What Have You Jackasses Done...

[Sunrider]

Seconded.

 

Though I'll add "People acting as groups are prone to stupidity." And I think, as one FT writer put it, this was an election in which people wanted to make a choice first and worry about the implications later - kinda like with Brexit, it doesn't matter that the promises are self-evidently empty. Satisfaction now! Bring out the pitchforks! Put these evil people onto the pyre! Etc. :P

 

 

 

i think we should stop calling names ... even though donald does it.

 

instead, think of why someone would vote for donald, its not simply because they are stupid/racist/sexist, i am sure some of them are stupid/racist/sexist just like i am sure some hillary voters are stupid/racist/sexist.

 

 

 

...down there. 

 

Really!  You're taking this all the way?!  Wake up stupid...wake up! 

 

Finally America has become one big reality show!  Even PT Barnum as President would make some sense!

 

Cheers!

[Sunrider]

+1

 

Whatever you may think about the twitter message from the people of Germany that made the rounds - the point is valid. Populism is a one way street - and that street generally does not lead to prosperity for the very people that follow the siren song.

 

 

If this vote against the elite yields positive results, I'll be happy for all Americans.

 

However, in my experience populist votes for demagogues end up in crappy results for people who voted. So it only reinforces the view of the elite that they knew better. And the crappy results don't even stop the masses voting for another populist demagogue again.

 

I thought that Americans were better than that. Apparently not.

 

Now we will see the results. Unfortunately whatever happens nobody will learn a lesson.

+1

[wachtwoord]

+1

 

Whatever you may think about the twitter message from the people of Germany that made the rounds - the point is valid. Populism is a one way street - and that street generally does not lead to prosperity for the very people that follow the siren song.

 

 

If this vote against the elite yields positive results, I'll be happy for all Americans.

 

However, in my experience populist votes for demagogues end up in crappy results for people who voted. So it only reinforces the view of the elite that they knew better. And the crappy results don't even stop the masses voting for another populist demagogue again.

 

I thought that Americans were better than that. Apparently not.

 

Now we will see the results. Unfortunately whatever happens nobody will learn a lesson.

+1

 

They are both populists but with a different target audience.

 

Hillary is the populist of all the special little snowflakes in society that would never have gone to university if the value of academic diplomas had not inflated this much (I have a PhD btw so I know these people that think they are the elite very well. I call them high educated retards as they posses no common sense).

 

Trump sadly is a populist for xenophobes and die-hard Christians.

[John Hjorth]

Trump skeptics forces Canadian immigration website to its knees. [You can read it using the translation tool in Chrome.]

[DCG]

 

So incredibly disappointed in our country. Terrifying.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

...down there. 

 

Really!  You're taking this all the way?!  Wake up stupid...wake up! 

 

Finally America has become one big reality show!  Even PT Barnum as President would make some sense!

 

Cheers!

Pretty insulting comment you've made there.

 

If you're involved in manufacturing in America's rustbelt, you have probably lost your job or seen a decline in benefits and wages. You've watched the hollowing out of America's manufacturing base by successive generations of Republican and Democrat governments over the past few decades. This free trade, lassiez faire doctrine has been economic mantra since the days of Reagan. Sure, you've seen the benefits of cheap imported goods, but the devastation reaped on middle America has hit the rustbelt hard. When you look at living standards, particularly in the rust belt, they've gone nowhere since the financial crash. As a corollary, you see corporations and the 1% growing fatter and fatter off the inflated assets prices driven by QE.

 

Is it any wonder people are fed up with the disparity in wealth that has only widened through Democratic government?

 

The first person who has drawn a line in the sand and said enough is enough has been Donald Trump. You can debate the merits of free market economics or protectionism if you want. The reality for the electorate is that if they're suffering, they won't care. They just want someone to come in and improve their lot. Therefore, I think to label struggling people as "jackasses" shows an incredible lack of hubris.

 

Whether you're in Europe or the US, people on this forum who manage capital (whether their own or others) have seen huge benefits from economic/monetary policies of the last decade. We should be pragmatic enough to realise that we live in a democratic system, and we can't simply continue to reap a windfall while others out there are suffering.

 

For the record, I am not suggesting that Trump is the man who can help make change for middle America. I think he is just a reaction to a Democratic party that has completely lost its way, a party that should never have gotten into bed with the big investment banks, hedge funds, etc.

[DooDiligence]

...down there. 

 

Really!  You're taking this all the way?!  Wake up stupid...wake up! 

 

Finally America has become one big reality show!  Even PT Barnum as President would make some sense!

 

Cheers!

Pretty insulting comment you've made there.

 

If you're involved in manufacturing in America's rustbelt, you have probably lost your job or seen a decline in benefits and wages. You've watched the hollowing out of America's manufacturing base by successive generations of Republican and Democrat governments over the past few decades. This free trade, lassiez faire doctrine has been economic mantra since the days of Reagan. Sure, you've seen the benefits of cheap imported goods, but the devastation reaped on middle America has hit the rustbelt hard. When you look at living standards, particularly in the rust belt, they've gone nowhere since the financial crash. As a corollary, you see corporations and the 1% growing fatter and fatter off the inflated assets prices driven by QE.

 

Is it any wonder people are fed up with the disparity in wealth that has only widened through Democratic government?

 

The first person who has drawn a line in the sand and said enough is enough has been Donald Trump. You can debate the merits of free market economics or protectionism if you want. The reality for the electorate is that if they're suffering, they won't care. They just want someone to come in and improve their lot. Therefore, I think to label struggling people as "jackasses" shows an incredible lack of hubris.

 

Whether you're in Europe or the US, people on this forum who manage capital (whether their own or others) have seen huge benefits from economic/monetary policies of the last decade. We should be pragmatic enough to realise that we live in a democratic system, and we can't simply continue to reap a windfall while others out there are suffering.

 

For the record, I am not suggesting that Trump is the man who can help make change for middle America. I think he is just a reaction to a Democratic party that has completely lost its way, a party that should never have gotten into bed with the big investment banks, hedge funds, etc.

 

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

 

Basically a whole lot of sheep were told they weren't prosperous & they believed it because we are, after all, entitled to more!!!

[Jurgis]

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

 

Basically a whole lot of sheep were told they weren't prosperous & they believed it

 

This.

[Spekulatius]

Blessed are they who have a stockpile of cash!

How about a stockpile of Yen. JPY.USD is up 3%.

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

For a start, I wasn't talking about the US population as a whole. Lots of places in the US have done quite nicely since the financial crash. I was talking about places like the rust-belt states. Electorates that were traditionally Democratic states that ended up swinging the election by voting for Trump. Plenty of struggling, disaffected people there who ended up determining the course of the election.

[DooDiligence]

Blessed are they who have a stockpile of cash!

How about a stockpile of Yen. JPY.USD is up 3%.

 

Hooray for yen!

 

I have a yen for Chinese food (wait that's the renminbi...)

 

Now I'm confused.

 

Hey isn't that Seema Modi one hot number?!?

[Uccmal]

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

For a start, I wasn't talking about the US population as a whole. Lots of places in the US have done quite nicely since the financial crash. I was talking about places like the rust-belt states. Electorates that were traditionally Democratic states that ended up swinging the election by voting for Trump. Plenty of struggling, disaffected people there who ended up determining the course of the election.

 

But they are not going to be any better off.  They are going to be worse off, if the new government enacts protectionism.  Rust belt jobs as they were are not coming back anywhere on Earth.  I think we can all agree on that. 

 

Now if your new pres. and congress can think forward and:

- get good affordable education for his voters

- get good affordable health care for same.

- help out with modern infrastructure (nationwide free wifi, not roads and bridges)

- assist the private sector - jump start in a huge way renewable energy conversion.

Their lot might improve. 

 

But hes not going to do that is he.  He, and his aides are going to get really quickly mired in scandals that make your last few governments look downright pristine.  Thats because he is what he is... a con artist and a scammer.  At 70 years old he isn't going to change suddenly, is he?

 

Edit: On the other hand he may do good.  Funny thing is, I dont disagree with reasons of those who voted for him. 

[DooDiligence]

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

But they are not going to be any better off.  They are going to be worse off, if the new government enacts protectionism.  Rust belt jobs as they were are not coming back anywhere on Earth.  I think we can all agree on that. 

 

Now if your new pres. and congress can think forward and:

- get good affordable education for his voters

- get good affordable health care for same.

- help out with modern infrastructure (nationwide free wifi, not roads and bridges)

- assist the private sector - jump start in a huge way renewable energy conversion.

Their lot might improve. 

 

But hes not going to do that is he.  He, and his aides are going to get really quickly mired in scandals that make your last few governments look downright pristine.  Thats because he is what he is... a con artist and a scammer.  At 70 years old he isn't going to change suddenly, is he?

Infrastructure means golf courses!

[Uccmal]

To suggest that more than half the US population (who elected Trump) is struggling is ludicrous...

But they are not going to be any better off.  They are going to be worse off, if the new government enacts protectionism.  Rust belt jobs as they were are not coming back anywhere on Earth.  I think we can all agree on that. 

 

Now if your new pres. and congress can think forward and:

- get good affordable education for his voters

- get good affordable health care for same.

- help out with modern infrastructure (nationwide free wifi, not roads and bridges)

- assist the private sector - jump start in a huge way renewable energy conversion.

Their lot might improve. 

 

But hes not going to do that is he.  He, and his aides are going to get really quickly mired in scandals that make your last few governments look downright pristine.  Thats because he is what he is... a con artist and a scammer.  At 70 years old he isn't going to change suddenly, is he?

Infrastructure means golf courses!

 

Lol.

 

[rkbabang]

I woke up with the biggest smile on my face. Seems like there is some hope for the US. They managed to not elect a mass murdering war criminal. Seriously I'd have been happy with any of the candidates over her.

 

Me as well.  I don't think Trump will be half as bad as most people fear and I think Hillary would have been much worse than most could imagine.  He can't do most of the nutty things he said without congress.  I don't see the  "Let's build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it Act" passing anytime soon.  But the president can unilaterally do a lot of damage foreign policy wise and I don't think Trump is the warmongering lunatic that Hillary is.  So where Trump is insane he doesn't have unilateral power, but where Hillary is insane she would have if she had been elected.  Yes the next president is going to be a racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynist, bigot, but he won't have the power to roll back civil rights, Hillary would have had the power to implement a no fly zone in Syria and antagonize Russia into war.  All and all, I think we dodged a bullet last night.  I'm still shocked though, I didn't expect him to win.

 

 

 

 

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

But they are not going to be any better off.  They are going to be worse off, if the new government enacts protectionism.  Rust belt jobs as they were are not coming back anywhere on Earth.  I think we can all agree on that. 

 

Now if your new pres. and congress can think forward and:

- get good affordable education for his voters

- get good affordable health care for same.

- help out with modern infrastructure (nationwide free wifi, not roads and bridges)

- assist the private sector - jump start in a huge way renewable energy conversion.

Their lot might improve. 

 

But hes not going to do that is he.  He, and his aides are going to get really quickly mired in scandals that make your last few governments look downright pristine.  Thats because he is what he is... a con artist and a scammer.  At 70 years old he isn't going to change suddenly, is he?

 

Edit: On the other hand he may do good.  Funny thing is, I dont disagree with reasons of those who voted for him.

I agree, and I did make these points! But what have facts got to do with anything when it comes to elections? He made the promise that he will stop manufacturing jobs going abroad. Whether it happens or not is irrelevant, the people of the rust-belt believed it and voted accordingly.

[Cardboard]

S&P now down only 1.3% from 5% last night. Oil flat. By 10 am, I would not be surprised if the S&P is up.

 

What is likely to follow is global peace, prosperity, enforcement of laws. Countries will respect each other and no Russia won't invade the Baltics as the Left keeps trying to scare people with and countless other accusations. You should actually be scared that Hillary knew exactly how much time is needed to activate the nuclear arsenal as she mentioned during the 3rd debate.

 

Trump will surround himself with a formidable team again unlike what the Left is telling you. He has a big ego and says inflammatory things but, he is not crazy and knows how to manage people and to build an organization.

 

He is certainly not perfect but, to expect a vastly different result than what I mentioned is Zero Hedge territory.

 

Cardboard

[Packer16]

How do any of us know if we going to be better off?  I do not know.  Most folks knew the way things are today are not working so they voted for change.  Fortunately, in the US, the federal government has limited power versus other countries.  Also if you look at the way Trump works is he paces with the extreme (to get them on board) & then moderates as any good negotiator.  Look at immigration as a example.  At first it was self-deportation then build a wall and return the criminals.  Now it is build a wall with a big door to allow who we want in versus a free for all and deal with immigration once the wall is built.  This is a model I think for resolving many issues. 

 

Historically, IMO the Dems always had an ace in the hole, it was their compassion.  In this election for reasons I do not understand they threw compassion out the window and tried win by being as mean or meaner than the other side.  Love and compassion will defeat hate not hate back.  The party of compassion became the party of intolerance & hate if you did not believe like they did.  This IMO is why Trump won evangelicals by such a large margin. If you are derided and mocked versus being listen to & understood by the same group of people in power you develop an affinity.  O'bama when he made the statement about the vet at the Clinton rally the other day was the first time I saw the ace in the hole compassion at work in this campaign for the Dems.  Trump made an effort to reach out to minorities in the inner city, he went to Flint.  Romney and McCain did not do this.  Hillary did not reach out to any of her opponents or groups who voted in large numbers for Trump instead relying on demographics to win.  This is surprising as this what her husband did so well.

 

Packer

[onyx1]

I don't think Trump will be half as bad as most people fear...

 

 

"Media which got everything wrong will now tell you all the things that will happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen."  - Dave Rubin

[augustabound]

Infrastructure means golf courses!

 

I like the way you think!

 

First beautiful ladies and now golf courses.

[rkbabang]

How do any of us know if we going to be better off?  I do not know.  Most folks knew the way things are today are not working so they voted for change.  Fortunately, in the US, the federal government has limited power versus other countries.  Also if you look at the way Trump works is he paces with the extreme (to get them on board) & then moderates as any good negotiator.  Look at immigration as a example.  At first it was self-deportation then build a wall and return the criminals.  Now it is build a wall with a big door to allow who we want in versus a free for all and deal with immigration once the wall is built.  This is a model I think for resolving many issues. 

 

Historically, IMO the Dems always had an ace in the hole, it was their compassion.  In this election for reasons I do not understand they threw compassion out the window and tried win by being as mean or meaner than the other side.  Love and compassion will defeat hate not hate back.  The party of compassion became the party of intolerance & hate if you did not believe like they did.  This IMO is why Trump won evangelicals by such a large margin. If you are derided and mocked versus being listen to & understood by the same group of people in power you develop an affinity.  O'bama when he made the statement about the vet at the Clinton rally the other day was the first time I saw the ace in the hole compassion at work in this campaign for the Dems.  Trump made an effort to reach out to minorities in the inner city, he went to Flint.  Romney and McCain did not do this.  Hillary did not reach out to any of her opponents or groups who voted in large numbers for Trump instead relying on demographics to win.  This is surprising as this what her husband did so well.

 

Packer

 

The Democrats made a huge mistake nominating Hillary.

 

  First, like you said, she is a mean, condescending, unlikeable person.

 

  Second, she is seen as the establishment candidate.  There are millions of people who voted for both Obama and Trump.  Why do you think that is?  I think Obama was seen as the "change" candidate and Trump is seen as the non-establishment candidate who will change things as well.  These people want things in Washington to change.

 

Third, she has a history of saying racist and homophobic things. Yes I know she claims she has changed her views, but I put that in the same category as Robert Bird the former KKK leader claiming to no longer be racist.  Obama got way more black votes than Hillary did.

 

Fourth, you simply do not win the Presidency of the United States by telling Americans that you are going to take their guns away.  Enough said.  This was a huge tactical error on her part and I think she just thought that she was so far ahead in the polls that she could get away with it.  Turns out she couldn't.

 

Fifth, she is seen as the war candidate.  Obama (regardless of what he actually did) was seen as the peace candidate.  That made all the difference.  I think people want peace and change, and Hillary represented neither.

 

And lastly she is just so obviously power hungry and corrupt that all of the conspiracy theories going around about her seem almost plausible.  I don't think people wanted someone like that in the Oval Office.

 

That's my analysis of the results for what it is worth.  I think almost anyone else could have beat Trump.  He wasn't a good candidate by any means, it is just that Hillary is so awful.

 

[antao]

I am not a US citizen but contrary to the great majority of non-US citizens I am actually somewhat happy that Mr. Trump won the elections. I believe a Trump presidency may prove to be beneficial on the longer-term for the US economy. I am a little bit more concerned about the US foreign policy and its effect on the world as we know it but I expect that the Democrats will be able to refrain any rash decisions Mr. Trump may be inclined to make.

 

As a side-note, it would be important to think about the results in recent elections around the globe - Mr. Tsipras in Greece, the Brexit vote in the UK, the extremist and non-conformity parties' ascent in Spain and France, just to name a few. Despite living in a globalized world (accelerated by advances in telecommunications and transportations, not because people truly felt they were world citizens, as is commonly advertised), most people tend to act in accordance to their self-interest first, then that of their family, their community, their country and lastly the world. This is more evident when things don't seem so favorable to them as we have been witnessing in developed countries for the better part of this century.

 

For a re-distributing model to work it is first needed to have a growing working power and a wealth creation infrastructure in place - that means people are employed, goods are produced and services are provided. A re-distributing model based on a service-heavy economy has yet to be proved sustainable (as seen in so many western countries). As such, it is my opinion that either countries promote an economy based on a balance of goods production and service providing or if they are to be scattered internationally (i.e. some countries are mainly responsible for production of goods and other countries are in charge of providing services) then the re-distributing model should be thought of on a global scale.

 

As a whole, the world has what it takes for a re-distributing model to work - increasing manpower and wealth creation capability - the challenge is to see if world leaders are able to cooperate towards the creation of such a model. And this, unfortunately, is for me more of an utopia than seeing each country trying to solve the equation on their own.

[LongHaul]

I don't know how this will all play out.  I don't think anyone does. 

 

The founding fathers of the United States constitution were well aware of the history of tyrants and how power deranges so they put in a lot of checks on balances on a possible tyrant as president.  It is a strange bit of luck that the stars lined up and we had some high character, pragmatic founding fathers.  The constitution may very well be tested and even come out stronger.

[scorpioncapital]

I don't feel the Canadians would ever have the guts to repudiate the establishment or have a homegrown revolution and hence I admire the process in the States.

[Liberty]

Troubling news, for sure.

 

The most powerful man in the world is someone of low character and integrity, an anti-vaxxer, global warming denier, science illiterate, conspiracy theorist who said he'd attack the first amendment, global trade, and suggested banning people based on their religion and deporting millions of others. He's been caught on tape bragging about sexual assault and at least a dozen women confirmed it. He's so thinned skinned that he gets in multi-year feuds with people about the most meaningless things. He's completely entangled in conflicts of interests and doesn't apparently even know what a blind trust is, and his finances are still entirely opaque. He's been caught lying on camera countless times and then many times saying that he never said the things he said. His total lack of shame and ability to say basically anything and seem to mean it make me suspect sociopathy. The people from his party who were of any moral character and integrity didn't support him, so you know he's not going to forget that; meaning that he'll surround himself with those who lacked the backbone to stand up to him. We now have a salesman in chief who's obvious hunger for power and fame certainly won't get better; you don't treat narcissism by being elected to the oval office.

 

I sure hope he proves me wrong and governs well, but even if he does, he's still not someone I'd want to run my kid's school or be my wife's boss, so how can he be a good pick to run the executive branch of the most powerful country in the world?

 

2016 is such a surreal year.