Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

US Presidential Candidates

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by Imaginos1892   » Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:14 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

The Angelosphere? Is that alchemy, or astrology?

Most important, does it work?
---------------
Long ago, when men cursed and beat the ground with sticks, they called it witchcraft. Now they call it golf.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by biochem   » Mon Dec 12, 2016 11:38 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

PeterZ wrote:Hey, Biochem, what do you think of this bit of analysis? Both links to the same author and provide a more complete analysis.

It matches well with much of Trump's picks, especially Tillerson (assuming Tillerson isn't a stalking horse). His pick of Wilbur Ross is also an astute pick. They'll need a foreign policy chief that understands the flow of oil as it relates to geopolitics as well as someone who knows heavy manufacturing supply chains.

I am looking at my portfolio and making adjustments. Betting on capital flight to the Angelosphere looks like a good bet.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2016/12/05/reasons-why-the-us-will-dominate-the-world-economy-for-the-foreseeable-future/#7b92295b3841


I think a lot of the things mentioned in the articles contribute to the problem (shifting geopolitics and demographics) but that there are other things at play as well. For example I think that he is overly optimistic about Mexico as a trade partner. They have the right demographics, the right location and are reasonably stable. But he misses that the country is dominated by a kleptocratic elite and has a major security issue with the drug cartels. He's also ignoring our huge problem with the working class that got trump elected. Also the benefit that the us has been providing global free trade haven't just been Pax Americana (which I agree is a huge contribution in and of itself) but also it was pseudo free trade. The USA gave free trade access to our markets while our "friends" did not return the favor. I also think he is underestimating the Chinese. He assumes that their male overpopulation will lead inevitably to domestic unrest and that they will go back to their 4000 years of internal strife. I tend to think that China will eventually kill the excess off in a series of minor wars and since they don't care about the peasants they'll dig themselves out of the retirement hole by letting the elderly die. Denial of modern medicine will do the trick nicely.

But as mentioned above he is right about some things too. As Pax Americana ends things will shift globally and those first world aging populations (especially the baby boomers) will have an impact
Last edited by biochem on Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:55 am, edited 2 times in total.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:33 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

I agree with you regarding Mexico but disagree on China. The cartels in Mexico are so powerful because because there is so little alternative to making wealth for the non-monied class. A renegotiated NAFTA with provision allowing upward mobility alleviates some of the tendency towards the drug trade. Capital inflows into the US and by extension to Mexico raises all boats so long as the kleptocrats don't get too greedy. If they do, then US surety might not be available to attract FDI to Mexico. That definitely limits the size of the investment pool the kleptocrats can wallow in.

I don't think he believes internal strife is going to hammer China. I believe that resource competition will draw China into wars. Their population demographics will make such wars more likely.

Bottom line, though is that Trump's selection of cabinet secretaries parallels this worldview or something similar quite well.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by Annachie   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:31 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Remember one thing about China.

One of the partnerships Trump is in owes nearly a billion dollars to the Bank of China. (Simplified. Actual finance at this level is fucking complex)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by biochem   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:58 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

PeterZ wrote:Bottom line, though is that Trump's selection of cabinet secretaries parallels this worldview or something similar quite well.


I agree
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by biochem   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:11 am

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

Annachie wrote:Remember one thing about China.

One of the partnerships Trump is in owes nearly a billion dollars to the Bank of China. (Simplified. Actual finance at this level is fucking complex)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk


Trump's argument is that he is so rich and involved in so many deals that any one deal isn't significant. I genuinely believe that he believes it. Whether he is fooling himself is another story (humans have the amazing ability to rationalize to themselves).

Whether the electorate will care is another story. The anti-Trump votes (this includes the media, who hates him with a passion) will jump on anything and denounce him as corrupt. The pro-Trump votes (who don't trust the media because of their blatantly obvious bias this election cycle), will buy any justification that Trump gives.

But what really matters is those swing workers in the rust belt. They don't care if he gets richer as long as they perceive that they are benefiting as well. It's generally true of most workers. Employees don't care if the CEO Gargantuan Inc is making a fortune off of stock options when Gargantuan Inc is doing well, hiring new people, giving existing employees good raises and bonuses. But give that same CEO the identical payout in the opposite situation: layoffs, salary freezes/cuts, no bonuses and watch the employees reach for the torches and pitchforks. So if Trump's deals help (or are perceived as helping) the rust belt, he'll have their support. If he fails to make good deals, they'll crucify him.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:45 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

biochem wrote:
PeterZ wrote:Bottom line, though is that Trump's selection of cabinet secretaries parallels this worldview or something similar quite well.


I agree


https://greatagain.gov/

Confirmed: Tillerson nominated to Sec State.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 1:44 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:https://greatagain.gov/

Confirmed: Tillerson nominated to Sec State.


How's that "drain the swamp" thing working out? So far it seems to mean "Appoint my billionaire buddies to run the government directly instead of having to buy off politicians to do things for them." and "appoint anyone who was vocal enough about supporting my candidacy regardless of qualifications".

What the holy fuck does the CEO of Exxon Mobil know about the State Department? Trying to spin this as "well he understands the oil markets and somehow that's the important thing about running the nation's entire diplomatic corps" is absurd.

How the hell do you follow up Ben Carson's "I'm not qualified to run any government agency" public announcement with "Congratulations you're now running HUD, something you have no professional background in of any kind whatsoever."


Hey we're going to finally clean up that Wall St influence problem.... Goldman Sachs/Hedge Fund guy in charge of the Treasury. Oops.

Another billionaire buddy in charge of Commerce. (although that one may actually not be a disaster...)

Another billionaire buddy in charge of Education. (that one has all the makings of a disaster...)


This is the kind of shit that happens when you keep voting for a party that thinks the government isn't good for anything. They think it doesn't matter who you put in charge of it so just put all your friends in! Wonder if we'll get the equivalent of another horse show director running FEMA this time... although one would hope even Trump was paying sufficient attention not to repeat that monumental screw up.


And the laughable thing is I bet his supporters STILL think he's "cleaning up the corruption" and "draining the swamp".
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by PeterZ   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:02 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

I don't think he wants anyone that knows how to run a bureaucracy at HUD. He wants a smart man that has lived in communities that HUD serves to focus on how to help those that need help and discard the rest of the bureaucracy. We'll see if his choice can do that or not.

Tillerson will likely operate under the same principles at State. I wouldn't be surprised if he guts much of the core of the State Department. Will that succeed? We'll see. What Tillerson won't be is a place holder.

We've tried the government solves everything school for 16 years. Time to gut just about everything and see how things change. Some elements will get too much support to gut while others have too little to save. The end result is a change and that change will either make things better or not. We'll see which happens.

Of course, you may be right and the swamp doesn't get drained a bit. We'll try again in 4 years and see what happens then. Who knows, we might go all democrat socialist to find someone that WILL fix this shit.
Top
Re: US Presidential Candidates
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:58 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:I don't think he wants anyone that knows how to run a bureaucracy at HUD. He wants a smart man...



The kind of smart man who thinks Joseph actually built the pyramids to store grain... and that prison makes people gay... and that maybe we can just kind of magically "slip" a Palestinian state into Egypt and then it can be a thing because it wouldn't be infringing on "Israeli territory"???


Sorry, what were you saying? (And please don't say "well he was a neurosurgeon!" Here's the thing about being a neurosurgeon.... it require a great memory and great hand eye coordination and dexterity. NOT great intelligence. Being a neuroscientist requires great intelligence. )

Carson is, flat out, a freaking moron.


Tillerson will likely operate under the same principles at State. I wouldn't be surprised if he guts much of the core of the State Department. Will that succeed? We'll see. What Tillerson won't be is a place holder.

We've tried the government solves everything school for 16 years.


Umm... bullshit we have? We had 8 years of Bush "the government is the problem... see I'm just like Reagan!". And 8 years of Obama trying to use the government to fix all the damage that caused and being obstructed at every turn by a Congress full of "the government if the problem" republicans filibustering anything that moved... (and yet *still* managing to get a remarkable amount of repair work done.... which we can now probably watch get flushed away again).

Time to gut just about everything and see how things change.


There is no gutting occurring here. Are you paying attention? It's a plutocratic takeover. Cronyism at it's most shameless. There will be a ton of damage but it won't be to the size of the bureaucracy which Trump is handing as a gift to his rich buddies to do their bidding...

Of course, you may be right and the swamp doesn't get drained a bit. We'll try again in 4 years and see what happens then. Who knows, we might go all democrat socialist to find someone that WILL fix this shit.


If only... but that would require the Democrats to learn their lesson. And so far signs of them doing that are mixed despite the freaking disaster they just brought down on the country by running Clinton. I monitor a few Democratic discussion boards and the prevailing sentiment is "this is everyone's fault except ours! We did everything right!!!"
Top

Return to Politics