Donald Trump

[Peregrine]

I'll ring in just to say I agree with everything cardboard has said on this thread.  I think it is very arrogant to think that such a large number of your countrymen have no point and must be morons, and leave that as your explanation.  It takes a real intellectual snob not to at least see some reason behind the big swells of public opinion.  No one is so smart or so stupid as to be 100% right or 100% wrong all of the time.  Ask yourself, what need of the body politic is being filled by the Trump phenomenon?  It may not be your cup of tea, and it might not be pretty, and it might have no class, but it is reality and it is big, and if you add Sanders' votes to it, it is about double that number that are sick of the status quo, but who are more PC minded.  People are sick of the existing political elite shoving how they are supposed to think down their throats, on both sides.

 

 

Donald Trump is not the first demagogue in human history. In fact, history has shown that humans (particularly as a group) are readily susceptible to manipulation.

[rkbabang]

Has anyone linked to Scott Adams' (creator of Dilbert) blog yet in this thread?

 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius

 

Note that post is from last August - he has been blogging consistently about Trump ever since.

 

His big-picture predictions have been really good, and his 'model' (if you want to call it that) sure seems right to me. I mean, I've been convinced it's the right model.

 

I think Merkhet alluded to 'emotional manipulation' earlier. Scott Adams calls Trump a 'master persuader'.

 

 

Thanks for posting the article. I hadn't seen the article before now, but I did listen to him talk about Trump on the Tim Ferriss podcast a while back.  Yes, he understands Trump and his popularity better than most.  It's an excellent interview for this and a number of other reasons, Scott Adams is an interesting guy.

 

Here's the episode:  Scott Adams: The Man Behind Dilbert

 

[Graham Osborn]

We discussed this a bit over on the Ray Dalio thread in conjunction with Monetary Policy 3 - debt monetization through public or defense spending and the implicit taxation it entails.  The last 7 years of QE effectively gave public and private bondholders new dollars in exchange for their worthless holdings at the expense of the aggregate US population - new dollars which did not enter the consumer loop but were instead used to purchase financial assets like stocks and bonds at ever-increasing prices.  The sheer magnitude of the wealth gap between Americans who grew their net worth through capital gains (effectively a huge tax break for the wealthy) vs Americans who had minimal assets (and thus bore the brunt of austerity relatively speaking) has added momentum to the populist movement epitomized by Trump and Clinton.  They didn't create the movement but found themselves suitable instruments for its expression.  We also mentioned on the MP3 thread that the the situation has some parallels to 1930s Germany.  There's a good article on the Weimar Republic's monetary policies on Wikipedia.  The connection to make is that oppression of the working class favors the rise of demagogical rulers that will shift the burden of payment back in the direction of asset-owning Americans.  Ironically, that shift will probably come right as said "wealthy" Americans (including a great many would-be retirees) lose a good portion of their paper net worth as the Bernanke asset bubble pops over the next few years.  Extreme as Sanders is, I respect that he recognizes Bernanke as the architect of middle-class austerity.

 

I voted that Trump's election would have no real effect on financial markets by the way - I think the S&P will be off by a 3rd or so by Nov 8th regardless of who gets elected.  What a fun first night at the White House ;) Speaking for my own sector as a physician, I can say both have been extremely hawkish on healthcare costs and I think the IBB/ IYH already reflect capital flight from the sector.  This is where many of my shorts are concentrated.

[Palantir]

 

 

Obama was all about "reconciliation" or what he perceived as necessary after the Bush years and honestly he has been abused by more than one country in his dealings. Think about Iran with their missile tests and then saying: "It is not in the nuclear agreement." Or Russia always poking at the U.S.

 

Except Obama is right, the missile issue is a separate one from the nuclear agreement. You conveniently also forget that Russia also used to poke the US regularly during Bush's tenure. Best example is them obliterating US ally Georgia and GWB couldn't do anything. This narrative about other countries taking advantage of Obama's US is a joke.

[Packer16]

The idea that missile and nuclear deal are seperate is beside the end goal.  The end goal is to prevent Iran from having the capability of delivering nuclear weapons.  If Obama negotiated a deal that only dealt with nuclear part and not the delivery part then he got bamboozeled by the Iranians and no wonder they said yes.  He negotiated a deal that does allow Iran to develop a deliverable nuclear weapon just not when he is president.  Obama has made the foreign predictable, most if not all threats are walked back so that enemies of the US can take advantage of it.  IMO part of foreign policy especially to rivals has to be unknown to prevent this gaming.  Reagan was a master of this with the Russians and if Mr. Trump is president he will likewise be a master.

 

Packer   

[Palantir]

No, that is incorrect. The delivery system is a separate issue that has no association with the nuclear deal and is dealt with by a separate sanction regime enforced by different parties. Obama has pursued sanctions in order to limit Iran's delivery capability along with restricting the nuclear program through the JCPOA. The idea that the enemies of the US are now suddenly able to take advantage of the US is a myth. Indeed, where was Bush when NK was developing nuclear weapons?

[Packer16]

If the end goal is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear missile, how does dividing the issue into to help other than provide a cover for Iran to get a missile while complying with to these two agreements at different times.  It sounds like Obama's been flanked by a skilled negotiator unless I am missing how Iran can get the sanctions removed (carrot) by not complying with missile part of the deal.  From what I understand, Europe was going to bolt from sanctions so Obama was stuck getting what he could but as far I could tell he was not willing to spend any political capital to convince the Europeans.  I think most folks have taken advantage of the US under most of the previous administrations because we do not have imperial ambitions and thus the willpower to carry through on the use of force and its consequences as some other players do.  I think at some point folks say enough and maybe we have reached that point.  So what you may be seeing is a reaction to an accumulation of poor negotiations amongst administrations.

 

Packer

[Palantir]

Nobody is dividing the issue, the issues are literally separate. These are all separate sanction regimes with different enforcing parties. The nuclear sanctions are enforced by the UNSC, while the US has other unilateral sanctions. Think about who is in the UNSC, some countries see Iran as an adversary (like the US and UK), while others see Iran as a friendly partner (China and Russia), with Germany having economic interests there. To get all of these countries on board for a nuclear agreement, the focus will naturally be narrowed to issues all 5+1 nations want to enforce. Why would Russia and China care about enforcing American sanctions? It doesn't make any sense.

 

Aside from this, the US continues to enforce other sanctions against Iran's missile program.

[Cardboard]

"No, that is incorrect. The delivery system is a separate issue that has no association with the nuclear deal and is dealt with by a separate sanction regime enforced by different parties."

 

Nobody has ever developed ballistic missiles to deliver TNT. There are only two uses: WMD delivery or putting something into orbit. I guess that the Iranian will use the same excuse as the North Koreans or to develop their space program. Lol

 

If an agreement was signed that did not take care or envision a comprehensive solution, then that is a failed agreement, totally useless. Obama thought that the Iranian would behave with more opening and got played. Looking at their behavior the program is likely going full speed ahead in undisclosed locations.

 

And I never said that Bush never got abused. After all, it is not like he was the best president in history!

 

Cardboard

[Palantir]

I don't think you understand the issue. Despite my explanation, it does not seem you want to understand it either, so I rest my case.

[Cardboard]

I fully understand what you are saying.

 

I also understand that your arguments fully fit with the politicians as described by Trump as fully incompetent when they negotiate something.

 

Cardboard

[indirect]

amazing speech by ken Burns

[Aberhound]

Most of what Burns says applies to Clinton. Only one of them committed crimes while in public office.