Market politics

[Reciprocity]

We will be borrowing an estimated $983B in this fiscal year, an 86% increase over last year. Live in denial if it makes you feel marginally better, it's your constitutional right.

At least your masters will get their estate tax cut and the rivers will be more polluted.

I was talking specifically about the debt added by the tax act. The current budget and spending is what was inherited from Obama as the Dems have blocked anything but continuing resolutions and refuse to pass a balanced budget as written by rebubs.

Obama added over 10T to the national debt in 8 years or roughly 1.25T per year. So in Trumps first year, he cut that average by almost 300B, good job Trump. My guess is that growth will offset much of that net debt added next year or at the very least the year after as GDP growth hits 3%+ . Trump does want to spend more on military so maybe it doesn't get flush until the end of his first term, but then our military wont be in dangerously neglected state it is in now.

 

[Reciprocity]

You work with what you got . Barry took the worst economy since the 1930s plus a $1.5T deficit and turned it into full employment plus a $380B deficit.

Trump has all that Obama revenue streaming in and is still going to borrow $1T+ in this his first budget year. That's not counting all the extra waste they'll manage to add one the fiscal year.

There's plenty of hipocrisy to around on all sides, but come on.....

Who is barry?

 

[anticitizen13.7]

So your saying that people who voted for Obama where convinced by racist Facebook ads to vote for Trump. You do understand that when you make those claims it is excessively offensive to 50% of the voters in this country. People liked Obama, they didn't like the results of his policies. If they did, nothing would have stopped the same people from voting for Hillary.

First of all, that's not what I claimed. Second, I frankly don't care how many people I offend, because what I said is true. If people can't face reality, sucks to be them.

This "racist" claim is a red herring.

Racism and racial fears are subtly different.

A lot of the people I know don't necessarily believe that Hispanics or Muslims are inherently "inferior" (which is the textbook definition of racism). They simply don't want their language and culture to be swiftly annihilated by waves of people from other places. That may be unfriendly or even unrealistic, but it isn't racism.

They lie about tax breaks saying 80 million people taxes are going up.. I don't think there are many more then 50 million that even pay taxes before the tax breaks and less after for to higher standard deductions.

From what I understand about the tax bill, the federal tax cut for people will sunset after some period of time, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent.

As dumb as some of the stuff Trump says is, that is not just dumb, it's insulting to think anyone would believe it. The only people's taxes that are going up are rich elites in high tax States. Many of those states are broken and maybe this will help push them to get fixed. For example Il, where I pay more in property tax then state income tax by probably 2x. State and local taxes are much higher then fed. Sales tax is 10% as well. Even with all if that, I still get a small tax break. If I made maybe 50% more and had a bigger house, I would probably not have a tax break. It's the 1% that everyone vilified that had taxes go up, unless they are employers.. then they qualify for tax savings which can go to higher more people.

I know many people who believe everything that President Trump says is true.

But I suggest you keep up with Russian hysteria and calling everyone racist because Dems will never get voted in again if that's your platform.

I couldn't care less about the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter. It's the difference between "Dumb" and "Dumber".

 

[Reciprocity]

First of all, that's not what I claimed. Second, I frankly don't care how many people I offend, because what I said is true. If people can't face reality, sucks to be them.

I am glad you think this way. This is a great platform for dems. Should do really well in upcoming elections. Please get out there and stump for libs. This is essentially the deplorable platform. Everyone who does not agree is stupid, racist or scared of the truth. Maybe if you actually said what you believed instead of just saying what others believe is wrong and hateful, then you might actually convince some people. Like explain why open borders are good and explain why the rich should paid more then 90% of all taxes paid. And explain who giving free services, including free college to undocumented immigrants who came here illegally is a good thing for tax payers in the US.

This "racist" claim is a red herring.

You have not watched the news in this country. I have been called a racist by many politicians and news people for not supporting open borders. If you are for any vetting of immigrants in anyway, you are a racist. If you want anyone deported or prosecuted for crimes while here illegally, you are a racists. If you even thought about voting for Trump, you are by default a racist. This is probably said every night on the news by either a news person or a politician.

Racism and racial fears are subtly different.

A lot of the people I know don't necessarily believe that Hispanics or Muslims are inherently "inferior" (which is the textbook definition of racism). They simply don't want their language and culture to be swiftly annihilated by waves of people from other places. That may be unfriendly or even unrealistic, but it isn't racism.

No one who is not a racist believes anyone is inferior. The problem is that dems label anyone who does not agree with them as having a racial reason for it. Secure borders.. racist. Vetting to keep bad operators out, big time racist. These things are common sense to some people and not racially motivated. I want all the Mexicans.. all the ones that can improve the US and none of the ones that are drug mules. I want all the Muslims who want to come here and make America a better place, not the ones who want to change america into a sharia state. This is America and we should be importing a lot of immigrants, but only the best of whats available based on merit. Education, clean records, employed or employable. I dont give a crap what color or what country they are from. I am not by any sense of the term saying it would be easy. But its important. Open borders is a terrible idea and would be bad for the US. Maybe some places it would be good, but not here.

From what I understand about the tax bill, the federal tax cut for people will sunset after some period of time, while the corporate tax cuts are permanent.

It only sunsets because the dems wouldnt help make it permanent, not because Repubs wanted it to sunset. It was a procedural thing to only require 51 votes in the senate. If Dems really cared about those people they would have voted to make that part permanent. Its true that Rebubs have some control, but not the kind of control Obama had when he passed Obama car with 60 dems in the senate.

I know many people who believe everything that President Trump says is true.

Same could be said for Elon and Nancy Pelosi.

I couldn't care less about the Democrats, or the Republicans for that matter. It's the difference between "Dumb" and "Dumber".

For once we agree. But one group is rational and the other would have us become venezuela while being lead by Bernie.

 

[Reciprocity]

This is my last post in this thread.. if I'm wrong and Trump is impeached I'll come back to this thread and eat all the crow. But if I'm right, you will see 3+% GDP being the new floor and gop holding both house and Senate in Nov. I'll let the scoreboard do all my taking from here on out as this forum has a clear bias and no one is in the mood to be convinced of anything beyond what they already believe, myself included.

A healthy debate is fine but at some point things degrade to the point where nothing useful is said. This is that point. Good day and good luck.

 

[gigglehertz]

For once we agree. But one group is rational and the other would have us become venezuela while being lead by Bernie.

I'll take being more like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

No one who is not a racist believes anyone is inferior. The problem is that dems label anyone who does not agree with them as having a racial reason for it. Secure borders.. racist. Vetting to keep bad operators out, big time racist. These things are common sense to some people and not racially motivated. I want all the Mexicans.. all the ones that can improve the US and none of the ones that are drug mules. I want all the Muslims who want to come here and make America a better place, not the ones who want to change america into a sharia state. This is America and we should be importing a lot of immigrants, but only the best of whats available based on merit. Education, clean records, employed or employable. I dont give a crap what color or what country they are from. I am not by any sense of the term saying it would be easy. But its important. Open borders is a terrible idea and would be bad for the US. Maybe some places it would be good, but not here.

You keep making this about “Dems”, but it is a serious mistake to think that this is a binary D/R issue.

Most Democrats and mainstream Republicans are broadly the same in that they are what the Alt-Right calls “Civic Nationalists”, people who believe that a multicultural society can hold together by common government and rule of law.

You don’t get it.

Outside of major metro areas, much of America isn’t interested in a multicultural utopia. This is a fundamental reality. They largely want communities that are stable in terms of ethnicity, language, and culture. The vast majority of these people don’t wish ill upon those of other ethnicities and religions. They simply want those people to stay in their own countries.

This is not a perspective I agree with, because I believe that a strong America requires infusions of new blood and “hungry” innovators. However, it has been a spectacular failure of the Democrat-Republican duopoly to fail to recognize that many people are dissatisfied with Civic Nationalism, and also a failure to design policies to keep order by balancing stability and evolution.

This is partly why Donald Trump was elected. He addressed the concerns of people regarding ethnic, religious, and cultural stability in a way that was ignored by the mainstream GOP and all of the Democrats.

For once we agree. But one group is rational and the other would have us become venezuela while being lead by Bernie.

Bernie is in the image of a Scandinavian socialist, not a South America authoritarian.

 

[JRP3]

The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan proved that even a small number of insurgents with small arms and homemade bombs could wage effective asymmetric warfare against an invading force with advanced technology and heavy equipment. Local people can also exploit knowledge of terrain and culture to maximum advantage.

In both cases they were/are being supplied with arms from outside sources and are fighting an enemy who is unwilling to actually commit to winning.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

In both cases they were/are being supplied with arms from outside sources and are fighting an enemy who is unwilling to actually commit to winning.

Nobody is as committed to winning as those whose homes and way of life are at risk.

Americans, whether as troops on the ground or civilians at home, were never going to have the same level of commitment to winning as Vietnamese, Iraqis, or Afghanis determined to regain independence from outsiders. It's not IMO who is committed or not committed, but who is committed most.

 

[Intl Professor]

Who is barry?

Short nickname (in college?) for Barack.

 

[Intl Professor]

In both cases they were/are being supplied with arms from outside sources and are fighting an enemy who is unwilling to actually commit to winning.

I could reference a lot of books and articles about the Vietnam War and the recent PBS series that could clarify things. I would agree with you about not committed to winning if you mean the military and political leaders were totally incompetent in how to fight such a war. Might have helped with the countryside if we had not spent most of our effort on behalf of a corrupt regime, so bad we actually collaborated in assassinating the elected President and then stood by while the generals who took over were equally corrupt and incompetent.

Ike knew something about war when he stopped Admiral Radford, John Foster Dulles, and his brother Allen, who wanted to use a nuclear weapon to somehow save the French at Diên Biên Phu. Do you think Ike was wrong about nixing nukes in jungle warfare? Looks like some in the White House now think they are useful so they plan research on smaller nuclear weapons. (Recently I've read they are for our ships.) I worked with some admirals and have many students with military backgrounds. The Navy is scared of nuclear weapons. They make waves and a naval vessel is a great source of heat so easily targeted. I had lunch with one of the admirals in Washington at a conference. I noted the whole enterprise of Vietnam was strategically wrong because the Vietnamese were actually a great barrier to Chinese expansion in that direction. Then he said, "I commanded a carrier task force off Vietnam during the war and then believed anyone with knowledge of Southeast Asian history would agree with you." Wasn't Trump's second choice for National Security Advsor author of a definitive book on Vietnam castigating the top brass for going along with it? Dereliction of Duty (1997 book) - Wikipedia

The Navy did want us to use suicide dolphin torpedoes until John Lily found put about it and quit. Maybe that's what Trump has in mind?

My brother was a medic at Danang. Once when they were under siege he was running to the hospital with his buddies when they heard a shell coming, he jumped to one side of the road, they got hit with a phosphorus bomb. Funny how he ran around the back yard the first July 4th after he was discharged. My youngest son was a special forces guy, fortunately he never saw combat. On a visit to his boring Dad he picked up an anthology about Vietnam and remarked, without prompting, "Dad, that war was weird. In my training we are told we have the support of the population. We fought on the wrong side!"

What kind of a foreign policy might we have if Trump had served in our military?

For transparency, I had a lot of 2S deferments, though a new father so not seriously worried about the draft. I did file for conscious objection, initially, but when he found out about it my Dad had a fit so I dropped it. Had MIT a naval ROTC program I would have served. Army ROTC was required, however, and I got an A in drill--probably because I was a good dancer. Normally we didn't think highly of the ROTC instructors—in map reading they tried to help us with tests—can you imagine an MIT mechanical engineer with high school employment as a draftsman having difficulty reading a map? The exception was a really tough captain who taught automotive maintenance. I flunked that test, the only failure in a lifetime of testing. It was a real joke on ourselves in our fraternity; none of us could tune up a car.

Last Edit: Some typos.

 

[Bobfitz1]

What the Russians did was use Facebook ads, fake Facebook groups, and fake Twitter accounts to stoke racial fears in the United States.

I don't think the Russians "tricked" anyone. They did exploit existing fears. I think it is impossible to know, however, whether Russian interference was the deciding factor in 2016. The DNC did itself no favors by sabotaging Bernie Sanders at every opportunity, and Mrs. Clinton's "deplorables" comment certainly alienated many working class voters outside of major metro areas.

Trump won in the Electoral college based on a tiny 80,000 vote advantage in 3 key states. The Russians aided Trump by phony Facebook postings targeted at swing voters which were then shared by those targeted to tens of millions on Facebook. Only a tiny percentage of those seeing Russian postings need have been influenced to give the necessary 80K extra Trump votes. Russia also stage managed the timely dissemination of Clinton emails they hacked by Wikileaks. Clinton's campaign took a major hit when James Comey choose to go back again to Congress to say he was reopening the Email investigation because more emails were found on an advisors laptop. To be charitable, James Comey while ethical has shown he is a self important fool. He decided to reopen the Email investigation wound while making no mention to Congress of the concurrent FBI investigation into Russian hacking, and Trump campaign officials contacts and collusion with Russian agents. If Comey wasn't a fool, he would have kept silent about both investigations or informed Congress about both with context on the seriousness of each. As each new Trump adviser is indicted by the Mueller investigation and agrees to cooperate, it becomes more clear why the great leader has obstructed the Russia investigation in every way possible. Mueller is methodically assembling the evidence that Russia has dirt on Trump which they try to leverage to get out of the sanctions imposed on them for interfering in the U.S. election. Late last year, 99% of senators and congress men/women voted to impose more severe sanctions on Russia, yet the Trump Administration has refused to do so. They have also done nothing to try and prevent interference with the 2018 election. Does anyone aware of what's going on need to ask Why?

 

[Intl Professor]

Apologies but my lens after all is political.

There's also a lot of chatter over whether the Nunes memo vindicates Trump and a letter written by Carter Page asserting he lobbied for the Russians. I consider the latter a very political leak by someone in the intelligence establishment. This is just another example of the stupid tit for tat excrement we are in now. If I were the president I would not like to get into a fight with those guys and gals. But that is the reality we are in now and an example of what the deputy secretary or FBI guy who wrote the House and President about the dangers to national security of publishing the memo. (There are other reasons fully reported.) The memo itself on its face is not damaging, except for a fairly innocent reveal about FISA warrant procedures. But the context is political hell and I'm sure "the market" doesn't like that either.

There's also the pending government funding uncertainty as Trump has rejected the latest bipartisan compromise over the Wall. It is likely the Dems will cave again.

On the other hand those of you who believe this is the inevitable market correction are probably right. Shall we wait until the last two days have reached 10% down on historical grounds for confirmation? I think the fundamentals are still sound, as the White House announced publicly early in the day. Again, not an advice.

Bolded is last edit.

 

[Intl Professor]

It's not broken, it's functioning as the Constitution intended. Good luck changing the Constitution. Also be careful what you wish for. A lot of Republicans in densely populated blue States don't vote because it's pointless. If it became a popularity contest like you want no one would campaign in rural America and all the laws would be made for the elite ruling classes on the coasts and In big cities. This is why we have an electoral college and not a popularity contest.

I think it is too early to tell whether the Constitution has worked as intended; so far it hasn't. The worst fear of the founders was faction so they counted on federalism, separation of powers and resultant checks and balances to make sure no one faction was dominant. Now one of the factions is technically in control of all the government. The filibuster and the possibility of Republican defection is apparently the only threat to Trump's agenda. The founders would be appalled at what has happened; they very much distrusted parties yet that is where we are. The President has recently stated the opposing party commits treason. That should be a signal to us all. Fake news, of course, so are we set for another Alien and Sedition Act?

Take a look at the preamble to Madison's Federalist 51. He says something about a dependence on the people is the best hedge against tyranny yet alternate measures are necessary—federalism, separation of powers, etc. Historically the evolution of parties, money defined as speech and grant of personal rights to corporations by the courts, gerrymandering on steroids because of technological innovations, and the rise of media and foreign intervention by cyber means in our elections, were never contemplated by the founders and are not directly due to or limited by the structure of the Constitution. History has consequences.

What is left is only the filibuster, Republican defection, or impeachment as a check on Trump. Some of us may think that is a good thing, necessary to draining the swamp. As an extinguished professor of Soviet studies I remember Lenin justified violent revolution by offering the metaphor of an omelet: "You can't make it without breaking eggs." On his deathbed he warned about the dangers of Stalin. Too little, too late.

 

[Intl Professor]

Russia also stage managed the timely dissemination of Clinton emails they hacked by Wikileaks.

I'm not sure of this. Mercer's Cambridge Analytical may have been responsible, or advised the Russian's what to do.

 

[Intl Professor]

This is my last post in this thread.. if I'm wrong and Trump is impeached I'll come back to this thread and eat all the crow. But if I'm right, you will see 3+% GDP being the new floor and gop holding both house and Senate in Nov. I'll let the scoreboard do all my taking from here on out as this forum has a clear bias and no one is in the mood to be convinced of anything beyond what they already believe, myself included.

A healthy debate is fine but at some point things degrade to the point where nothing useful is said. This is that point. Good day and good luck.

I hope you will come back. Some of the discussion here is rough, confirming the wisdom of moderators to stay away from politics. Unfortunately, politics is involved in too much of our daily lives, the real economy, and thus the investing environment. As an intellect many of us here treasure what you have to say. I disagree totally with many of the things you say, politically, as well as simple-minded reactions by any others who might vote as so-called "liberals." The key which I'm sure you and others agree about is the need for civility. As George Bernard Shaw once said: "the nation's morals are like its teeth, the more rotten they are the more it hurts to touch them."

It could be my social science background and thus bias, but I think civil dialogue about our politics is needed now more than ever, just as it was at our founding and insufficient in the lead up to the Civil War. In addition what I treasure in the luxury of retirement is the intellectual sparks I see flying on the Tesla Motors Fora. In the interest of continuing discussion of the political markets I hope you do return and offer as a first step some snippets in a next post designed to elicit further discussion of what we might call metapolitics.

 

[Reciprocity]

I am not getting involved in a political discussion on this forum going forward. It has been my Achilles heel on this forum and it only takes away from the joy of this forum. I get that it is heavily biased in one on one side and I would prefer to keep my views to myself and just enjoy life, I suggest you all do the same.

I will however come back here if Trump is impeached and eat a pile of crow. Happy to do it if that is the outcome because it will mean something dirty went down, beyond the typical dirtiness of politics and op research. I will also comeback and gloat if the economy does well and budgets are balanced based on higher GDP and growth, similar to the Reagan and Clinton years. I always thought Clinton governed from the center and I think it paid off for the country. Sadly, those days are long gone. Wish we had a third party.

 

[Intl Professor]

I wrote about the demise of our traditional parties just after the election as it appeared to be the logical conclusion of the evil of partisanship which the founders abhorred. The unpublished piece offers some suggestion about what the parties might do to change and seek policies more consistent with the public good. One place to start is the preamble to our Constitution. That intention should be their intention. The Constitution itself (except of amendments) is mostly about process but, as I have said earlier, it fails us today because of external changes in how political contests are conducted. Our manners have got us into chaos, competition, and deadlock. So the resurrection of old manners are needed—like concern for civic virtue—and new ones must be invented—like assuring consumers can pay for goods and services.

I will offer two snippets to start some discussion and will cease unless there seems some more interest or reaction.

The first two paragraphs:

"The best outcome of the primary battles would have been a Trump/Ryan ticket for the Republicans and a Sanders/Warren combo for the Democrats. Then we would have a clearer picture of what the general voters in each party would want to see for their choices about change last November.

"That was not to be. Nonetheless the country does want substantial change, not just the changing of the guard and the outcome has become a test of the viability of both of the traditional political parties."

A note about racism:

"There is nothing wrong about tribalism and we must recognize that we all have blind spots due to our heritages. In fact, it is wise to admit tribalism at the outset. At one point I was close enough to observe, 'you’re racists,' in a conversation with two leaders of the black community who were students in one of my classes. They were clearly surprised at my surprise. 'Of course we are racists, all of us think in categories of race, even you.' Likewise for sexism in presumably the sanitized version: 'Men are from Mars, Women from Venus.'

"It is good to have pride in the accomplishments of your tribe. What is wrong is the idea that pride depends upon diminishing the pride of the other or at the expense, morally, economically, or spiritually of the other. Diminishment betrays lack of confidence in one's own culture, jealousy, or even envy of the other. It is always based on fear or insecurity. Opposition to police brutality is not an attack on law and order. Equally, violence against police who are ill-trained and operating in environments of depravation, which they have neither created nor can change, is not an act of righteous freedom."

Fire away, or ignore.

 

[Intl Professor]

This is brutality. If we cant hold 331.88 our next support level is 321.54. If anyone wants to join me in an atheist prayer circle I'll be in the alleyway outside.

Not an athiest, they're too certain. I was taught in a twelve step group to pray, but not to pray for anything material you might want because you might get it, or not. The psychology is evident to those who hope TT0007 will be sad so the stock will go up. I never try to give God advice about the stock market, although my mother in law does occasionally when she goes to temple and in addition to the welcome of good wishes for health for us, etc., sometimes wishes for the stock market to go up. Whether she knows about Tesla, I know not, but I may have committed the sin, inadvertently today because for the first time my lovely wife got me to say a prayer in sanskrit after her morning worship in front of an image of Buddha. She repeated it for me three times, and I after her, and then bowed three times as I know is her custom. I said an oral prayer in English for our country in particular, its people, and the people of the world. However, I haven't the foggiest idea what the sanskrit meant and I was able to confirm with my wife, she hasn't a foggiest either. Could it be I offended God and that's why we are suffering so today? Mind you, I am convinced logic can explain some investors' actions, but in the aggregate the quest for rationality in the market is fruitless. For Liberals, I use the cap because historically almost all of us, especially Republicans, believe the market is God. (Cf Garry Wills, Nixon Agonistes.)

Even the so-called communists in China, Vietnam, and I hear, Cambodia now, have lots of respect for market prices. All to the good.

 

[Intl Professor]

Meanwhile, there's a bladder race going on in Washington. I know, the mods don't like me to wander.