**** Elections thread *****

[CoccoBill]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...html#document/

[BananaStand]

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Donald has no political agenda, he just hasn't figured out yet what profits himself the most, and what exactly is he able to get away with. I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong.

Trump----was interested in expanding his power. He shot for the moon and (long story short) became the POTUS. He now intends to abuse that power to pet his ego, tout his brand and advance his financial interests as well as those of his business associates.

^Really guys? Really??

You really think that Trump just decided to become president (like its easy to do), so that he could "pet his ego", and further his own business interests? He is 70+ years old and can look back on his life and say....

"By any measure, I am the most successful businessman mankind has ever produced"

But you think the he just woke up one day and said...

"I've got more money than I, or my family, could every spend in ten lifetimes. But ya know...if I was president, I could make a little bit more. Yeah...I'll be exploiting an entire government, yeah....my family and I will face unrelenting public scrutiny for years, yeah...I'll be considered a vile selfish traitor for generations to come, yeah...I'll be destroying public confidence in a government and election system that has led the free world for centuries.......but none of that matters. I absolutely must die with more money than Mark Cuban!"

@surviva....you think that's the only logical conclusion....based on Occam's razor??

This kind of illogical, inflammatory, and accusatory rhetoric is toxic to public discourse. Your entire argument hinges upon your KNOWING, for sure, the exact sentiments in Donald Trump's brain. And your best evidence...is Occam's razor.

Aren't you embarrassed, to be presenting these ideas as part of substantive, intelligent debate??

The tragic irony in all of this....it's people like you and bill who actually got Trump elected.

Intelligent people got totally sick of this kind of garbage polluting public discussions. Whoever is not totally on your side is gets lambasted as a racist, misogynist, nationalist pig. Whoever votes for Trump must be an idiot, because only an idiot would be duped by someone who is so obviously only out for himself. Occam says so.

Here's a life tip. Don't use Occam's razor as evidence in a debate. You look retarded.

You can make up any narrative you want, and then put Occam's stamp on it because it's plausible. In fact, it doesn't even have to be plausible, it just has to be simple enough for anyone to follow.

Aliens made trump president because silk ties are a priceless commodity on their home planet

Since you can't disprove that....it's obviously true, right?

[surviva316]

^Really guys? Really??

You really think that Trump just decided to become president (like its easy to do), so that he could "pet his ego", and further his own business interests?

Hate to rebut so many words with just one word, but: Yes. I don't know what sounds so far-fetched about someone going through a lot of trouble to consolidate and expand their money and power. As dry and caustic as your tone is in regards to this, it is raison d'etre of a significant number of people, both through history and contemporarily. I doubt Trump himself would dispute that a lot of his life has been dedicated toward acquiring more money and expanding his brand.

I don't think he cares much about exploiting the government to make more money. This is the guy who proudly said not paying taxes makes him smart (not that I disagree with him not paying taxes if he were carrying over a loss, but it's relevant to this point regardless), who has exploited many other small businesses' services, involved in pump and dump schemes, etc.

Invoking these things might make me sound like some libtard buying into HuffPo clickbait headlines or something, but there was a time like 18 months ago when you could say that Trump is a money and ego-motivated solipsistic billionaire and no one would think twice about it, much less accuse you of being politically biased and divisive.

Your entire argument hinges upon your KNOWING, for sure, the exact sentiments in Donald Trump's brain.

My post had nothing at all to do with knowing anything for sure. I said it's getting easier and easier to support one particular narrative and harder and harder to support other ones.

It's entirely possible some other possibility is true; I hope to god that they are. I'm just increasingly losing hope in other common explanations.

And your best evidence...is Occam's razor.

(and earlier: @surviva....you think that's the only logical conclusion....based on Occam's razor??)

I wasn't using Occam's Razor as evidence. You're getting all upset about people talking down to and talking past other people, yet you're using the least generous interpretation of my point possible.

I don't at all think "the only logical conclusion" is that Trump's motivations are like Brain's from Pinky and the Brain. I'm saying as much as that--on its surface--sounds like a melodramatic and far-fetched theory, it's increasingly becoming the least far-fetched theory.

The tragic irony in all of this....it's people like you and bill who actually got Trump elected.

Intelligent people got totally sick of this kind of garbage polluting public discussions. Whoever is not totally on your side is gets lambasted as a racist, misogynist, nationalist pig. Whoever votes for Trump must be an idiot, because only an idiot would be duped by someone who is so obviously only out for himself. Occam says so.

[Emphasis added]

The sections you quoted both exclusively had to do with Trump. They had nothing at all to do with Republicans, Trump supporters, or whoever else you think is being oppressed here other than Trump himself. Neither section had even the faintest implications whatsoever of accusing anyone of being racist, misogynist, or nationalist pigs.

You could say that there is a potential implication of his supporters being idiots, but I think you have to have a pretty severe victim complex if you can't read a criticism of a political figure without immediately taking it as an implicit attack on all of his supporters.

Here's a life tip. Don't use Occam's razor as evidence in a debate. You look retarded.

Again, I didn't use Occam's Razor as evidence in a debate. But thanks for taking a post that had to do with Trump and Trump alone, misinterpreting the argument, twisting it into an attack on all Trump voters, then using that to generalize and denegrate all Trump detractors, then capping it off by calling me a retard. It really leads-by-example what political discussion should really look like.

You can make up any narrative you want, and then put Occam's stamp on it because it's plausible. In fact, it doesn't even have to be plausible, it just has to be simple enough for anyone to follow.

Aliens made trump president because silk ties are a priceless commodity on their home planet

"Simple" doesn't mean that it has the lowest word count possible. Obviously "Trump is ghey, tehe" isn't some bullet proof statement just because it's only four words.

In your example, in order to support that narrative, you'd have to demonstrate that aliens exist, have made contact with humans, have tapped specifically into Trump, that they wear ties on their planet, that their planet has a materials-based market where silk specifically is a high enough valued commodity that they are worthy of using whatever fuel it takes to ... yadda yadda yadda. It's not at all simple.

Since you can't disprove that....it's obviously true, right?

Even your absurdist interpretation of what narratives Occam's Razor prefers doesn't lend to a burden-of-proof problem. You're just thrashing at the wind at this point.

(NOTE: I'm sorry if ending on this statement that you're misapplying logical terms will be taken as me attacking you personally and calling you an idiot, misogynist, and if by extension that means I'm insulting anyone who supports the political figure who happens to be the subject of this discussion, and this will force millions' of voters' hands to vote for a certain political figure, not necessarily because they think he's great but because they're sick of people correcting their misapplication of logical terms ... etc. I'm just trying to correct some usage to keep discussion from getting off base. You are welcome to do the same to me.)

[wufwugy]

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...html#document/

Exposing fraud is wrong.

[BananaStand]

Hate to rebut so many words with just one word, but: Yes. I don't know what sounds so far-fetched about someone going through a lot of trouble to consolidate and expand their money and power. As dry and caustic as your tone is in regards to this, it is raison d'etre of a significant number of people, both through history and contemporarily. I doubt Trump himself would dispute that a lot of his life has been dedicated toward acquiring more money and expanding his brand.

So what was his motivation in business, must also be his motivation in politics? Want fewer words to rebut? Here's just one: Glib. And it's glib to an extreme. It's akin to saying if I try to take your money at the poker table, we can't also be friends. It's possible for someone to be motivated by more than just one thing. And it's possible to call on those different motivations, at different times in your life, to achieve different goals.

Think about what would happen to you if you tried this same line of thinking in poker. "hey that guy just bet, and it was a bluff. So now every time he bets, I'm gonna call, cause its probably a bluff. Occam says so"

I don't think he cares much about exploiting the government to make more money.

Think about what you're saying here. You are saying that the man is motivated by greed, and doesn't care that he would be undermining democracy and tearing the fabric of society, just to make a few more bucks. That is a serious and vile accusation to be making. You are indicting the man's motivations as purely selfish, and largely evil since you so clearly believe that he has an inhuman and callous disregard for every other citizen in the country.

And just because you can't categorically disprove that.....you won't even entertain the notion that perhaps he's simply a driven patriot?

This is the guy who proudly said not paying taxes makes him smart (not that I disagree with him not paying taxes if he were carrying over a loss, but it's relevant to this point regardless), who has exploited many other small businesses' services, involved in pump and dump schemes, etc.

Invoking these things might make me sound like some libtard buying into HuffPo clickbait headlines or something, but there was a time like 18 months ago when you could say that Trump is a money and ego-motivated solipsistic billionaire and no one would think twice about it, much less accuse you of being politically biased and divisive.

LOL, this is the thinking that needs to go. No one is accusing you of being politically biased or divisive. there's plenty of that on both sides. The tax thing is a great example. The guy took deductions that were on the books, lawfully. Zeroing in on the phrasing of "didn't pay taxes", is biased, and divisive.

But what you're saying (that he's motivated solely by greed), goes beyond biased and divisive. It's incendiary, accusatory, and inflammatory.

And the way you are presenting and supporting your argument....

My post had nothing at all to do with knowing anything for sure. I said it's getting easier and easier to support one particular narrative and harder and harder to support other ones.

.... is infantile, glib, and frankly an extremely lazy line of thinking.

It's entirely possible some other possibility is true; I hope to god that they are. I'm just increasingly losing hope in other common explanations.

I wasn't using Occam's Razor as evidence. You're getting all upset about people talking down to and talking past other people, yet you're using the least generous interpretation of my point possible.

I don't at all think "the only logical conclusion" is that Trump's motivations are like Brain's from Pinky and the Brain. I'm saying as much as that--on its surface--sounds like a melodramatic and far-fetched theory, it's increasingly becoming the least far-fetched theory.

Again...lazy thinking. If it's "entirely possible" that something else is true, then why are you so insistent that yours (and apparently Occam's) conclusion is true? Why is yours "least far fetched theory?"

You'd be a fool to suggest that blatant personal ambition was not a driving force for the ascension of all 44 of our previous presidents. Why does the narrative change to 'maniacal material greed' now that it's Trump? Occam's razor would say that whoever is giving the narrative must have some extreme bias.

The sections you quoted both exclusively had to do with Trump. They had nothing at all to do with Republicans, Trump supporters, or whoever else you think is being oppressed here other than Trump himself. Neither section had even the faintest implications whatsoever of accusing anyone of being racist, misogynist, or nationalist pigs.

You could say that there is a potential implication of his supporters being idiots, but I think you have to have a pretty severe victim complex if you can't read a criticism of a political figure without immediately taking it as an implicit attack on all of his supporters.

It's possible I was making two points in one post. I agree, your words had to do exclusively with Trump. But even you sniffed out your own implication.

My separate point was that discourse in a tone similar to the one you and Bill have given in this thread, was a major driving factor in the election of Trump. You can hide behind the literal textual interpretation of your point if you want. I won't dispute it. But you are clearly exhibiting a common and repetitive pattern that has been present throughout the last year and a half of political discussion. And that is to jump to outrageous conclusions based on nothing but unproveable plausibility. Trump didn't disavow david duke fast enough, he must love the KKK. Trump said something nice about Putin, he must be working with Russia. Trump said something mean about those gold star parents...he must hate muslims.

I'm just letting you know, that kind of shit is tiring. I'm not saying you said that stuff. I am saying that your line of "trump just wants to be prez so he can sell more condos" is incredibly similar to all that other garbage. And I'm just letting you know, so that you can start being part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

[wufwugy]

The coming reestablishment of a healthy relationship between Russia and the West is exciting. The Russian Communist era was dreadful, but it was a blip. Russian civic standards have long pulled from classicism, just like the West. Natural allies. Similar values.

[BananaStand]

The coming reestablishment of a healthy relationship between Russia and the West is exciting. The Russian Communist era was dreadful, but it was a blip. Russian civic standards have long pulled from classicism, just like the West. Natural allies. Similar values.

I agree that the hand-wringing over Russia is far far far far overblown across the media. But let's not pretend like they're nice guys who got a bad rap.

They've done enough bad stuff just in the last half decade (Ukraine, Syria) to still be considered a problem. Calling any relationship we have with them "healthy" is delusional in my opinion.

[wufwugy]

I agree that the hand-wringing over Russia is far far far far overblown across the media. But let's not pretend like they're nice guys who got a bad rap.

They've done enough bad stuff just in the last half decade (Ukraine, Syria) to still be considered a problem. Calling any relationship we have with them "healthy" is delusional in my opinion.

Russia has a lot of problems in its government. Deeming terrible the actions in Ukraine and Syria by the western media is more about a narrative than sensible analyses. Those actions were about defending its warm water seaports in a way that comes as no surprise. Some is also about defending Christians against Islamism.

I'm not a fan of defending Russia, but the western media gets it wrong. Russia's actions make a great deal of sense given its geopolitical concerns, and it's far less aggressive in hegemony than the West is.

[wufwugy]

If Trump's motivations were narcissistic, we would likely see things like expansion of the inaugural balls instead of the contraction apparently underway.

Unless his narcissism is about getting fast to work and fixing problems.

[BananaStand]

I think any perceived 'warming' of our relationship with Russia is merely a side effect of "keeping your enemies closer", and not evidence of a 'healthy relationship'.

they have a very very different vision for the world than the US does. While some of our economic and geopolitical interests may overlap at times, we are definitely not on the same page.

[wufwugy]

I think any perceived 'warming' of our relationship with Russia is merely a side effect of "keeping your enemies closer", and not evidence of a 'healthy relationship'.

they have a very very different vision for the world than the US does. While some of our economic and geopolitical interests may overlap at times, we are definitely not on the same page.

We'll see. US foreign policy since WW2 has revolved around the goal of defeating Russia. Even after Russia retracted its aggression, US doctrine has still been to defeat the country. NATO and ISIS are tools the US government uses for this purpose.

I'm not sure what changes should be made. There is still a legitimate argument to defeating Russia since it's in second place when it comes to the superpower competition. I think there is an even better argument to be made for returning to the allying ways of the past, because there are significant enough motives for both US and Russia to do so. Russia wants its holdings to come under less threat from NATO, to defeat Islamic terrorism, and to sell its resources with the West. Deals can be made for it to get these things, deals that benefit the West too.

If we're serious about taking on China (Trump is) and if we're serious about defeating ISIS (Trump is), Russia is an essential ally.

[BananaStand]

Why do you use words like "defeat"? Are we gonna take Russia over? Are we gonna oust Putin go nation building on the worlds largest land mass? I'm not sure which US doctrine you're reading, or where you saw the words "must defeat Russia"

Sorry wuf, I think you and I land on the same side of most of these arguments but you sound like you've been listening to too much MSNBC on this one.

Russia exists. And that is how it's going to be unless we decide to start lobbing bombs over there and hopefully kill all of their guys before they kill all of our guys. Unless that happens, Russia exists, and that's a reality we have to deal with.

Geopolitical power is a zero sum game. If Russia is to be weakened, then the US must become stronger. When Russia blasts its way into Ukraine, the US should be able to institute economic sanctions that destroy the Ruble. We didn't do that because our own economy wasn't strong enough to work through the lost business with Russia. We looked weak. That's what people mean when they call Obama's foreign policy "feckless"

So the best thing we can do to "combat" Russia (if we really wanna use that word) is to start spewing GDP. The stronger and healthier our economy is, the more power we have globally. If we can't afford to stand up to Russia and China with sanctions, we lose. If our jobs and industries go overseas, then other countries have more money, and we have less. Money is what gives us leverage with the UN. We currently provide more than 20% of their budget. It will be really tough to get what we want if they can get the money somewhere else. And it will be really easy to get the money somewhere else, when we gave all of ours away.

It's all tied back to the economy. Or more simply: money. Money talks, and bullshit walks. 8 years of obama has left us with stagnant job growth, abysmal workforce participation, stale wages, and disgusting GDP.

I think folks need to wake up and realize that the only reason that Russia appears more aggressive as of late, is because the US has allowed itself to become so much weaker.

[wufwugy]

"Defeat" means the same as what the US did to Germany and Japan. They have no more military might and they depend on the US. Their geopolitical goals align with the US's.

Let me be more specific than just saying "defeat". US foreign policy doctrine is to eliminate Russia's sphere of influence with regards to how it counters the US's sphere of influence. The foreign policy is to eliminate Russia's influence over Syria and Iran and the old Soviet states in Europe. The US has been winning the battle pretty remarkably. In the game of geopolitics, US and Russia are the top players and they play against each other. The US naturally wants to subdue Russia because of this.

Possibly the main reason why things have gotten too far out of hand is that in order to exert power over Russia, the US has propped up radical Islam, which has resulted in an unintended consequence of Islamic hegemony in European states.

[BananaStand]

"Defeat" means the same as what the US did to Germany and Japan. They have no more military might and they depend on the US. Their geopolitical goals align with the US's.

Let me be more specific than just saying "defeat". US foreign policy doctrine is to eliminate Russia's sphere of influence with regards to how it counters the US's sphere of influence. The foreign policy is to eliminate Russia's influence over Syria and Iran and the old Soviet states in Europe. The US has been winning the battle pretty remarkably. In the game of geopolitics, US and Russia are the top players and they play against each other. The US naturally wants to subdue Russia because of this.

Possibly the main reason why things have gotten too far out of hand is that in order to exert power over Russia, the US has propped up radical Islam, which has resulted in an unintended consequence of Islamic hegemony in European states.

How much tinfoil are you wearing right now?

[Jack Sawyer]

How much tinfoil are you wearing right now?

Nah, just a healthy dose of /r/thedonald

[Poopadoop]

... Islamic hegemony in European states.

I'd respond to this, but I'm late for the mosque.

[Poopadoop]

I'm just letting you know, that kind of shit is tiring. I'm not saying you said that stuff. I am saying that your line of "trump just wants to be prez so he can sell more condos" is incredibly similar to all that other garbage. And I'm just letting you know, so that you can start being part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Perhaps it might be worth you considering that those kinds of thoughts are shared by a lot of people, I dare say the majority. It's not just a few people saying those things and poisoning the debate. Maybe if you took an objective look at Trump and what he does instead of just what he says you'd understand why he's so unpopular.

Also, just because you don't agree with someone else's point of view doesn't give you the right to go apeshit on them.

[OngBonga]

Has anyone seen my tin hat? I left it lying around here somewhere.

[Jack Sawyer]

Oh c'mon bananastand, you can't deny Trump is full of conflicts of interest in this position he got himself in. He really just wanted to become president to sell more condos as you so eloquently put it. And people actually voted for him.

Tell me, how much experience in any, *any* governing position does Trump have? (Or his appointed secretary of state for that matter) Now tell me, how much experience in selling condos does Trump have? (Or selling oil, in the case of his secretary of state or any of the rest of the donors he has appointed in big positions in his cabinet)

Why would you let your children in on meetings with other heads of state, particularly those whose countries you have a bonafide business stake in? How do you not see this?

I wrote an entire answer to your post up there in which you indirectly call poor ol' surviva a retard, but it can't be posted since it has 9 videos proving my points and whatnot.

I'll just leave you with some food for thought:

The secret service had to get two fucking floors (costing a shit ton of money per day, read: taxpayer money) in Trump's Tower (read: Trump's wallet) because Trump did not want to move to DC yet. They pay Trump to protect Trump. It's actually genius, if not completely shameful.

Even my mom fell for that one. People say Trump takes no pay for being president of the US. He is the anointed one, willing to work for free for such a big job. Also, he's a philanthropist.


http://www.mediaite.com/online/cring...payer-expense/

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...enities-232216

Never forgetting the conflicts of interest







I had a lot more, I will see how to bypass this video restriction thing on here, just to prove a few points.



But my friend, please, don't call people retarded.

[Poopadoop]

Pretty sure your tin hat is a fez now, Ong. Haven't your heard?

[OngBonga]

I don't get it.

[CoccoBill]

8 years of obama has left us with stagnant job growth, abysmal workforce participation, stale wages, and disgusting GDP.

Lol.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...d-solid-hiring
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

[Poopadoop]

Lol.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...d-solid-hiring
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

What have the facts got to do with it? This is politics, man.

[wufwugy]

The question is not whether or not the US is doing what I laid out, but why and how far they intend to go. It has been standard knowledge by geopolitics experts for a long time now.

[wufwugy]

I'd respond to this, but I'm late for the mosque.

Tell me what you honestly think about this.

[wufwugy]

Lol.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_c...idential_terms
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...d-solid-hiring
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

He didn't word it the way it should be worded.

It is VERY likely that the economy would be better off had Obama done nothing out of the ordinary. Even with a significant net negative impact on GDP and employment by him, the economy would grow, which it has.

This recovery has been uniquely bad and the economy is in a markedly weaker position in a comparable business cycle because of it.

Right at this moment, the economy is pretty good. Expectations are growing enough that the Fed is raising interest rates. Curiously (or not so curiously), the Fed decided to raise the rate after the Trump election showed marked improvement in the economic outlook. However, in the broad picture, the economy is weak.

[CoccoBill]

Links or didn't happen.

[wufwugy]

For what? The history of NATO?

[CoccoBill]

What are the economic markers in a comparable cycle and how are they different now? How does the recovery typically happen in similar recessions? When did this current cycle start?

IOW, you typed words, please provide data to support your words.

[wufwugy]

Oh, that.

The atypical weakness of this recovery is something economists have been discussing since 2009/2010. One of the key elements is how interest rates typically respond during a recovery of past recessions. Another is the absolute level of interest rates. The Fed funds rate tells the story.



Regarding the absolute level of rates: them being so low, low enough that economists call it the "zero lower bound", has never happened before (in the US). That is where short term interest rates are effectively zero. The consequence is a liquidity trap, where conventional monetary policy of capital injections don't decrease interest rates. There are ways around this problem, but they require some unconventional tools, some of which central bankers have used in the last few years, but there is a great reluctance to use them.

Cutting short term rates is the primary tool used by central banks to respond to sluggish growth. An obvious consequence of being at zero is that if recession were to hit again -- which it always eventually does -- central banks would not have their most relied upon tool. Side note: my economics capstone will very likely cover in part the idea that the Federal Reserve caused the financial crisis of 2008 due to not reducing the federal funds rate swiftly enough and with enough magnitude at key points during the 2007-08 recession. Due to the details of how the Fed acted, it lost credibility to sustain its target, which plummeted short term nominal expectations, which turned banks balance sheets from managed into nightmares, resulting in system-wide panic. Fun stuff.

The unconventional policies are powerful, but the economy has little experience with them and economists don't have a fantastic idea of how effective they would be if another recession were to hit now. Given the politics of it, even if it is totally the case that unconventional policies create stimulus by decreasing long term rates or increasing inflation expectations for as long as implemented, central banks can't reasonably be expected to engage the policies. The takeaway point here is that the less ability to decrease short term rates a central bank has, the less likely they are to adequately respond to the kind of recession we just had. We are at .75 a full 8 years after we hit 0 to .25. Employment has increased to approximately full and short term inflation expectations are not that markedly below 2%. The fact that employment and inflation expectations are in a good place yet interest rates are in a bad place shows us that something is weirdly wrong with the economy.

Regarding how interest rates respond to recessions, the graph shows how typical it has been for interest rates to shoot up shortly after a recession ends. In recent decades, this effect diminished yet still existed, and now it's all but vanished. Regardless of what is causing this lack of upward pressure on interest rates during recoveries, it's a sign of systemic weakness of the economy, and it's at its worst ever approximately now.

There are other indicators we could look at, like GDP, and I'll only do so if you want. The short of it is that GDP has been markedly low during the recovery. This means that despite the positive signs, there is still something that makes this economy atypical and weaker. There are a bunch of other indicators that I don't know enough about to discuss, things like unusually poor labor participation rates or unusually high part time employment.

[surviva316]

So what was his motivation in business, must also be his motivation in politics?

[Emphasis added]

No, but it means that it might be. And as other explanations get harder to justify, it becomes the more likely explanation.

I'm not offended when people say that just because I'm a poker player means that me bullshitting is always at least one potential, simple explanation for the things I say--one that could potentially be the most likely explanation for me saying something as other explanations start to fail. W/r/t bluffing, this is actually quite a bit how putting someone on a range operates. If you've seen that I'm capable of bluffing before, and I'm not repping any obvious value hands with a certain line, then there's a good chance I'm bluffing.

We could maybe expand on this analogy and say that you're the guy in a HH who's like, "Oh, just because he's bluffed a few times means he HAS to be bluffing now," and I'm like, "No, I'm saying the fact that he bluffed before means he might be bluffing now, and as per my other posts, I can't think of what value hand he's repping."

And just because you can't categorically disprove that.....you won't even entertain the notion that perhaps he's simply a driven patriot?

Show where I invoked burden-of-proof or stop accusing me of this line of thinking. I can't imagine what you're referencing where I said that you have to disprove a positive assertion in order for it to not be true, and it's really hard for me to respond to it when it's so far outside of my point.

Also, here you say "I won't even entertain the notion that perhaps he's a driven patriot," and further down you base a criticism of me around the fact that I say it's entirely possible that this is his motivation. You're being intellectually dishonest ... and I don't mean that as an off-the-cuff hot-take; I mean that simultaneously using both interpretations of my post at moments where it most benefits you (or even better, is a detriment of me) is bald-faced intellectual dishonesty.

But what you're saying (that he's motivated solely by greed), goes beyond biased and divisive. It's incendiary, accusatory, and inflammatory.

This is the weird thing about Trump's career: he was very recently assumed to just be a solipsistic, power hungry, ego-driven billionaire. Very few people disputed this. This is an AC casino and real estate magnate we're talking about here FFS! Then he entered the political realm, and suddenly throwing personal attacks at him is considered incendiary, accusatory, and inflammatory. Talk about being politically correct and being forbidden from calling a spade a spade.

Let me put it on the public record right now to say that I think Sheldon Adelson is more than capable of exploiting politics to get what he wants. While I'm at it, I'll add the Koch brothers on there. This way if Adelson pursues a career in politics, then no one can accuse me of being toxic for political discussion, and I'm just calling it like I've always seen it.

You missed the point of the tax thing, and it's not worth hashing out and sidetracking the entire conversation. I myself said I agree with carrying forward losses. As a poker player this is probably the one thing I've been most passionately defending. What I was referencing was more nuanced than that, but it doesn't matter; don't want to sidetrack.

And the way you are presenting and supporting your argument

.... is infantile, glib, and frankly an extremely lazy line of thinking.

Again...lazy thinking.

For someone who's so concerned about the "tone" (rather than content) of posts, you're very fond of pejorative adjectives.

And now's maybe a good time to point out that your quote was taken from a purposely concise, quick-shot post as part of a series of posts worth thousands of words. If you're looking for something deep, nuanced, and thoroughly qualified and contextualized, then that isn't the place to get it.

If it's "entirely possible" that something else is true, then why are you so insistent that yours (and apparently Occam's) conclusion is true? Why is yours "least far fetched theory?"

You're responding to a post that's weeks old and is a short one-off that's somewhat oblique to a multitude of thousand-word-long posts on the general subject of Trump's appointments. In that post, I said I was "proposing" an "explanation." The person I was directly addressing replied with a: Yeah, maybe, but I don't think so, we'll see. My non-response to that was supposed to be a sort of: Okay, fair enough, agree to disagree. Especially given the stakes of the conversation at hand, I think that's pretty tame.

Even in this most recent post where I dedicated a lot of words to it, I said over-and-over again that I don't have "evidence" and I don't "know" anything and just think it's a scary-strong possibility (again, given the stakes of the discussion).

You are the only one to hitherto treat my theory as insistent or absolute.

You'd be a fool to suggest that blatant personal ambition was not a driving force for the ascension of all 44 of our previous presidents. Why does the narrative change to 'maniacal material greed' now that it's Trump? Occam's razor would say that whoever is giving the narrative must have some extreme bias.

Many people accused Clinton of various less-than-savory motivations, and I've been fine with many of them.

But there's also an extreme false equivalency here. Not all motivations of "personal ambition" are equally problematic for the office. No modern president has ever had an even remotely comparable level of conflicting interests. And this isn't just my biased perspective. Newt himself has used this unprecedented level of entanglements as a reason for using a more open interpretation of Emoluments Clause. At the risk of broaching conspiracy theories, the very direct influence of foreign powers on the election process (please don't strawman this part of my post) doesn't happen with all presidents.

We've always had to be vigilant against people scratching lobbyists' bellies, adding earmarks for their donors, etcetcetc. We've always had to worry about presidents pushing too hard for their pet-legislation to make their mark on the history books. These are not equivalent concerns as what I proposed.

I agree, your words had to do exclusively with Trump. But even you sniffed out your own implication.

To clarify my point there, I'm saying you can't possibly criticize a political figure without having at least the potential implication that their supporters are {some bad word} for supporting them. You could say every study that says that Bernie Sanders' economic policies don't add up is an implicit accusation that all of his supporters are star-gazing ideologues who need to move out of their parents' basements and get a job to pay some taxes so they know what it's like in the real world.

The most generous interpretation of those studies, though, is that they are just studies investigating the viability of economic policy.

You can hide behind the literal textual interpretation of your point if you want. I won't dispute it.

As someone who tries my best in internet discussions to maintain a stasis, and keeping things on topic and direct to the points that are made regardless of what barbs may be made along the way, I'll take this as a compliment.

I'm just letting you know, that kind of shit is tiring. I'm not saying you said that stuff. I am saying that your line of "trump just wants to be prez so he can sell more condos" is incredibly similar to all that other garbage. And I'm just letting you know, so that you can start being part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Okay, here's the sitch: I'm worried that there is a quite good chance that Trump is a purely self-interested person whose main concern in office is to abuse his powers to consolidate as much power, money and influence around his family. In the interest of being constructive and allowing me to be part of the solution and not the problem: How do you suggest I express this in a way that doesn't--in your opinion--belittle his supporters?

Maybe you think I'm an asshole for so much as considering this in the first place, but if that's the case, I'd like for you to stop focusing on the tone of my posts and start comforting me by defeating some of the content of my posts.

And while we're on the subject of "being part of the solution," while you're busy squinting between the lines of my post, you have quite directly called me a retard who is making incendiary, accusatory and inflammatory points based on infantile, glib and extremely lazy lines of thinking. Not that I care in the slightest (I don't mind a little name calling and finger pointing so long as it's not ad hominem) but it does make me question how much you care about what you preach, or whether you're just grasping at reasons for why I can't say mean things about Trump on the internet.

[JKDS]

Kids always be taking their baggage to the internet. Sad.

[CoccoBill]

Oh, that.

The atypical weakness of this recovery is something economists have been discussing since 2009/2010. One of the key elements is how interest rates typically respond during a recovery of past recessions. Another is the absolute level of interest rates. The Fed funds rate tells the story.

So the key indicator to show how the economy is doing is the federal funds rate set by the FOMC? You must be trolling, right? The interest rates, as you yourself state in the following paragraph, are artificially kept low to stimulate growth, they are not a direct metric of anything, outside of what the committee thinks is best in their meetings.

Cutting short term rates is the primary tool used by central banks to respond to sluggish growth. An obvious consequence of being at zero is that if recession were to hit again -- which it always eventually does -- central banks would not have their most relied upon tool. Side note: my economics capstone will very likely cover in part the idea that the Federal Reserve caused the financial crisis of 2008 due to not reducing the federal funds rate swiftly enough and with enough magnitude at key points during the 2007-08 recession. Due to the details of how the Fed acted, it lost credibility to sustain its target, which plummeted short term nominal expectations, which turned banks balance sheets from managed into nightmares, resulting in system-wide panic. Fun stuff.

Fed's corrective actions or lack thereof have nothing to do with the root cause, which was packaging shitty mortgages and selling them as grade-A financial instruments, all made possible by lack of regulation and oversight.

Employment has increased to approximately full and short term inflation expectations are not that markedly below 2%. The fact that employment and inflation expectations are in a good place yet interest rates are in a bad place shows us that something is weirdly wrong with the economy.

I interpret "weirdly wrong" as "absolutely no idea". Interest rates are where they are because the FOMC and the banks set them where they are. But enough about interest rates, unless you can demonstrate they show more than a reflection of the human interpretation of the desired actions to steer the economy.

Regarding how interest rates respond to recessions, the graph shows how typical it has been for interest rates to shoot up shortly after a recession ends. In recent decades, this effect diminished yet still existed, and now it's all but vanished. Regardless of what is causing this lack of upward pressure on interest rates during recoveries, it's a sign of systemic weakness of the economy, and it's at its worst ever approximately now.

Now this sentiment about the health of the economy I can relate to, but where is the causality with Obama's policies? I don't think he's been president for the recent decades.

There are other indicators we could look at, like GDP, and I'll only do so if you want. The short of it is that GDP has been markedly low during the recovery. This means that despite the positive signs, there is still something that makes this economy atypical and weaker. There are a bunch of other indicators that I don't know enough about to discuss, things like unusually poor labor participation rates or unusually high part time employment.

Could you show me the exact spots that show the GDP being markedly low after 2008?





From what I understand, lowering labor participation rate is expected because of the aging population, a growing percentage of people on pension. Regarding high part-time employment, yeah thanks Obama.

[OngBonga]

Look at this graph...

[Poopadoop]

Ya, I think saying Obama had much of an effect on the economy one way or the other isn't really supported by the data. What happens with Trump will be interesting; I'm sure big business will profit from it but how much of that profit will find it's way down to the working man is another question.

[wufwugy]

So the key indicator to show how the economy is doing is the federal funds rate set by the FOMC? You must be trolling, right? The interest rates, as you yourself state in the following paragraph, are artificially kept low to stimulate growth, they are not a direct metric of anything, outside of what the committee thinks is best in their meetings.

Interest rates are a mix of artificial and natural, so to speak. The Fed can change them however they want by altering the money supply, but rates also change on their own from changes in aggregate demand. The unusually depressed rates in magnitude and length coupled with moderate inflation expectations tell us that aggregate demand is not increasing like it normally does during recoveries.

Fed's corrective actions or lack thereof have nothing to do with the root cause, which was packaging shitty mortgages and selling them as grade-A financial instruments, all made possible by lack of regulation and oversight.

That caused the Dec-2007 to early 2008 recession. The post-June 2008 recession and financial crisis was a new event where some very unique things happened that point towards the Fed losing credibility. Lending practices and monetary policy are both causes of the financial crisis. Central bank actions can be pointed to more exactly, however.

I interpret "weirdly wrong" as "absolutely no idea". Interest rates are where they are because the FOMC and the banks set them where they are. But enough about interest rates, unless you can demonstrate they show more than a reflection of the human interpretation of the desired actions to steer the economy.

Every economist I know about agrees with what I laid out here. Rates don't exist in a vacuum. The Fed chooses to not contract money supply because aggregate demand growth is bad. Where economists disagree is on what is causing this.

Could you show me the exact spots that show the GDP being markedly low after 2008?

The growth rate is about half what it normally is outside of recessions.

[wufwugy]

Ya, I think saying Obama had much of an effect on the economy one way or the other isn't really supported by the data.

Obama could change the growth rate today through his actions.

[wufwugy]

He's also probably the only person in the country who could credibly do so (outside of Trump). Even though he's only got 20 days left, he could still affect expectations. An incoming president or one who has several years ahead of him can change expectations like nobody's business.

[wufwugy]

Add Yellen and other central bankers to the list of individuals who can change growth expectations immediately based on statements and actions. There's not much outside of that. Maybe if Harry Reid had a coming to Jesus moment and introduced pro-growth bills, but even then the markets would not be likely to believe him at first.

[Jack Sawyer]

More ...

[wufwugy]

I had the sudden realization that these discussions might be fruitless as long as we have such a divergence in premises and knowledge regarding key elements, like economics.

[wufwugy]

An example is that the stock market rise is a very good example of Trump being good for the average person in the economy. I forget that there is a very common populist view that stock behavior represents only the rich. So, when I use the stock market rally as a point in Trump's corner, it is viewed by others as a point against Trump.

[Jack Sawyer]

An example is that the stock market rise is a very good example of Trump being good for the average person in the economy. I forget that there is a very common populist view that stock behavior represents only the rich. So, when I use the stock market rally as a point in Trump's corner, it is viewed by others as a point against Trump.

Enlighten me with your economic vision and wizardry wufwugy; how does this particular thing benefit the average person in the economy? I was under the impression that anything the stock does benefits (or hampers) the people who hold stocks and those who broker them

[Poopadoop]

Businesses whose stock value goes up can use the money to invest in expansion. That creates jobs. Of course that only helps the average person if those jobs go to average people. A large part of the recent rise in stocks has been in financial institutions like Goldman Sachs (surprise!), who don't hire many 'average' people.

[wufwugy]

Enlighten me with your economic vision and wizardry wufwugy; how does this particular thing benefit the average person in the economy? I was under the impression that anything the stock does benefits (or hampers) the people who hold stocks and those who broker them

Changes in asset prices affect those who hold them directly and everybody else indirectly. Changes in prices in stock markets like the dow show the expected changes in the price level of assets in a given industry and/or company. A change in the price level of an industry or company affects every employee of that industry or company. While individuals who hold stock in specific companies that have a price rally benefit the most, all others affected by that industry also benefit. An example is in how one of the big rallies from Trump's election was in pharma. This positively affects everybody who works in pharma. It even affects positively those who consume pharma, just in a more diminished (proportional) sense. If we're really getting into macroeconomics, then we can point out how this rally actually positively affects every other person in every field, but because of proportions and lags, it's not easy or useful to quantify.

A common concern is that in rallies, asset holders gain more than non-holders (the Wall Street vs Main Street meme). The common concern is that this is a problem. But the truth is that this is normal, productive economic function. Think of it like if you live in a neighborhood and own a home. If the value of your home increases, it benefits you the most, but it also benefits everybody else in the neighborhood through various means like putting upward pressure on the prices of their own homes as well as increasing the wealth in the community and thus increasing aggregate demand which increases the consumption of the goods and services produced by others in the community. Can you think of a different way in which benefits from the increase in the price of your home should be distributed?

This is not to say that there isn't inherent weakness to how this works. It's not perfect, but the idea that Wall Street benefits while Main Street does not isn't that reflective of reality. The meme is probably popular because it is easy to see how an individual (like you owning a house) benefits from the asset price increasing, but not so obvious the effects of that asset price increase dispersed in the macroeconomic sense.

If you have any questions, please ask.

[wufwugy]

Businesses whose stock value goes up can use the money to invest in expansion. That creates jobs. Of course that only helps the average person if those jobs go to average people. A large part of the recent rise in stocks has been in financial institutions like Goldman Sachs (surprise!), who don't hire many 'average' people.

It's way more than that. What types of assets does GS hold? People with relation to those assets benefit from the rally. In fact, rallies that positively affect banks like GS don't even have to be about the banks themselves but about the assets, of which banks tend to hold a good deal. For example, if there is a increase in the expected price level of housing values, banks that hold mortgages are likely to rally too even though the lion's share of the benefit is to the home owners themselves.

Given how diversified banks are, it is very unlikely that a rally (or a fall) in stocks won't include them.

[Poopadoop]

Before we get too carried away with analysing the stock market, we should keep in mind that Trump's only been P.E. for a couple of months. There's still 48 months of his actual presidency to go and so any short-term change in the market is not a guarantee of what will happen in the future.

[wufwugy]

True. Definitely true.

However, stock prices react very swiftly to credible information that signals permanent changes in expectations. So, even if Trump doomed the stock market at a later date, the rallies impacted by him so far would still be due to expected permanent increases in asset values. If investors also thought that Trump would doom the economy in, say, six years, his election would have yielded marked decline in asset values.

Stock markets are very good at assessing the information they have. They so good in fact they could be described as doing so not too far from perfectly. HOWEVER, they do not get perfect information, so that doesn't mean that a rally means necessarily that the rally is reflective of "reality" (whatever that even means in this context; it's heavily debated), but that it's the best reflection of reality available at the time. Also stock behavior doesn't predict stock behavior. That's the random walk. Also new things can happen at any moment, like the Fed could decide to raise interest rates to 10% and then the economy would crash.

[wufwugy]

i lold

[Poopadoop]

How did the woman on meth gain weight? I call fake.

[OngBonga]

Poop, I really hope that whatever you're doing with your life, you're using your amazing ability to be able to weigh people based on the apparent size of their head from a photo.

Assuming you're right, that she has indeed gained weight, she may be sucking lots of dick to pay for her habit. Protein.

[boost]

Wuf, sup with the bill for that wall?

[wufwugy]

I'm assuming you mean the media reporting that the bill doesn't have Mexico paying for the construction of the wall.

Trump never said Mexico would pay for construction, so there's that. As for what he actually meant, I don't know. Could be he meant Mexico would pay for it by some indirect means or another, or maybe it was pacing and leading -- where he never intended to get Mexico to pay for the wall in an explicit sense but instead intended to convince people who want a wall that they'll be just as happy with a wall regardless of who pays for it. Or it could be a third option: the media will cover the topic as if Trump is a dummy liar, yet all the while the wall will get built. If the media covered how much they hate the wall, the building of it would be a lot harder, but media-people who make a living by being as trivial as possible can't pass up a delicious gotcha. It's fun watching them fall for the bait over and over, even as they are told exactly how they fall for it.

[Poopadoop]

To be fair, all I've seen in the media is (I paraphrase) '$8b is a fuckton of money. Mexico says it won't pay. How do we squeeze it out of them?', followed by some speculations about how it might be done and how it doesn't seem practical without serious repercussions.

[wufwugy]

So far he's been using the border tax on businesses that leave the country as a threat to great effect. I doubt any border tax will be imposed, ultimately. But the threat is credible -- companies believe him -- and almost everyday I'm seeing reports of a new company that announces it will be investing more in the US than otherwise or moving business back that it wouldn't have otherwise, sometimes explicitly stating it's in part because they think new taxes might be imposed on them.

[wufwugy]

It does sound like Trump is saying payment for the wall by Mexico will be more explicit. Options are that it comes as a part of a deal involving Mexico or sanctions on any variety of transactions that Mexico benefits from. I certainly think there is a ton of wiggle room here. Mexico benefits on the order of tens of billions annually by some of its citizens acting illegally in the US.

[wufwugy]

To be fair, all I've seen in the media is (I paraphrase) '$8b is a fuckton of money. Mexico says it won't pay. How do we squeeze it out of them?', followed by some speculations about how it might be done and how it doesn't seem practical without serious repercussions.

Even better.

[Poopadoop]

Even better.

Seems more sensible to me to be asking those questions than to assume that you're somehow going to squeeze $8b out of them without any consequences to yourselves.

[wufwugy]

Seems more sensible to me to be asking those questions than to assume that you're somehow going to squeeze $8b out of them without any consequences to yourselves.

I'm not sure which consequences you're referring to. In a short term monetary sense, Mexico has big time net gain from illegals in America, while America has net loss. Making up for 8b is easy.

[Poopadoop]

Mexico has big time net gain from illegals in America, while America has net loss. Making up for 8b is easy.

What are you basing this on? You don't even know how many illegals are in America or what they do or where their money goes.

[wufwugy]

I've seen estimates over the months/years. Nobody has exact figures.

[wufwugy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us/politics/trump-ambassadors.html?_r=2&referer=

Great stuff. Only problem is that after Trump is gone, things will likely go back to normal. What's normal? Public servants believing that instead of serving Americans, Americans serve them; believing that public service is a way of life and a career. If we want good government, these things have to go away. Government should be made up of people who are there only due to their eagerness to make a positive change, people who are sacrificing a great deal to do so, people who get in and then get out. They shouldn't be building lives and families around paychecks from taxpayers. Trump might be just the only person in American government who truly gets this.

[boost]

Wuf, you've definitely drunk the Kool-Aid. I'm sure you'll ask me to explain how, or point to specifics or claim that I am the one who drank the Kool-Aid long ago. As to the details, there's no point, your idea of reality (or the one you strategically promote) is so far removed from mine that there simply can't be a meaningful discussion without setting aside heuristics and starting from scratch-- and let's be honest, no non-academic has time for that endeavor, certainly not here, in this desolate corner of the internet. As for me having drank the Kool-Aid, sure, maybe, but it's just a different color than the one you've recently gorged yourself on, and the same color you drank long ago and up until not all that long ago. The difference, as I see it, is that I've been making a concerted effort to ween myself off all types of Kool-Aid, while you've doubled down on Kool-Aid consumption.

One last sort of general observation of things as they are: If Scott Adams' theory on who Trump is and what his motives are is true, it becomes a catch 22, because you simply can't know who a person operating in such a way is and what their motives are. When Newspeak is employed, it's purpose is to obfuscate the truth, to create a plurality of truths in which the perpetrator can rope-a-dope his critics and detractors. When this is masterfully done, it is awe inspiring, but it is far from a desirable ability to see deployed by one's own leader. If your leader's method of communication with you, his true follower, is a series of winks and nods and vagaries, you can never truly know that he is in fact your agent.

[wufwugy]

Maybe set aside the accusations in the first paragraph that depend on me not agreeing with your second paragraph. The second paragraph is an argument I have made many times and I still make today. In fact it's one of the main reasons I voted against Trump in the primaries.

That isn't the end of the story, however. Patterns can be evaluated for meaning, and more importantly, actions can be evaluated. But you're totally right, it is very hard, if not impossible, to get a firm grip on what he is actually going to do at this point in time. It's a big reason I did not vote for him when there was a better option.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe set aside the accusations in the first paragraph

Perhaps the criticism wasn't stated as tactfully as it could have been, but you've been cheering pretty much non-stop for Trump since he became the nominee and now P.E. The only times you've stopped cheering for him has been when someone has pointed out how you've been non-stop cheering for him. Which I guess is meant to show they're wrong. Then the next day you go back to being his biggest fan.

[wufwugy]

Perhaps the criticism wasn't stated as tactfully as it could have been, but you've been cheering pretty much non-stop for Trump since he became the nominee and now P.E. The only times you've stopped cheering for him has been when someone has pointed out how you've been non-stop cheering for him. Which I guess is meant to show they're wrong. Then the next day you go back to being his biggest fan.

To be completely honest, if I thought Trump got a fair shake around here, I would become very hawkish on many things regarding him and would argue pretty regularly for what I don't like seeing from him.

[Poopadoop]

To be completely honest, if I thought Trump got a fair shake around here, I would become very hawkish on many things regarding him and would argue pretty regularly for what I don't like seeing from him.

I don't think that's the impression most people around here have.

Who were you defending him from in this post for example?

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/05/us...?_r=2&referer=

Great stuff. Only problem is that after Trump is gone, things will likely go back to normal. What's normal? Public servants believing that instead of serving Americans, Americans serve them; believing that public service is a way of life and a career. If we want good government, these things have to go away. Government should be made up of people who are there only due to their eagerness to make a positive change, people who are sacrificing a great deal to do so, people who get in and then get out. They shouldn't be building lives and families around paychecks from taxpayers. Trump might be just the only person in American government who truly gets this.

[wufwugy]

Grand scheme of things. I am a big supporter after all. Most of what he does is quality. That specifically I posted because it's unique.

Something that can shine a light here -- relates to why I hypothesize Boost said what he said -- is that Trump supporters tend to not take him literally yet Trump non-supporters do. I'd like to take credit for that idea, but I'm not the first come up with it. Relating to the wall, non-supporters tend to think that anything other than Mexico expressly paying for it is a campaign oathbreaking, but supporters never saw it that way. We were ready from the very beginning (though I didn't support him at that time) to rationalize who's paying for it through any means necessary as long as Trump actually got the damn thing built. Or at the very least he would have to make very substantial improvements regarding illegals, but not getting an actual solid wall up would lose him a lot of support.

There are many promises that Trump has to keep in order for his base to not abandon him. A literal and simplistic reading of what he says doesn't shine a light on what those are, though.

[wufwugy]

One way of seeing that the "kool-aid" explanation doesn't exactly fit is that if you view Trump through a handful of frames, what he does makes a helluva lot more sense. One frame is that he is always negotiating, which is a very reasonable frame to use too -- he did, after all, write one of the most famous books on the subject. So when he says something like how Putin is doing a "great job" in Russia, it takes on different meanings depending on which frame you're using. If you're using a traditional politics frame, he's adding flame to the fire of the enemy. If you're using Level 1 Loser-thinking frame, he thinks Putin's a great guy and endorses him. If you're using a frame that has some level of understanding of Trump, he is using the statement in a forward thinking way. If you're planning on sitting across the negotiating table from somebody in the future, you wouldn't call his wife a whore and his son a wimp beforehand. You'd call him smart and sing his praises. You'd get his guard down. You'd get him on your side even as he attempts to not be. Likewise, if you're gonna be the US President and you're gonna deal with Putin, you'd be a fool to make such bad public statements about him that he enters the arena with snarling dogs.

When Trump says good things about Putin, people who have a >0 understanding of Trump think he's got a plan in mind, while people with Level 1 Loser thinking accidentally (purposely?) run nose first into walls.

A question is raised: how do we know that Trump is not being literal and that he has the country's best interest in mind? Well, we don't. But what we do know is that if he fucks his supporters over, they will fuck him over. His supporters don't want him bowing to Putin, losing to Putin, or doing anything to compromise the country in his dealings with Putin. It is reasonable to assume that Trump knows this too at the very least. He has shown signs of being extremely in tune with what his base thinks (one nifty example: his Pepe pose at the debate and retweet of the shop). The next step then is to understand who Trump supporters are. Fake News tells us they're all Russian spies and sympathizers. I guess that's why it's Fake News.

[Poopadoop]

There are many promises that Trump has to keep in order for his base to not abandon him. A literal and simplistic reading of what he says doesn't shine a light on what those are, though.

That's just giving him an out, which supports the idea that you've gone beyond being a supporter to being a fanatic. If he builds the wall but the US pays for it, then at least he built the wall. If he doesn't build it but tightens the border by other means he's built a metaphorical wall (I've heard you use this argument before). So basically, anything he does that appears to be tough on immigration is 'keeping his promise'. But that's not how promises work. You don't promise your wife a new car for her birthday, give her an old beater instead, and say you kept your promise of buying her a car.

Let's look at his other two big promises, the ones everyone was chanting at his rallies. "Lock her up." Nothing.

"Drain the Swamp." If draining the swamp means getting rid of corruption, he's failing that one bigly. You don't replace lobbysists and Wall Street types with other lobbyists and Wall Street types and someone from Exxon and call that draining the swamp.

[Poopadoop]

One way of seeing that the "kool-aid" explanation doesn't exactly fit is that if you view Trump through a handful of frames, what he does makes a helluva lot more sense. One frame is that he is always negotiating, which is a very reasonable frame to use too -- he did, after all, write one of the most famous books on the subject. So when he says something like how Putin is doing a "great job" in Russia, it takes on different meanings depending on which frame you're using. If you're using a traditional politics frame, he's adding flame to the fire of the enemy. If you're using Level 1 Loser-thinking frame, he thinks Putin's a great guy and endorses him. If you're using a frame that has some level of understanding of Trump, he is using the statement in a forward thinking way. If you're planning on sitting across the negotiating table from somebody in the future, you wouldn't call his wife a whore and his son a wimp beforehand. You'd call him smart and sing his praises. You'd get his guard down. You'd get him on your side even as he attempts to not be. Likewise, if you're gonna be the US President and you're gonna deal with Putin, you'd be a fool to make such bad public statements about him that he enters the arena with snarling dogs.

When Trump says good things about Putin, people who have a >0 understanding of Trump think he's got a plan in mind, while people with Level 1 Loser thinking accidentally (purposely?) run nose first into walls.

A question is raised: how do we know that Trump is not being literal and that he has the country's best interest in mind? Well, we don't. But what we do know is that if he fucks his supporters over, they will fuck him over. His supporters don't want him bowing to Putin, losing to Putin, or doing anything to compromise the country in his dealings with Putin. It is reasonable to assume that Trump knows this too at the very least. He has shown signs of being extremely in tune with what his base thinks (one nifty example: his Pepe pose at the debate and retweet of the shop). The next step then is to understand who Trump supporters are. Fake News tells us they're all Russian spies and sympathizers. I guess that's why it's Fake News.

You're completely pigeonholing what the anti-Trump camp is saying about this. It's not that we literally think he has a childish admiration for Putin and that's why he's buddying up to him. It's that we think he's got personal economic interests in Russia and that's why he's buddying up to him. All this praising Putin is being used to prepare the public for a soft stance on Russia. One thing Trump's already made clear is that he's against using sanctions to punish Russian aggression. Guess who lost out on a big oil deal with Russia because of those sanctions - the same company who used to employ your future secretary of state. Guess who benefits if those sanctions get lifted. And guess who also benefits personally if business with Russia goes back to normal.

Trump could easily dispel this criticism by making his business interests public knowledge, or just by setting up a blind trust to sell his businesses. That's what an ethical person would do. So what makes him above this?

[wufwugy]

That's just giving him an out, which supports the idea that you've gone beyond being a supporter to being a fanatic. If he builds the wall but the US pays for it, then at least he built the wall. If he doesn't build it but tightens the border by other means he's built a metaphorical wall (I've heard you use this argument before). So basically, anything he does that appears to be tough on immigration is 'keeping his promise'. But that's not how promises work. You don't promise your wife a new car for her birthday, give her an old beater instead, and say you kept your promise of buying her a car.

There's a backstop. It will be very obvious to his supporters if and when he betrays them. As much as I would like to be able to quantify what that would be, I can't. Look at it this way: Trump and conservatives are speaking a different language. From the beginning, conservatives who jumped on his wagon immediately knew what he was talking about, and nobody in the media, except those at the center of conservatism, like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, had any clue about it.

Let's look at his other two big promises, the ones everyone was chanting at his rallies. "Lock her up." Nothing.

"Drain the Swamp." If draining the swamp means getting rid of corruption, he's failing that one bigly. You don't replace lobbysists and Wall Street types with other lobbyists and Wall Street types and someone from Exxon and call that draining the swamp.

I disagree on the drain the swamp stuff. I think his picks are very drainy of the swampy. But I also think that what left-leaning people think of as the swamp is different than what right-leaning people do, so it may not appear drainy to you yet it does to me.

On the "lock her up" stuff, it'll be interesting to see what happens. Conservatives are pretty serious on the president not interfering with the judiciary. "Lock her up" during the campaign is more of an energizing red meat thing. I don't know what will happen after inauguration. Could be nothing. His supporters are split on what they think he should actually do, but they are not split in that they want her locked up. Wants and reality are often different, and it is openly recognized to possibly be that way in this case.

[wufwugy]

You're completely pigeonholing what the anti-Trump camp is saying about this. It's not that we literally think he has a childish admiration for Putin and that's why he's buddying up to him. It's that we think he's got personal economic interests in Russia and that's why he's buddying up to him. All this praising Putin is being used to prepare the public for a soft stance on Russia. One thing Trump's already made clear is that he's against using sanctions to punish Russian aggression. Guess who lost out on a big oil deal with Russia because of those sanctions - the same company who used to employ your future secretary of state. Guess who benefits if those sanctions get lifted. And guess who also benefits personally if business with Russia goes back to normal.

Trump could easily dispel this criticism by making his business interests public knowledge, or just by setting up a blind trust to sell his businesses. That's what an ethical person would do. So what makes him above this?

This sounds populist left to me. I am unaware of what the populist left thinks on this issue. I tend to only see what the establishment left does.

[wufwugy]

Here's a good example of the left's view of the swamp:



It still gets its foundations from Marxism. To it, the swamp is the rich. They're the oppressors; the non-rich are the oppressed. It's derived from the same philosophy from which the proletariat being oppressed by the bourgeoisie is.

The different view, originating from Adam Smith, from the Enlightenment, from the West, from Britain and America, is that the swamp is a government that empowers special interest groups. It's not about rich or poor, class vs class, but about freedom vs authoritarianism.

We don't know which view is best. What we do know is that the Marx view led to nearly the total destruction of prosperity and liberties while the Smith view led to great prosperity and liberties.

[Jack Sawyer]

Changes in asset prices affect those who hold them directly and everybody else indirectly. Changes in prices in stock markets like the dow show the expected changes in the price level of assets in a given industry and/or company. A change in the price level of an industry or company affects every employee of that industry or company. While individuals who hold stock in specific companies that have a price rally benefit the most, all others affected by that industry also benefit. An example is in how one of the big rallies from Trump's election was in pharma. This positively affects everybody who works in pharma. It even affects positively those who consume pharma, just in a more diminished (proportional) sense. If we're really getting into macroeconomics, then we can point out how this rally actually positively affects every other person in every field, but because of proportions and lags, it's not easy or useful to quantify.

A common concern is that in rallies, asset holders gain more than non-holders (the Wall Street vs Main Street meme). The common concern is that this is a problem. But the truth is that this is normal, productive economic function. Think of it like if you live in a neighborhood and own a home. If the value of your home increases, it benefits you the most, but it also benefits everybody else in the neighborhood through various means like putting upward pressure on the prices of their own homes as well as increasing the wealth in the community and thus increasing aggregate demand which increases the consumption of the goods and services produced by others in the community. Can you think of a different way in which benefits from the increase in the price of your home should be distributed?

This is not to say that there isn't inherent weakness to how this works. It's not perfect, but the idea that Wall Street benefits while Main Street does not isn't that reflective of reality. The meme is probably popular because it is easy to see how an individual (like you owning a house) benefits from the asset price increasing, but not so obvious the effects of that asset price increase dispersed in the macroeconomic sense.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Sure, I'll get back to you on this quite shortly. Derivative Financial instruments AFAIK do not make the little people, aka the working class, rich. For the quants though, that’s another story.


Needless to say I do not have a high regard for Wall Street, but I will back up my reasoning and opinion with actual facts rather than anecdotes. But, another time/