Market politics

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

What I wrote is accurate.

It ever happening is a fantasy. The question is are we going to work to make that fantasy a reality?

Right now, about 35% are stupid left, 35% stupid right which leaves 30% in the middle to "swing" elections. You can not fix problems you can not discuss and neither right nor left wants to discuss anything; they just want to make the other side the villain.

It's only mathematically accurate. It's not representative of reality and is thus a fantasy.

Anyway, I agree that problems can't be fixed without some sort of discussion. But I feel that some social differences cannot be bridged with any amount of discussion. Some people just have to live separately.

Let's face it, we're witnessing the greatest flaw with democracy IRL - not having an informed NOR engaged citizenry. Democracy is best, when it's people care about it. Too bad laziness is human nature.

If there was some way for people to join the government's that they agreed with, without sacrificing the proximity to their social-circles, then people would make more involved decisions.

I don't recall mentioning it, but how about a "virtual government"? Where citizens choose the government they want, by funding it? And then they're free to leave and join others if they don't? Kind of like church, where it's lifeblood is its flock. There might be many who would end up as anarchists, but maybe that's good enough for them?

 

[dmunjal]

Hoarding wealth is the same as hoarding resources. If the 1% keep tying up money how are the rest supposed to make enough to be comfortable and afford healthcare etc.?

Can you please explain what you mean by the rich hoarding or tying up money? Do they bury it or put it under a mattress?

The rich do not hold much cash. They invest in stocks (which helps corporations grow. Like Tesla), they invest in bonds (which helps governments raise money) and in real estate (creating a rental market). All of these are good for the economy.

The economy isn't a zero sum game. Entrepreneurs like Musk and Bezos do good things for the economy with their wealth by innovating and creating jobs and products that people want.

As I've said before, it is the government and Fed that creates the inequality through inflation which artificially raises the cost of living.

Inflation Worries: How The Government Fuels Higher Prices In Health Care And Education | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Why costs are soaring for education, health care

 

[wdolson]

It's only mathematically accurate. It's not representative of reality and is thus a fantasy.

Anyway, I agree that problems can't be fixed without some sort of discussion. But I feel that some social differences cannot be bridged with any amount of discussion. Some people just have to live separately.

Let's face it, we're witnessing the greatest flaw with democracy IRL - not having an informed NOR engaged citizenry. Democracy is best, when it's people care about it. Too bad laziness is human nature.

If there was some way for people to join the government's that they agreed with, without sacrificing the proximity to their social-circles, then people would make more involved decisions.

I don't recall mentioning it, but how about a "virtual government"? Where citizens choose the government they want, by funding it? And then they're free to leave and join others if they don't? Kind of like church, where it's lifeblood is its flock. There might be many who would end up as anarchists, but maybe that's good enough for them?

The US could split the country. The NE Yankees and Deep South have been pulling in opposite directions for over 200 years. Let the South form their own country with an agreement that for at least a certain period, any American citizen can claim citizenship in one or the other and let people vote with their feet.

Can you please explain what you mean by the rich hoarding or tying up money? Do they bury it or put it under a mattress?

The rich do not hold much cash. They invest in stocks (which helps corporations grow. Like Tesla), they invest in bonds (which helps governments raise money) and in real estate (creating a rental market). All of these are good for the economy.

The fact that the rich buy stocks and help the economy is mostly myth. If a company is selling stock to raise cash and someone buys it, then the company directly benefits. After that all stock trades are bought from parties that already own the stock and the only benefit (or loss) goes to the seller and the middle man (broker who takes a cut). A high stock price gives people a feeling the company is of some value, but it's mostly a psychological thing. Stocks can run up to great heights when a company is actually unstable (like Enron).

Elon wanted to take Tesla private because trying to keep the stock price up so people won't natter at him is adding to his stress load.

And it's much better for many people to own their own home than for a few people to own most of the housing and rent it out. Rent is throwing your money down a hole compared to owning under most circumstances. There are some situations where renting is better, but the entire economy is more stable with many home owners.

The economy isn't a zero sum game. Entrepreneurs like Musk and Bezos do good things for the economy with their wealth by innovating and creating jobs and products that people want.

As I've said before, it is the government and Fed that creates the inequality through inflation which artificially raises the cost of living.

Inflation Worries: How The Government Fuels Higher Prices In Health Care And Education | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD

Why costs are soaring for education, health care

Inflation in health care and education has been caused by bad actors gaming the system. Ultimately natural inflation happens when worker's incomes are growing, but that hasn't happened in years in the US.

A perspective from a 0.1% who tells the world what is really happening:

 

[lolachampcar]

There's your problem.

Our.
Let's fix it.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Can you please explain what you mean by the rich hoarding or tying up money? Do they bury it or put it under a mattress?

The rich do not hold much cash. They invest in stocks (which helps corporations grow. Like Tesla), they invest in bonds (which helps governments raise money) and in real estate (creating a rental market). All of these are good for the economy.

That's a circular reference. The rich buying stock, bonds, and real estate do not drive up consumption, it only serves to enrich its investors, who happens to be the rich. This is how wealth is hoarded. Rent reduces purchasing power from the renter, bonds tie-up future purchasing power from the borrower (tax payers), and stocks traded on the open market don't directly help a company (attracting talent and lowering borrowing costs aren't direct benefits of the stocks being purchased). And in all this time, the value of that investor's holdings increases.

The entities at the other end of that investment do drive consumption though, as they build things and consume. You can't commingle the two, as that's like combining the middle class with the upper class and saying that most americans earn an above-median income. It's about the 1%

My wife and I are almost at the top 2% income level (~2.1%), but we're dual-income wage earners living in a townhome (can't afford an SFR in our area) in CA. That's how severe the income inequality is. We have no misconceptions that we live more comfortably than others, but are just amazed at how blind the wealthy are to everyone else.

 

[dmunjal]

The US could split the country. The NE Yankees and Deep South have been pulling in opposite directions for over 200 years. Let the South form their own country with an agreement that for at least a certain period, any American citizen can claim citizenship in one or the other and let people vote with their feet.



The fact that the rich buy stocks and help the economy is mostly myth. If a company is selling stock to raise cash and someone buys it, then the company directly benefits. After that all stock trades are bought from parties that already own the stock and the only benefit (or loss) goes to the seller and the middle man (broker who takes a cut). A high stock price gives people a feeling the company is of some value, but it's mostly a psychological thing. Stocks can run up to great heights when a company is actually unstable (like Enron).

Elon wanted to take Tesla private because trying to keep the stock price up so people won't natter at him is adding to his stress load.

And it's much better for many people to own their own home than for a few people to own most of the housing and rent it out. Rent is throwing your money down a hole compared to owning under most circumstances. There are some situations where renting is better, but the entire economy is more stable with many home owners.



Inflation in health care and education has been caused by bad actors gaming the system. Ultimately natural inflation happens when worker's incomes are growing, but that hasn't happened in years in the US.

A perspective from a 0.1% who tells the world what is really happening:

That's a circular reference. The rich buying stock, bonds, and real estate do not drive up consumption, it only serves to enrich its investors, who happens to be the rich. This is how wealth is hoarded. Rent reduces purchasing power from the renter, bonds tie-up future purchasing power from the borrower (tax payers), and stocks traded on the open market don't directly help a company (attracting talent and lowering borrowing costs aren't direct benefits of the stocks being purchased). And in all this time, the value of that investor's holdings increases.

The entities at the other end of that investment do drive consumption though, as they build things and consume. You can't commingle the two, as that's like combining the middle class with the upper class and saying that most americans earn an above-median income. It's about the 1%

My wife and I are almost at the top 2% income level (~2.1%), but we're dual-income wage earners living in a townhome (can't afford an SFR in our area) in CA. That's how severe the income inequality is. We have no misconceptions that we live more comfortably than others, but are just amazed at how blind the wealthy are to everyone else.

You sound like me. Dual income and top 1-2% and still living in a townhome (suburb of SF).

Even with a high income, what makes you feel that you're not wealthy? It's because the cost of living is so high. Housing, education, and health care are the biggest expenses families face and they are skyrocketing. Do you think that's normal? Ready the links I provided to show that they are artificially high because of government involvement. Everyone is making more money than they did 10, 20, 30 years ago but the cost of living has grown faster than wages. That's the problem.

The biggest economic fallacy is that consumption creates wealth. It's the exact opposite. Production creates wealth. The US became the wealthiest country in the world by producing and exporting goods and services to the world. That wealth allowed the consumption that makes one feel wealthy. Today, consumption creates only service jobs since most things are imported and not manufactured here. The US went from having the largest trade surplus to having the largest trade deficit in a mere 50 years. We are making Japan, China, Korea, Saudi Arabia rich and not ordinary Americans anymore.

Look at the where the richest parts of the US are. SF, LA, NY, Seattle, Texas. All have industries (tech, entertainment, finance, energy, respectively) that export to the world. But the rest of the country has closed up shop and is living off credit cards.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

You sound like me. Dual income and top 1-2% and still living in a townhome (suburb of SF).

Even with a high income, what makes you feel that you're not wealthy?

Simple, i'm amongst those who didn't benefit from the recent tax breaks. My tax bracket didn't exceed 28% and i ended up paying higher taxes due to the loss of mortgage deductions. Over 97% of the nation made less than me, yet I was only at the median tax bracket. There are 3 more tax brackets for the 2% above.

And consumption doesn't generate wealth, but it drives the economy. Consumption is how wealth gets distributed.

 

[wdolson]

This is not a formal definition, but it's my definition of poor, middle class, and rich.

Poor - Don't have enough money to pay for all the necessities and is constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul just to get through from day to day.
Middle Class - Has enough money to pay for all needs, but not all wants. The range from lower middle class to upper middle class is what percentage of wants can be purchased.
Rich - Has enough money for all needs and wants with money left over.

Where that line is will vary from person to person. Some people don't have a lot of wants and they may be upper middle class with an income that someone else might consider "poor". Especially if someone has a lot of expenses they can't control like large school loans or big medical bills.

A relatively big income in the Bay Area is probably going to leave someone with little at the end of the day because of the cost of housing.

I work contract for a company in Morgan Hill, CA and the guy I report to has hinted they would like to take me on full time if I wanted to move down there. My SO has two professional licenses in Washington and would have to start over in CA and I like the Northwest's climate better so it's pretty much a non-starter, but I looked as an intellectual exercise. What I'm making as a contractor is well less than the average for my skills and experience in Silicon Valley as a full time employee with benefits. They would have to shell out a lot more for me as a full time employee and we'd end up in a house 1/2 the size of what we have, even in Gilroy, with a big mortgage.

There is a lot of talk about the 1% hogging all the wealth, but the real hogs are the top 0.1%. The wealth curves are reasonable up to around 99.9% and then go off the charts. A lot of people in the Bay Area in the top 1% income bracket are just senior people at a tech company with a 2000 sf house built in 1965. A top 1% income in Bakersfield will get you a few acres on the Kern River upstream from the canals (where the river is still wild) and you'll have some left over to invest, but you don't have a private jet.

 

[Brando]

This is not a formal definition, but it's my definition of poor, middle class, and rich.

Poor - Don't have enough money to pay for all the necessities and is constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul just to get through from day to day.
Middle Class - Has enough money to pay for all needs, but not all wants. The range from lower middle class to upper middle class is what percentage of wants can be purchased.
Rich - Has enough money for all needs and wants with money left over.

Where that line is will vary from person to person. Some people don't have a lot of wants and they may be upper middle class with an income that someone else might consider "poor". Especially if someone has a lot of expenses they can't control like large school loans or big medical bills.

A relatively big income in the Bay Area is probably going to leave someone with little at the end of the day because of the cost of housing.

I work contract for a company in Morgan Hill, CA and the guy I report to has hinted they would like to take me on full time if I wanted to move down there. My SO has two professional licenses in Washington and would have to start over in CA and I like the Northwest's climate better so it's pretty much a non-starter, but I looked as an intellectual exercise. What I'm making as a contractor is well less than the average for my skills and experience in Silicon Valley as a full time employee with benefits. They would have to shell out a lot more for me as a full time employee and we'd end up in a house 1/2 the size of what we have, even in Gilroy, with a big mortgage.

There is a lot of talk about the 1% hogging all the wealth, but the real hogs are the top 0.1%. The wealth curves are reasonable up to around 99.9% and then go off the charts. A lot of people in the Bay Area in the top 1% income bracket are just senior people at a tech company with a 2000 sf house built in 1965. A top 1% income in Bakersfield will get you a few acres on the Kern River upstream from the canals (where the river is still wild) and you'll have some left over to invest, but you don't have a private jet.

you won't find such a wide range of incomes in Denmark
Everyone who CAN qualify for college can go.
No one worries about seeing a doctor.
No one goes bankrupt from medical expenses (2 million annually in US and many loose homes) search:

us bankruptcy due to medical bills

 

[wdolson]

you won't find such a wide range of incomes in Denmark
Everyone who CAN qualify for college can go.
No one worries about seeing a doctor.
No one goes bankrupt from medical expenses (2 million annually in US and many loose homes) search:

us bankruptcy due to medical bills

My SO is a bankruptcy attorney (among other things) and her experience fits in with what everyone else has said about bankruptcy in the US: the #1 cause is medical bills. Divorce is another cause, usually when one partner is financially irresponsible, though sometimes the costs of setting up two separate households and/or the going from a joint income to one can destroy someone's financial life.

My blood boils when I hear critics claim bankruptcy is just for the freeloaders. She knows of one guy who was a lawyer who set out to see if he could strategically declare bankruptcy. It took him something like 5 years of planning to set it up and game the system and that was before the 2006 changes. He pulled it off, but it took a massive effort and planning. Only a tiny sliver of the population would even know where to start doing what he did.

The Republicans don't want many people to go to college because they depend on uneducated sheep who will vote against their best interests if they shovel enough BS at them. But for the good of the country, educating as many people as possible will pay off down the line. If everyone who could qualify for college could go, even if the government had to foot the bill for it, it would result in higher income tax money coming in years later.

But educated people are, on average, tougher to fool into voting for candidates who pitch fear and distortion to get elected. There is talk about how the GOP has lost women, especially educated women for a generation, but they have largely lost educated voters in general thanks to Trump. The better educated someone is, the more likely they are to be anti-Trump.

 

[Intl Professor]

How long can Trump's staff protect himself and ourselves from Himself?

I probably will not read Bob Woodward's upcoming book and in this brief overview see some incidents confirmed elsewhere. There are some that are new to me. All are scary and portend some rash action not stopped by staff in time that will have immediate and disastrous consequences for national security and markets.

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency

Just a WAG, but I think the possibility of this disaster is more likely than, say, a short squeeze of our favorite stock. The market reaction will be swift and terrible. Whether clinically covered or not Nixon and Trump appear(ed) to be clearly unhinged by ordinary mortals. There have been historians and clinicians who have seriously argued Lincoln suffered from bipolar mood disorder or at least severe depression so worry about a president's health is not unknown. Nonetheless he is considered one of our greatest presidents. Neither of the previous two deserve such consideration.

Elsewhere on this site all too much consideration is given to Musk's mental health. We are all concerned about his workload, but the consequences for the nation are insignificant compared to the mental stability of Donald Trump. Unfortunately his insanity is catching. All of our moods are affected and amplified by the press and other means of communication. Sorry to ad to this. All the more reason to watch carefully the judiciary hearings underway with the Kavanaugh confirmation. Amy Klobuchar had a sane summary of where we stand and why this appointment is so important in her formal opening remarks. Normally I would be glued to the telly for this but I haven't time to indulge now.

The coming election is probably the most important in recent memory. The catastrophe I fear will not be likely before November, but either way watch out after. There are a lot of indicators decisions on tariffs, etc., are a drag on markets of all varieties. The actions of Gary Cohn elaborated by Woodward are directly relevant.

 

[lolachampcar]

Normally both sides would be equally concerned about a Federal Bench nominee lying about torture/rendition issues. Only one side appears to be this time around. Trump is a symptom of a much greater problem and it all comes back to us voters. We are not changing our hiring practices so I figure it will be Trump or the next clown we hire that will do irreparable damage. It reminds me of that saying that there is nothing like regret to let you know you are alive. I suspect we are all going to know we are alive sooner rather than later.

 

[Brando]

How long can Trump's staff protect himself and ourselves from Himself?

I probably will not read Bob Woodward's upcoming book and in this brief overview see some incidents confirmed elsewhere. There are some that are new to me. All are scary and portend some rash action not stopped by staff in time that will have immediate and disastrous consequences for national security and markets.

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency

Just a WAG, but I think the possibility of this disaster is more likely than, say, a short squeeze of our favorite stock. The market reaction will be swift and terrible. Whether clinically covered or not Nixon and Trump appear(ed) to be clearly unhinged by ordinary mortals. There have been historians and clinicians who have seriously argued Lincoln suffered from bipolar mood disorder or at least severe depression so worry about a president's health is not unknown. Nonetheless he is considered one of our greatest presidents. Neither of the previous two deserve such consideration.

Elsewhere on this site all too much consideration is given to Musk's mental health. We are all concerned about his workload, but the consequences for the nation are insignificant compared to the mental stability of Donald Trump. Unfortunately his insanity is catching. All of our moods are affected and amplified by the press and other means of communication. Sorry to ad to this. All the more reason to watch carefully the judiciary hearings underway with the Kavanaugh confirmation. Amy Klobuchar had a sane summary of where we stand and why this appointment is so important in her formal opening remarks. Normally I would be glued to the telly for this but I haven't time to indulge now.

The coming election is probably the most important in recent memory. The catastrophe I fear will not be likely before November, but either way watch out after. There are a lot of indicators decisions on tariffs, etc., are a drag on markets of all varieties. The actions of Gary Cohn elaborated by Woodward are directly relevant.

The President per our Constitution is just the Executive. Almost everything he does such as the most important appointments, spending, policies, tax law, any laws including tariffs ALL needs congressional approval or money from the Congress - Where the F___ are our Congress people? Trump doing exactly what the wealthy and the bought and paid for Congress want him to do. $1.5 trillion lates tax cut and nearly $ 1 trillion on our Military Industrial, Secret Security State, Prison & Court system, TSA, CIA, NDI and the other 20 or so agency that operate in secrecy. Trump is a symptom. You think Pense would be any better?? or Hillary for that matter. a place to start

 

[JRP3]

Hillary for that matter.

Yes in fact she would have been better, even Pence would be better than the wild boar rampaging through the Oval Office we have at the moment. "They're all the same" is just a cop out.

 

[wdolson]

How long can Trump's staff protect himself and ourselves from Himself?

I probably will not read Bob Woodward's upcoming book and in this brief overview see some incidents confirmed elsewhere. There are some that are new to me. All are scary and portend some rash action not stopped by staff in time that will have immediate and disastrous consequences for national security and markets.

Bob Woodward’s new book reveals a ‘nervous breakdown’ of Trump’s presidency

Just a WAG, but I think the possibility of this disaster is more likely than, say, a short squeeze of our favorite stock. The market reaction will be swift and terrible. Whether clinically covered or not Nixon and Trump appear(ed) to be clearly unhinged by ordinary mortals. There have been historians and clinicians who have seriously argued Lincoln suffered from bipolar mood disorder or at least severe depression so worry about a president's health is not unknown. Nonetheless he is considered one of our greatest presidents. Neither of the previous two deserve such consideration.

Elsewhere on this site all too much consideration is given to Musk's mental health. We are all concerned about his workload, but the consequences for the nation are insignificant compared to the mental stability of Donald Trump. Unfortunately his insanity is catching. All of our moods are affected and amplified by the press and other means of communication. Sorry to ad to this. All the more reason to watch carefully the judiciary hearings underway with the Kavanaugh confirmation. Amy Klobuchar had a sane summary of where we stand and why this appointment is so important in her formal opening remarks. Normally I would be glued to the telly for this but I haven't time to indulge now.

The coming election is probably the most important in recent memory. The catastrophe I fear will not be likely before November, but either way watch out after. There are a lot of indicators decisions on tariffs, etc., are a drag on markets of all varieties. The actions of Gary Cohn elaborated by Woodward are directly relevant.

There are many Psychologists/Psychiatrists (including my SO and a friend who worked in a mental hospital) who observe Trump's behavior is a textbook example of a Malignant Narcissist, which is the worst form of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder which is bad to begin with. Giving a Malignant Narcissist power is like feeding a gremlin after midnight. It's about the worst thing to do.

My SO has predicted everything Trump was going to do (not the details, those are impossible) from the moment he came down that escalator. She has first hand experience with personality disorders. Trump only cares about two things: his ego and status. Nothing else. He needs to look good at all times and needs constant flattery. As things look more and more bad for him, he has to distort reality more and more to look good. He can't possibly admit he ever made a mistake, even with something simple. He met with some Vietnam vets recently and was adamant the movie was about agent orange, despite all the vets remembering it wasn't.

As the walls close in on him his behavior gets more and more unstable as he has to distort reality more and more.

What concerns me even more than Trump's behavior is the political malpractice on the part of the Republicans. We listened to Rick Wilson's audiobook. He knows a lot of elected Republicans and the lot of them are afraid of a mean Tweet, a Trump ally will run against them in their next primary, and/or threats from Trumps base (some of those people are scary). Most hate him with a passion, but they are too weak to do anything about it. They are selling out the country and could destroy the republic for the sake of party unity. A party that's shrinking fast as people who never thought they would do anything but vote Republican flee the horror.

As far as Pence or Clinton being better. Pence is a dangerous ideologue who wants to turn the US into a theocracy, but he has some measure of decorum and knows how to behave. In some ways he would be more dangerous because he actually knows how to use the levers of power. On the other he would be better because he wouldn't just blatantly ignore the law as Trump has.

As far as Clinton goes, people hate her and you could write a shelf load of books on the conspiracy theories ginned up by her enemies over the years. She also has a bad habit that when she's accused of something she behaves as if she's guilty even if she's innocent. I have a friend like that who got arrested while walking her dog one night when the police got a call about a prowler and she acted like she was hiding something when they stopped to talk to her. She got arrested a couple of other times too, though she's one of the most law abiding people I know.

Additionally Clinton's public persona is like fingernails on a blackboard sometimes. One on one she's personable, but in public she's comes across like an angry robot.

She would not be a great president because of these personality quirks and the penchant for the right wing media to do everything it can to make her life miserable, but in her policies and acts as president, I have zero reason to believe she would do anything that would be all that harmful to the country and probably would do some things that would improve things, if she got the chance.

Personally her personality annoys me, but she would have been a significantly better president than the last two Republicans combined. Most of what people fear about her being president is BS invented by her enemies. On policy she's a rather boring centrist. That was true when she was a senator and as secretary of state.

 

[Intl Professor]

And very informative.

 

[lolachampcar]

wdolson,

Permission to steal please

"Giving a Malignant Narcissist power is like feeding a gremlin after midnight. It's about the worst thing to do."

 

[lolachampcar]

When it comes to Hillary, we have lost our collective moral compass. It is obvious that a decision was made to use a private email server to control communication which rightfully belong to the people. If it rises to the level of criminal is an issue for the Justice Department and thus should be handled in the normal course of business. The idea that we would elevate someone who purposefully obfuscated in an attempt to avoid her responsibility as a top governmental official is unacceptable and disqualifies her for public office. There are plenty of people like her in the private sector who scurry around just on this side of the law. She should have returned to the private sector. These comments do not even touch on the attacks she orchestrated on those that would expose her husbands treatment of women.

We have lost our collective minds or at least our collective moral compass (right and wrong compass, not the one you get from a pulpit). That requires pain to correct; the type of pain that only comes from pushing very bad decisions way too far. I'm not completely convinced that our democracy can survive the type of event likely to result from these poor hiring practices.

 

[neroden]

Elsewhere on this site all too much consideration is given to Musk's mental health. We are all concerned about his workload, but the consequences for the nation are insignificant compared to the mental stability of Donald Trump.

The *consensus* among *mental health professionals* is that Trump has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, *and* that it's worth overturning the usual "don't diagnose people you haven't seen in person" rule to tell this to the public, since it's so blatant from Trump's behavior *and* he's in a position where it's extremely dangerous. His behavior apparently actuallly matches the developmental level of a 2-year-old, according to people who've studied child psychology.

The coming election is probably the most important in recent memory.

The election in 2000 which was stolen was the most important in recent memory. Unfortunately, the bad guys won, and as a result the world will be devastated by global warming. This election merely determines whether the US collapses.

 

[neroden]

When it comes to Hillary, we have lost our collective moral compass. It is obvious that a decision was made to use a private email server to control communication which rightfully belong to the people.

Did you know that every Secretary of State since they started using email had used private email servers, *because the government servers were insecure*? I bet you didn't. And yet it is true. For some reason nobody went after Colin Powell about it.

This does show that the Department of State was exceptionally badly organized, but has nothing to do with criminality.