its 'city-states.'  It might be found in the state of Washington. It might be found in an interest-group not allied with the new presidency.

One thing to rejoice over -- for a democrat -- is how very far a Trump presidency will be from the feverish expectations of doom.   For example, I have seen many comparisons made to Erdogan, the present President of Turkey.   Under that system, it has been possible for the leader to extirpate opposition in its normal sense by re-casting it as traitorous and anti-Turkish.  

He has used lèse-majesté  laws to shutter opposition news media, to imprison 'opponents' in the media and industry, to re-order the media landscape so that it reflects his goals and thinking.  He has shuttered independent schools, he has demonized and traitorized those who are opposed to his grander plans.  He uses his 'personal power' to mow through any obstacles to his dream of more personal power. 

None of that will be possible in America. Its institutions are too robust, and the tradition of free expression, free assembly, freedom to associate are graven deeply, ineradicably. 

I am on the whole hopeful for America for the four years of a Trump term. He cannot be an Erdogan, he cannot be a Putin, he cannot be a Suharto or a Bizarro World version of Maduro.  That is not how your system works.   

The power, then, is in tension-balance with other powers -- vested by the Constitution.  From some angles an anarchic beast of contention, from some others a glorious expression of liberties and diligence.

So, as with some others who have uttered fears and doubts, I wish Trump only the best, insofar as I would wish any President the best.  I think he will surprise some observers by his pragmatism and a tendency to 'compromise.'   

Now, back briefly to an implied point, which perhaps doesn't need restating:  A President as one of the powers in your system, an executive who cannot rule alone.

To the notion that 'critics' are out of power, sure. Control of both legislative bodies lies with the GOP for at least the next two years.  'Control' of the Supreme Court is not always assured (hi, Justice Roberts, you traitor). And yet critics will still have a measure of power in America, relative to other countries.

I think there are very very few Trump supporters who would even want an Erdogan or Putin-style leader -- or a system which roots out critics as dangerous, which imposes a single authority. They want a strong President, not a Strongman.   Nobody on this forum wants a Strongman -- that is inimical to the Randian project, and equally as inimical to the 'loyal opposition.'

Good luck to Mr Trump and his Cabinet and appointees. Good luck in navigating the shoals of power.  Good luck to the 'critics' who do their jobs responsibly. 

And for those our leader refers to as "don't worry your little head," keep your powder dry and don't be surprised by playground insults or emotional displays of dominance and suck-it-up-sweetheart. Don't be led astray when discussion is personalized.   Though you have effectively 0.00 power in relation to the leader measured on a gazillion scale, though you have no power against the Patrolman, though you will always lose in dominance/turf play, you have this audience. Persuasive arguments are persuasive arguments. Evidence is evidence. Probabilities can be assessed. Performances can be critiqued. 

In a small, microcosmic sense, we live in Trump Tower here. The ruling paradigm assigns 'critics'  or 'bashers' to an epistemic sub-basement called 1 Hate Avenue, Suite #666, never to a "loyal opposition."  The assigned probability of a Trump critic/doubter being deemed hater, fanatic, enemy of the Republic is high, very high.  But that estimation is not reality.

Is it possible to construct a persuasive piece of rhetoric, a logical argument, a compelling critical commentary, and publish it here?

100%

Will that persuasion fail to appeal to at least one reader? 

100%

Will a fan-club climate burn out or send to the lake every last 'critic'? (Hater, Satanist, Loser)

Not much chance in my mind right now, but subject to Bayesian inferences going forward.

10 11 9%

Edited by william.scherk
I went on a nit picnic and all I got was a gotcha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Too much of the economy--the US and world-wide--is built on too much debt.

Hi, Brant. Quote above caught my eye, reminded me of the strange concept of "good collateral." Believe it or not, there's 100x more demand for Treasurys than the current $20T supply. Prime dealers pledge bonds to borrow cash to buy more bonds and lenders rehypothecate to others who need AAA collateral. The world needs and wants us to issue more "good collateral" Treasury debt and AA+ corporate. Sounds goofy, but there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Hi, Brant. Quote above caught my eye, reminded me of the strange concept of "good collateral." Believe it or not, there's 100x more demand for Treasurys than the current $20T supply. Prime dealers pledge bonds to borrow cash to buy more bonds and lenders rehypothecate to others who need AAA collateral. The world needs and wants us to issue more "good collateral" Treasury debt and AA+ corporate. Sounds goofy, but there it is.

The use of financial derivatives (futures, options, swaps, etc.) has grown enormously in recent decades. Requiring the opposing party in a derivative contract to provide collateral for security against the possibility of payment default has grown with it. Collateral management

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, merjet said:

MSK has lots of faith. Can he be more specific? 

Merlin,

I don't need to. Besides, who want's to waste time trying to convince the already convinced?

A lot of experts told me a year and a half ago that Trump would not make it to the end of the primaries. No chance. It was laughable. Trump won the primaries.

A lot of experts told me Trump would not beat Hillary. No chance. It was laughable. Trump won the election.

Now a lot of experts are telling me Trump will not create the economic boom he ran on. No chance. It is laughable. I say baloney. Trump will do that, too. 

It seems like I know something the naysaying experts don't. That's the way history keeps playing out. And it seems like they don't want to know what I know, not really. After all, they're the experts, not me. :evil: 

They want to be right, not rich.

(I find that laughable, but who am I? Certainly not an expert. :) )

The experts are wrong. They were wrong before and they keep being wrong. At least they're wrong with certainty and expertise.

:) 

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

And for those our leader refers to as "don't worry your little head," keep your powder dry and don't be surprised by playground insults or emotional displays of dominance and suck-it-up-sweetheart. Don't be led astray when discussion is personalized.   Though you have effectively 0.00 power in relation to the leader measured on a gazillion scale, though you have no power against the Patrolman, though you will always lose in dominance/turf play, you have this audience. Persuasive arguments are persuasive arguments. Evidence is evidence. Probabilities can be assessed. Performances can be critiqued. 

In a small, microcosmic sense, we live in Trump Tower here. The ruling paradigm assigns 'critics'  or 'bashers' to an epistemic sub-basement called 1 Hate Avenue, Suite #666, never to a "loyal opposition."  The assigned probability of a Trump critic/doubter being deemed hater, fanatic, enemy of the Republic is high, very high.  But that estimation is not reality.

William,

Of course not. That's the banter part.

The Trump discussion on OL has developed into an entertaining subtext pattern since he's been elected. I've merely had fun with it. And the thing goes around and around and around. It goes like this:

SOME PEOPLE: Trump sucks and won't do shit and you're a fool for believing in him.

ME: Trump's got power, not you.

:) 

For some reason that pattern has proven to be robust. It keeps spinning. There were different subtext patterns during the primaries and election, but they have dissipated. I expect this one to go the way of the dodo bird before too long, too.

As to getting personal, people who don't want things to get personal should not start by making things personal. But they always do and, from the way they act, they never seem to realize it.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't need to.

:D I see your prediction of "wealth and an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before" remains a huuuuge hyperbole.

I'll make it easier for you -- no $wager, only what real GDP growth will average 2017-20. Simply give us an approximate percentage, e.g. 2% or 6% or 10% or 15%. 

Trump said 3.5% and 4% at different times. Business economists think Trump's GDP forecast is too rosy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, merjet said:

:D I see your prediction of "wealth and an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before" remains a huuuuge hyperbole.

I'll make it easier for you -- no $wager, only what real GDP growth will average 2017-20. Simply give us an approximate percentage, e.g. 2% or 6% or 10% or 15%. 

Trump said 3.5% and 4% at different times. Business economists think Trump's GDP forecast is too rosy

There are several (domestic) economies that could be affected several different ways from what the federal government does. (This does not address state and local governments' activities.) One might contract while another expands resulting in no net gain--at first.

What actually happens with the Trump Administration is going to be extremely interesting. Clinton would have expanded the wrong economy and contracted the wrong economy--more Obama. I would have been bored out of my head knowing what was going to happen to the extent of just leaving the country and disappearing from the public weal. (OL is part of the public weal.) 

--Brant

don't worry about the economy--worry about war 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Of course not. That's the banter part.

The Trump discussion on OL has developed into an entertaining subtext pattern since he's been elected. I've merely had fun with it. And the thing goes around and around and around. It goes like this:

SOME PEOPLE: Trump sucks and won't do shit and you're a fool for believing in him.

ME: Trump's got power, not you.

:) 

For some reason that pattern has proven to be robust. It keeps spinning. There were different subtext patterns during the primaries and election, but they have dissipated. I expect this one to go the way of the dodo bird before too long, too.

As to getting personal, people who don't want things to get personal should not start by making things personal. But they always do and, from the way they act, they never seem to realize it.

:)

Michael

Studup you Ignotramimus!

--Brant

now I feel better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, merjet said:

The use of financial derivatives (futures, options, swaps, etc.) has grown enormously in recent decades. Requiring the opposing party in a derivative contract to provide collateral for security against the possibility of payment default has grown with it. Collateral management

A lot of the collateral is assumed or inferred or just lies to begin with.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

A lot of the collateral is assumed or inferred or just lies to begin with.

Brant,

Look what happens to banks when their derivatives go belly up.

The taxpayers bail them out through the formal approval of well-cronied politicians.

It looks to me like the real collateral is tax revenues. It doesn't matter what the documents say. That's why the starting point can be a piece of dog-shit with a safe-keeping receipt or something of equal value, but the spin-and-churn can generate bazillions in derivatives. 

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Look what happens to banks when their derivatives go belly up.

The taxpayers bail them out through the formal approval of well-cronied politicians.

It looks to me like the real collateral is tax revenues. It doesn't matter what the documents say. That's why the starting point can be a piece of dog-shit with a safe-keeping receipt or something of equal value, but the spin-and-churn can generate bazillions in derivatives. 

:)

Michael

Banking is money-system fascism or socialism. The banks are extensions of the central bank, whatever country we are talking about.

In addition to tax collections--of funny money btw--the ability to monetize debt plays a major role in federal expenditures and is the number one way to gin up a country for major war. Thus, in an economy, the Federal government is always the major player--that is, it has the economy by the balls along with all its regulations.

When a country collapses its currency collapses. This happened to South Vietnam in 1975 for an existential reason. It happened to Zimbabwe from the inside out. Real wealth is goods and services with money--funny money--a placeholder for it. The value of the money is faith placed. We have to have faith in it for the economy to function save on the most primitive barter level. To be more precise, we have to have faith that the government is the only manufacturer of its money. In that sense the government is us and we are the government. This feeds patriotic if not nationalistic impulses. Waving the dollar is waving the flag, but the former is for peace and the latter is for war. Call it statist synergy.

"I am an American!" is easier on the brain and a lie for those who really mean "I am a United Statesian!" An American is actually a moral, individualist ideal and the other an embracer of collectivism incarnate. I'm personally about 2/3rds American and 1/3 bad. It's psychological. I can't shake it except philosophically. Big Brother got me early on, but now I've reversed our roles and keep Him chained up in my basement. (I've read George H. Smith; I've corresponded with George H. Smith; but I'm no George H. Smith. Does he even have a basement?)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wild Bill wrote: He will use that institutional and personal power.  He will devolve some power to his Cabinet and alphabet agencies. He will act as the Manager, the Inspiration, The Voice of America . . . . And yet critics will still have a measure of power in America, relative to other countries. end quote

Well said, William. Has any President Elect ever negated the sitting President in the manner of Donald Trump vs. Obama? His performances dominating the news and the media’s news projections of Trump‘s future successes are impressive and remind me of the Christmas Future character from Dickens. This is a harbinger of things to come after the inauguration. We will change direction. The supporting actors, the cabinet and assistants, are on their marks, getting set to go. The societal optimism and rise in the Stock Market are because of Trump, not some lingering vestiges of Obama’s socialism. Just ask anyone who is now part of the economic surge.

We on the libertarian, free market, capitalist right, need to continue to criticize Trump’s picking winners, handing out goodies, and inflating the truth so he looks better. His powers must never exceed The Constitution. But I do recognize President Trump will be a master at persuasion, and he does act impulsively. I hope he will discuss what he is going to do with his advisors and with the American people before he does it or he may end up in hot water . . . . which will lead to failure . . . and he doesn't seem to handle losses too well.

As an example, what will he do with healthcare after he strikes down Obamacare? Laissez Faire or meddle with market forces?

Peter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a Trump supporter like me, how sweet it is.

(From RCP video--sorry it does not embed, you have to go to the link to see it):

Chris Wallace: Donald Trump Is Acting Like He Is "Kind Of The Commander-in-Chief Already"

Here is some of what Chris Wallace said on the video (even with Shep Smith trying to lead him in a different anti-Trump direction):

Quote

... he is doing things differently than any president-elect I can remember. In a sense, he is almost more the president than the president is. 

We pay more attention when he speaks about China or what he is going to do about jobs or economic policy and saving jobs -- it has more traction than when President Obama says things. So he is not waiting until the takes the oath of office on January 20th. He is kind of the commander-in-chief already...

I think he got a lot of points when he intervened in the Carrier dispute. You can argue whether it was 800 jobs or 1100 jobs. Here was a president-elect taking direct action to save hundreds of jobs from going across border to Mexico, and more importantly: When he talks about creating a favorable business climate, rolling back regulations, lower taxes, that's one of the reasons that you see the stock market taking off. This isn't just a coincidence. This is because investors believe it's going to be a much more favorable environment for companies to do business, and that kind of an environment is one in which more people will be hired.

It's weird seeing someone in the mainstream press who is not a Trump supporter reporting on Trump in a rational manner.

I hope this starts a trend.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

The banks are extensions of the central bank

I guess have to put my hand up. Privately-held or publicly-traded, large or small, in all cases banks create more money than central banks, and they have done it historically, currently, and must do in the future if we are to continue to enjoy a financial future more complex than barter. Banks stop creating money when they stop lending, because loan proceeds are new money credited to borrowers by way of bank draft deposit -- a magic wand of accounting that books collateral recourse as magic fairy dust that gets whacked by collection cost or written off entirely if the loan (or corporate bond) becomes nonperforming. With me so far? Deposits are liabilities, loans are assets that produce cash flow and profits. The creation of bank money has little to do with nominal overnight rates at the Fed. If overnight rates are low (they are currently slightly negative) the government is encouraging banks to create more money -- which they are doing at a gallop, because investors are borrowing to bid up stocks on margin.

Rising rates price borrowers out of the market and money creation contracts. Portraits of Franklin and Jackson are only 1% of "money."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I guess have to put my hand up. Privately-held or publicly-traded, large or small, in all cases banks create more money than central banks, and they have done it historically, currently, and must do in the future if we are to continue to enjoy a financial future more complex than barter. Banks stop creating money when they stop lending, because loan proceeds are new money credited to borrowers by way of bank draft deposit -- a magic wand of accounting that books collateral recourse as magic fairy dust that gets whacked by collection cost or written off entirely if the loan or corporate bond becomes nonperforming. With me so far? Deposits are liabilities, loans are assets that produce cash flow and profits. The creation of bank money has little to do with nominal overnight rates at the Fed. If overnight rates are low (they are currently slightly negative) the government is encouraging banks to create more money -- which they are doing at a gallop, because investors are borrowing to bid up stocks on margin.

Rising rates price borrowers out of the market and money creation contracts. Cash (portraits of Franklin and Jackson) are only 1% of "money."

This bank draft money, in a sense, is future money.  If invested and producing more goods and services,  the future money is redeemed  since it can actually buy stuff it helped to create. No modern commercial  or industrial society can grow without "future money"  or credit.  There isn't enough precious metal to back the amount of money required to keep the industrial societies humming and growing. Gold and Silver worked during the late 18 th century and 19 th century because more gold and silver were being dug up.   When the gold stock and silver stock either ceased to grow or were put to more direct use,  metal backed money could no long sustain growth. 

We need credit but it has to be managed prudently.  Not like the  junk credit that lead to the Great Meltdown of 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I guess have to put my hand up. Privately-held or publicly-traded, large or small, in all cases banks create more money than central banks, and they have done it historically, currently, and must do in the future if we are to continue to enjoy a financial future more complex than barter. Banks stop creating money when they stop lending, because loan proceeds are new money credited to borrowers by way of bank draft deposit -- a magic wand of accounting that books collateral recourse as magic fairy dust that gets whacked by collection cost or written off entirely if the loan (or corporate bond) becomes nonperforming. With me so far? Deposits are liabilities, loans are assets that produce cash flow and profits. The creation of bank money has little to do with nominal overnight rates at the Fed. If overnight rates are low (they are currently slightly negative) the government is encouraging banks to create more money -- which they are doing at a gallop, because investors are borrowing to bid up stocks on margin.

Rising rates price borrowers out of the market and money creation contracts. Portraits of Franklin and Jackson are only 1% of "money."

You haven't contradicted me, but you tried--that is, I think you tried. I understand fractional reserve banking. I understand also money available for lending--money creation--isn't enough to get money into the economy, the so-called pushing on a string.

--Brant

you'll have to speak a lot faster for me not to follow you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now