MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
Failing elites are to blame for unleashing Donald Trump
https://next.ft.com/content/f27340fc-1848-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president. He might even become president of the US. It is hard to exaggerate the significance and danger of this development. The US was the bastion of democracy and freedom in the 20th century. If it elected Mr Trump, a man with fascistic attitudes to people and power, the world would be transformed.
Mr Trump is a misogynist, a racist and a xenophobe. He glories in his own ignorance and inconsistency. Truth is whatever he finds convenient. His policy ideas are ludicrous, where they are not horrifying. Yet his attitudes and ideas are less disturbing than his character: he is a narcissist, bully and spreader of conspiracy theories. It is frightening to consider how such a man would use the powers at the disposal of the president.
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative commentator, recently wrote: “In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event.” He is right.
It might prove surprisingly easy for President Trump to find people willing to execute tyrannical orders or to compel the unwilling to do so. By exaggerating crises or creating them, a would-be despot can pervert judicial and political systems. The presidents of Russia and Turkey are skilful exemplars. The US has an entrenched constitutional order. But even this might buckle, particularly if the president enjoyed impeachment-proof support in Congress.
Mr Sullivan calls on Plato, the greatest of anti-democratic philosophers, in aid. Plato, he reminds us, believed that the more equal a society became the less it would accept authority. In its place would come the demagogue who offers simple remedies for complex problems.
Mr Trump is the pied piper of the enraged and the resentful. He has risen, argues Mr Sullivan, as the man who will “take on the increasingly despised elites”. Moreover, the media revolution has facilitated this rise by erasing “almost any elite moderation or control of our democratic discourse”.
Demagoguery is indeed an Achilles heel of democracy. Yet the Athenian democracy, in which Plato lived, did not give way to a domestic tyranny but was rather born from one. It was the Macedonian king who ended it in 338BC.
Above all, Mr Sullivan understates the role of elites. In the case of the US, he argues that wealth is unable to buy the presidency. Mr Obama defeated Mr Romney, for example. But money buys influence at lower levels of politics. More important, elites shape the economy and society. If a swath of the people is enraged, elites bear responsibility.
The righteous attachment of the Democrats to the rights of women and, still more, the cause of minorities, defined by race, sexual orientation and identity, transferred the allegiance of the white, male middle classes, particularly in the old South, to the Republicans. The racial element in “Obama derangement syndrome” is quite clear.
Then Republicans treated these supporters to a “bait and switch”. They needed these votes for what their donors most desired: low taxes, weak regulation, free trade and liberal immigration. To make these causes goals of the Republican party, elites had to turn the government into the enemy. They also had to entice culturally conservative supporters with promises of change that were never likely to be met.
In addition, elites on both sides promoted economic changes that ended up destroying trust in their competence and probity. In this, the financial crisis and consequent bailouts were decisive.
Yet by then the middle classes had suffered decades of real income stagnation and relative income decline. Globalisation has brought huge benefits to many of the world’s poor. But there were significant domestic losers. Today, the latter believe that those who run the economy and polity impoverish, exploit and despise them.
Even Republican elites have become their enemy and Mr Trump has become their saviour. It is no surprise that he is a billionaire. Caesar, aristocratic leader of the popular party, brought forth “Caesarism”, the rule of the charismatic strongman that Mr Trump wants to be.
A healthy republic does not require equality, far from it. But it does require a degree of mutual sympathy. Sudden wealth from new activities — conquest in ancient Rome, banking in medieval Florence — can corrode social bonds. If civic virtue vanishes, a republic becomes ripe for destruction.
Economic, social and political changes have brought the US to the point at which a significant part of the population seeks a strongman. It must be sobering to Republican elites that their base chose Mr Trump over Ted Cruz and Mr Cruz over everybody else. The party elite played populist games, notably in their adamant refusal to co-operate with the president. Those better at such games have defeated them.
Mr Trump realises that his supporters have no interest in the limited state beloved of conservatives. Their desire is rather the restoration of lost economic, racial and sexual status. His response is to promise massive tax cuts, sustained spending and reduced debt. But he does not need logical consistency. That is for the despised “lamestream media”.
Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate, tainted by her husband’s failings and her position in the establishment, and short on political talent. She ought to win but might not. But even if she were to win, that would not end this story.
Mr Trump has called forth new political possibilities. But it is not mainly an excess of democracy that has brought the US to this pass. It is far more the failings of short-sighted elites. Some of what has happened was right and so should not have been avoided. But much of it could have been. Elites, particularly Republican elites, stoked this fire. It will be hard to put out the blaze.
martin.wolf@ft.com
https://next.ft.com/content/f27340fc-1848-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e
Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president. He might even become president of the US. It is hard to exaggerate the significance and danger of this development. The US was the bastion of democracy and freedom in the 20th century. If it elected Mr Trump, a man with fascistic attitudes to people and power, the world would be transformed.
Mr Trump is a misogynist, a racist and a xenophobe. He glories in his own ignorance and inconsistency. Truth is whatever he finds convenient. His policy ideas are ludicrous, where they are not horrifying. Yet his attitudes and ideas are less disturbing than his character: he is a narcissist, bully and spreader of conspiracy theories. It is frightening to consider how such a man would use the powers at the disposal of the president.
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative commentator, recently wrote: “In terms of our liberal democracy and constitutional order, Trump is an extinction-level event.” He is right.
It might prove surprisingly easy for President Trump to find people willing to execute tyrannical orders or to compel the unwilling to do so. By exaggerating crises or creating them, a would-be despot can pervert judicial and political systems. The presidents of Russia and Turkey are skilful exemplars. The US has an entrenched constitutional order. But even this might buckle, particularly if the president enjoyed impeachment-proof support in Congress.
Mr Sullivan calls on Plato, the greatest of anti-democratic philosophers, in aid. Plato, he reminds us, believed that the more equal a society became the less it would accept authority. In its place would come the demagogue who offers simple remedies for complex problems.
Mr Trump is the pied piper of the enraged and the resentful. He has risen, argues Mr Sullivan, as the man who will “take on the increasingly despised elites”. Moreover, the media revolution has facilitated this rise by erasing “almost any elite moderation or control of our democratic discourse”.
Demagoguery is indeed an Achilles heel of democracy. Yet the Athenian democracy, in which Plato lived, did not give way to a domestic tyranny but was rather born from one. It was the Macedonian king who ended it in 338BC.
Above all, Mr Sullivan understates the role of elites. In the case of the US, he argues that wealth is unable to buy the presidency. Mr Obama defeated Mr Romney, for example. But money buys influence at lower levels of politics. More important, elites shape the economy and society. If a swath of the people is enraged, elites bear responsibility.
The righteous attachment of the Democrats to the rights of women and, still more, the cause of minorities, defined by race, sexual orientation and identity, transferred the allegiance of the white, male middle classes, particularly in the old South, to the Republicans. The racial element in “Obama derangement syndrome” is quite clear.
Then Republicans treated these supporters to a “bait and switch”. They needed these votes for what their donors most desired: low taxes, weak regulation, free trade and liberal immigration. To make these causes goals of the Republican party, elites had to turn the government into the enemy. They also had to entice culturally conservative supporters with promises of change that were never likely to be met.
In addition, elites on both sides promoted economic changes that ended up destroying trust in their competence and probity. In this, the financial crisis and consequent bailouts were decisive.
Yet by then the middle classes had suffered decades of real income stagnation and relative income decline. Globalisation has brought huge benefits to many of the world’s poor. But there were significant domestic losers. Today, the latter believe that those who run the economy and polity impoverish, exploit and despise them.
Even Republican elites have become their enemy and Mr Trump has become their saviour. It is no surprise that he is a billionaire. Caesar, aristocratic leader of the popular party, brought forth “Caesarism”, the rule of the charismatic strongman that Mr Trump wants to be.
A healthy republic does not require equality, far from it. But it does require a degree of mutual sympathy. Sudden wealth from new activities — conquest in ancient Rome, banking in medieval Florence — can corrode social bonds. If civic virtue vanishes, a republic becomes ripe for destruction.
Economic, social and political changes have brought the US to the point at which a significant part of the population seeks a strongman. It must be sobering to Republican elites that their base chose Mr Trump over Ted Cruz and Mr Cruz over everybody else. The party elite played populist games, notably in their adamant refusal to co-operate with the president. Those better at such games have defeated them.
Mr Trump realises that his supporters have no interest in the limited state beloved of conservatives. Their desire is rather the restoration of lost economic, racial and sexual status. His response is to promise massive tax cuts, sustained spending and reduced debt. But he does not need logical consistency. That is for the despised “lamestream media”.
Hillary Clinton is a weak candidate, tainted by her husband’s failings and her position in the establishment, and short on political talent. She ought to win but might not. But even if she were to win, that would not end this story.
Mr Trump has called forth new political possibilities. But it is not mainly an excess of democracy that has brought the US to this pass. It is far more the failings of short-sighted elites. Some of what has happened was right and so should not have been avoided. But much of it could have been. Elites, particularly Republican elites, stoked this fire. It will be hard to put out the blaze.
martin.wolf@ft.com
Last edited:
http://www.europac.com/commentaries/king_debt_seeks_presidency
Peter Schiff
Friday, May 13, 2016
During a lengthy interview on CNBC the week before last, Donald Trump, fresh from becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, came as close as any major presidential contender ever has to saying that America is not capable of repaying her debts in full, and that our path to economic recovery might involve some pain for our creditors. This moment of candor earned Trump almost as much condemnation as his earlier suggestions to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
To many, the idea that U.S. debt obligations involved even the slightest risks to investors was both the height of financial naiveté and the epitome of political recklessness. The pressure was so great in fact that The Donald, who has consistently refused to engage in even the most sensible strategic retreats, appeared on CNN last Monday to “clarify” his earlier remarks. However, he ignited another firestorm when he inadvertently let slip another unspoken truth, namely, that the United States can always print however much money she needs to “repay” her debt. Apparently the only acceptable position to hold on this issue is to completely deny reality.
Despite his public image as a premiere pitchman, marketeer, and builder of glitzy gold towers, Donald Trump owes his business success to his ability to walk into a roomful of people to whom he owes money and, through the use of threats, bluster, and hardball negotiations, convince them to accept less than what he owes. Time and again he has used competitors' prior lending mistakes as a lever to get what he wants. That's why he has said repeatedly that he is "the king of debt." Evidently he thought that this private experience and common sense could help in the counter intuitive arena of public debt.
Prior to Trump’s “clarification,” Jordan Weissmann of the online news site Slate stated the case succinctly, “When a country prints its own currency, markets don't typically worry about them running out of money, and thus are willing to lend freely. ...The fact that the U.S. controls its own currency does give us flexibility when it comes to debt. If it weren't for our farcical, self-imposed debt ceiling, default would rarely, if ever, be something people seriously discussed.” (5/9/16)
It seems to me that Slate was arguing that Trump doesn’t really understand that we print our own money at will. There may be a great many things of which Trump is unaware, but he clearly knows where our money comes from. The difference between Trump and his critics is that he must believe there is a cost in printing too much money. Modern economists do not appear to grasp this basic concept.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went even further. Despite the fact that he has argued that the Federal Reserve should print an unlimited supply of dollars to keep the economy afloat, he believes that the greenbacks themselves will remain precious and coveted forever, as long as reckless demagogues like Trump don’t spoil the party. In his column on May 9, entitled “The Making of an Ignoramus” (which responded specifically to Trump’s CNBC interview), Krugman said that Trump’s default suggestion would, “among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply.”
That same day, during an interview with Jake Tapper on The Lead on CNN, conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), warned that if Trump, as president, ordered the Federal Reserve to print money to buy debt, it would “break the independence of the Fed” and undermine a Federal Reserve System that “has been the foundation of our economic success.” I would ask Mr. Holtz-Eakin what exactly he believed happened with Quantitative Easing or operation twist, multi-trillion dollar programs in which the Fed purchased trillions of U.S. government bonds? Is he okay with that simply because there was no executive order compelling it? Does he expect that during the next economic downturn an “independent” Fed may refuse to buy government debt, thereby forcing the government to make unpopular budget cuts, raise taxes, or default? What planet does he live on? Perhaps it’s the earth in a parallel universe where the Fed was actually the “foundation of our economic success” rather than merely a perpetual bubble blower. Any success we have managed to achieve after the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913 has been despite the Fed, not because of it.
At least some of the countless articles that have appeared on the Trump debt ideas have begrudgingly admitted that there is a potential downside to printing money as the only solution to debt management, in that it could spark inflation that passes from the “good” range of 2-4% to the “bad” range of 5% or more. In addition to the hardships that this could create for consumers, especially at the lower end of the economic spectrum, they also admit that higher inflation would constitute a “haircut” for the bondholders themselves, as they will be repaid with dollars of lesser value than those that they lent. In other words, partial defaults are possible through above the table negotiations (such as those Trump hinted at) or the backdoor channel of inflation. But they almost universally agree that the covert losses through higher inflation is the far, far better scenario than the global financial meltdown that they believe would result from an overt restructuring of U.S. debt. Or as Krugman argues in his “Ignoramus” article, “One does not casually suggest throwing away America’s carefully cultivated reputation as the world’s most scrupulous debtor...”. In Krugman’s world, “scruples” must involve never admitting the truth.
I believe the opposite. Given the proven failure of debt-fueled policies to spark real growth and the monetary quagmire that will swallow us just as surely as it has swallowed Japan, a partial debt default would allow the United States to honestly deal with the mistakes of the past, break the cycle of never-ending debt, and set the stage for an actual economic recovery. Just as companies can be resurrected through the bankruptcy process, so too can a nation. Of course, this would involve a great deal of pain in the short term, both for creditors and citizens. But breaking an addiction is never easy. We are addicted to borrowing, and our creditors are addicted to pretending we can repay in full. We would all be better off if we dispel that illusion.
However, Trump clearly went off the rails, even in my book, when he suggested that the United States could repurchase our outstanding debt at a discount if interest rates were to rise. On this point he drifted into pure fantasy.
In his corporate career, Trump is well familiar with the technique of buying out creditors at a discount. If, for instance, a lender buys a 10-year corporate bond at a 3% rate from a company when interest rates are relatively low. If interest rates were to rise generally, the bondholder may not be happy with such a position if he knew that he could buy a 6% 10-year bond from a similar company. At that point the bondholder may be happy to resell his 3% bond back to the issuer at a discount, just so he could free up cash to get those higher rates. Similarly, the corporation may benefit from simplifying its balance sheet and retiring outstanding debt.
But this scenario requires fresh cash to make the purchases. Corporations can cut into profits to find the cash, or take an infusion from new investors. But the United States has essentially no reserves from which to draw upon; we already have debt of nearly $20 trillion and, as of now, we will run massive deficits every year for the foreseeable future. The only way we could get the money to retire old debt is to issue new debt. But since such a scenario would, by definition, occur in a higher interest rate environment, there would be no benefit.
Of course, Trump also overlooks the fact that a large portion of Treasury debt held by the public is short-term. There would be no need for holders of short-term debt to sell at a steep discount when they can just hold to maturity and in theory be repaid in full. Thanks to QE and Operation Twist, the lion’s share of the Fed’s assets are longer-dated securities. But even if Trump could raise taxes or cut spending to generate the funds necessary to buy back Treasuries held by the Fed at a discount, the Fed’s losses would be invoiced to the Treasury for reimbursement. So what we gain with our right hand would be surrendered by our left.
But Trump’s biggest oversight is that when interest rates do rise, which would be the only environment where Treasuries would trade at a discount, the U.S. budget deficit would already be soaring. That is because not only could such an increase in rates help push the economy into a recession, if we were not already in one, but all of that low-yielding short-term debt would be maturing into a higher rate environment. So with the cost of rolling over our existing debts soaring, requiring tax hikes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing at higher rates, where would we possibly come up with the extra money to pay off principal, even if we could do so at a discount?
But even with these inconsistent musings, Trump acknowledged a hint of realism that other politicians can't. He said that the U.S. economy remains extremely dependent on ultra-low interest rates, and that even a 1% increase in rates could make our budget position untenable. But Trump’s policy ideas on expanding the military and shoring up social security, taking better care of our vets, building walls, rounding up and deporting illegals, and replacing Obamacare with some as yet undefined program, will require even more borrowing. To square that budgetary circle, Trump acknowledged that we have to push down the value of the dollar.
In the CNBC interview, he said that a strong dollar sounds good "on paper" but that a weak currency offers much greater benefits. In fact, he credits weak currencies as the primary weapon used by China to engineer its own success. He wants to do the same for America. Of course the Achilles heel of such a plan is that a significantly weaker dollar is bound to usher in a wave of inflation that could rival, or even surpass, the 1970s. If Trump is willing to let the dollar fall steeply, the poor especially could suffer as purchasing power evaporates and poverty rates increase.
But based on the opinions of economists, that is exactly the policy path for which we should prepare. Inflation and a weak dollar are the only solutions they can envision to “solve” our problems, and that is exactly what we will get. So nice try Donald, but from now on you may as well just keep talking about the Wall.
Peter Schiff
Friday, May 13, 2016
During a lengthy interview on CNBC the week before last, Donald Trump, fresh from becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, came as close as any major presidential contender ever has to saying that America is not capable of repaying her debts in full, and that our path to economic recovery might involve some pain for our creditors. This moment of candor earned Trump almost as much condemnation as his earlier suggestions to ban Muslims from entering the United States.
To many, the idea that U.S. debt obligations involved even the slightest risks to investors was both the height of financial naiveté and the epitome of political recklessness. The pressure was so great in fact that The Donald, who has consistently refused to engage in even the most sensible strategic retreats, appeared on CNN last Monday to “clarify” his earlier remarks. However, he ignited another firestorm when he inadvertently let slip another unspoken truth, namely, that the United States can always print however much money she needs to “repay” her debt. Apparently the only acceptable position to hold on this issue is to completely deny reality.
Despite his public image as a premiere pitchman, marketeer, and builder of glitzy gold towers, Donald Trump owes his business success to his ability to walk into a roomful of people to whom he owes money and, through the use of threats, bluster, and hardball negotiations, convince them to accept less than what he owes. Time and again he has used competitors' prior lending mistakes as a lever to get what he wants. That's why he has said repeatedly that he is "the king of debt." Evidently he thought that this private experience and common sense could help in the counter intuitive arena of public debt.
Prior to Trump’s “clarification,” Jordan Weissmann of the online news site Slate stated the case succinctly, “When a country prints its own currency, markets don't typically worry about them running out of money, and thus are willing to lend freely. ...The fact that the U.S. controls its own currency does give us flexibility when it comes to debt. If it weren't for our farcical, self-imposed debt ceiling, default would rarely, if ever, be something people seriously discussed.” (5/9/16)
It seems to me that Slate was arguing that Trump doesn’t really understand that we print our own money at will. There may be a great many things of which Trump is unaware, but he clearly knows where our money comes from. The difference between Trump and his critics is that he must believe there is a cost in printing too much money. Modern economists do not appear to grasp this basic concept.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman went even further. Despite the fact that he has argued that the Federal Reserve should print an unlimited supply of dollars to keep the economy afloat, he believes that the greenbacks themselves will remain precious and coveted forever, as long as reckless demagogues like Trump don’t spoil the party. In his column on May 9, entitled “The Making of an Ignoramus” (which responded specifically to Trump’s CNBC interview), Krugman said that Trump’s default suggestion would, “among other things, deprive the world economy of its most crucial safe asset, U.S. debt, at a time when safe assets are already in short supply.”
That same day, during an interview with Jake Tapper on The Lead on CNN, conservative economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), warned that if Trump, as president, ordered the Federal Reserve to print money to buy debt, it would “break the independence of the Fed” and undermine a Federal Reserve System that “has been the foundation of our economic success.” I would ask Mr. Holtz-Eakin what exactly he believed happened with Quantitative Easing or operation twist, multi-trillion dollar programs in which the Fed purchased trillions of U.S. government bonds? Is he okay with that simply because there was no executive order compelling it? Does he expect that during the next economic downturn an “independent” Fed may refuse to buy government debt, thereby forcing the government to make unpopular budget cuts, raise taxes, or default? What planet does he live on? Perhaps it’s the earth in a parallel universe where the Fed was actually the “foundation of our economic success” rather than merely a perpetual bubble blower. Any success we have managed to achieve after the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913 has been despite the Fed, not because of it.
At least some of the countless articles that have appeared on the Trump debt ideas have begrudgingly admitted that there is a potential downside to printing money as the only solution to debt management, in that it could spark inflation that passes from the “good” range of 2-4% to the “bad” range of 5% or more. In addition to the hardships that this could create for consumers, especially at the lower end of the economic spectrum, they also admit that higher inflation would constitute a “haircut” for the bondholders themselves, as they will be repaid with dollars of lesser value than those that they lent. In other words, partial defaults are possible through above the table negotiations (such as those Trump hinted at) or the backdoor channel of inflation. But they almost universally agree that the covert losses through higher inflation is the far, far better scenario than the global financial meltdown that they believe would result from an overt restructuring of U.S. debt. Or as Krugman argues in his “Ignoramus” article, “One does not casually suggest throwing away America’s carefully cultivated reputation as the world’s most scrupulous debtor...”. In Krugman’s world, “scruples” must involve never admitting the truth.
I believe the opposite. Given the proven failure of debt-fueled policies to spark real growth and the monetary quagmire that will swallow us just as surely as it has swallowed Japan, a partial debt default would allow the United States to honestly deal with the mistakes of the past, break the cycle of never-ending debt, and set the stage for an actual economic recovery. Just as companies can be resurrected through the bankruptcy process, so too can a nation. Of course, this would involve a great deal of pain in the short term, both for creditors and citizens. But breaking an addiction is never easy. We are addicted to borrowing, and our creditors are addicted to pretending we can repay in full. We would all be better off if we dispel that illusion.
However, Trump clearly went off the rails, even in my book, when he suggested that the United States could repurchase our outstanding debt at a discount if interest rates were to rise. On this point he drifted into pure fantasy.
In his corporate career, Trump is well familiar with the technique of buying out creditors at a discount. If, for instance, a lender buys a 10-year corporate bond at a 3% rate from a company when interest rates are relatively low. If interest rates were to rise generally, the bondholder may not be happy with such a position if he knew that he could buy a 6% 10-year bond from a similar company. At that point the bondholder may be happy to resell his 3% bond back to the issuer at a discount, just so he could free up cash to get those higher rates. Similarly, the corporation may benefit from simplifying its balance sheet and retiring outstanding debt.
But this scenario requires fresh cash to make the purchases. Corporations can cut into profits to find the cash, or take an infusion from new investors. But the United States has essentially no reserves from which to draw upon; we already have debt of nearly $20 trillion and, as of now, we will run massive deficits every year for the foreseeable future. The only way we could get the money to retire old debt is to issue new debt. But since such a scenario would, by definition, occur in a higher interest rate environment, there would be no benefit.
Of course, Trump also overlooks the fact that a large portion of Treasury debt held by the public is short-term. There would be no need for holders of short-term debt to sell at a steep discount when they can just hold to maturity and in theory be repaid in full. Thanks to QE and Operation Twist, the lion’s share of the Fed’s assets are longer-dated securities. But even if Trump could raise taxes or cut spending to generate the funds necessary to buy back Treasuries held by the Fed at a discount, the Fed’s losses would be invoiced to the Treasury for reimbursement. So what we gain with our right hand would be surrendered by our left.
But Trump’s biggest oversight is that when interest rates do rise, which would be the only environment where Treasuries would trade at a discount, the U.S. budget deficit would already be soaring. That is because not only could such an increase in rates help push the economy into a recession, if we were not already in one, but all of that low-yielding short-term debt would be maturing into a higher rate environment. So with the cost of rolling over our existing debts soaring, requiring tax hikes, spending cuts, or additional borrowing at higher rates, where would we possibly come up with the extra money to pay off principal, even if we could do so at a discount?
But even with these inconsistent musings, Trump acknowledged a hint of realism that other politicians can't. He said that the U.S. economy remains extremely dependent on ultra-low interest rates, and that even a 1% increase in rates could make our budget position untenable. But Trump’s policy ideas on expanding the military and shoring up social security, taking better care of our vets, building walls, rounding up and deporting illegals, and replacing Obamacare with some as yet undefined program, will require even more borrowing. To square that budgetary circle, Trump acknowledged that we have to push down the value of the dollar.
In the CNBC interview, he said that a strong dollar sounds good "on paper" but that a weak currency offers much greater benefits. In fact, he credits weak currencies as the primary weapon used by China to engineer its own success. He wants to do the same for America. Of course the Achilles heel of such a plan is that a significantly weaker dollar is bound to usher in a wave of inflation that could rival, or even surpass, the 1970s. If Trump is willing to let the dollar fall steeply, the poor especially could suffer as purchasing power evaporates and poverty rates increase.
But based on the opinions of economists, that is exactly the policy path for which we should prepare. Inflation and a weak dollar are the only solutions they can envision to “solve” our problems, and that is exactly what we will get. So nice try Donald, but from now on you may as well just keep talking about the Wall.
Eman
Master
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/obituary-woman-dies-vote-trump-clinton_us_573b6888e4b0646cbeeb1b1c
Sometimes voting for a third-party candidate just isn’t a strong enough statement.
A Virginia woman’s obituary says that rather than vote for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump or Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for president, she died.
“Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68,” the obituary, published Tuesday in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, said.
RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH
Noland’s husband of 46 years, Jim Noland, told local news station WWBT that one of the couple’s sons wrote the opening line, and it was a http://www.wtvm.com/story/31993636/trump-or-clinton-grandmother-chooses-neither
He added that his wife worked as a wound care nurse and even after retiring, never stopped caring for others. She died after battling with lung cancer, he told the station.
As The Washington Post noted in January, plenty ofhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/24/the-dead-people-of-america-really-dont-want-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/ (obits this election cycle) have made headlines for making political commentary, and a disproportionate number of them seem to be anti-Hillary.
Sometimes voting for a third-party candidate just isn’t a strong enough statement.
A Virginia woman’s obituary says that rather than vote for presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump or Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton for president, she died.
“Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday, May 15, 2016, at the age of 68,” the obituary, published Tuesday in The Richmond Times-Dispatch, said.
RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH
Noland’s husband of 46 years, Jim Noland, told local news station WWBT that one of the couple’s sons wrote the opening line, and it was a http://www.wtvm.com/story/31993636/trump-or-clinton-grandmother-chooses-neither
He added that his wife worked as a wound care nurse and even after retiring, never stopped caring for others. She died after battling with lung cancer, he told the station.
As The Washington Post noted in January, plenty ofhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/24/the-dead-people-of-america-really-dont-want-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/ (obits this election cycle) have made headlines for making political commentary, and a disproportionate number of them seem to be anti-Hillary.
This is how fascism comes to America
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
By Robert Kagan May 18 at 7:09 PM
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.
The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.
But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.
And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as it has everyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.
Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who singlehandedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.
To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.
In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.
A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.
What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?
This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html
By Robert Kagan May 18 at 7:09 PM
Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.
The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.
But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.
And the source of allegiance? We’re supposed to believe that Trump’s support stems from economic stagnation or dislocation. Maybe some of it does. But what Trump offers his followers are not economic remedies — his proposals change daily. What he offers is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence. His incoherent and contradictory utterances have one thing in common: They provoke and play on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger. His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.
That this tough-guy, get-mad-and-get-even approach has gained him an increasingly large and enthusiastic following has probably surprised Trump as much as it has everyone else. Trump himself is simply and quite literally an egomaniac. But the phenomenon he has created and now leads has become something larger than him, and something far more dangerous.
Republican politicians marvel at how he has “tapped into” a hitherto unknown swath of the voting public. But what he has tapped into is what the founders most feared when they established the democratic republic: the popular passions unleashed, the “mobocracy.” Conservatives have been warning for decades about government suffocating liberty. But here is the other threat to liberty that Alexis de Tocqueville and the ancient philosophers warned about: that the people in a democracy, excited, angry and unconstrained, might run roughshod over even the institutions created to preserve their freedoms. As Alexander Hamilton watched the French Revolution unfold, he feared in America what he saw play out in France — that the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.
This phenomenon has arisen in other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, and it has generally been called “fascism.” Fascist movements, too, had no coherent ideology, no clear set of prescriptions for what ailed society. “National socialism” was a bundle of contradictions, united chiefly by what, and who, it opposed; fascism in Italy was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-Marxist, anti-capitalist and anti-clerical. Successful fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Fuhrer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation. Whatever the problem, he could fix it. Whatever the threat, internal or external, he could vanquish it, and it was unnecessary for him to explain how. Today, there is Putinism, which also has nothing to do with belief or policy but is about the tough man who singlehandedly defends his people against all threats, foreign and domestic.
To understand how such movements take over a democracy, one only has to watch the Republican Party today. These movements play on all the fears, vanities, ambitions and insecurities that make up the human psyche. In democracies, at least for politicians, the only thing that matters is what the voters say they want — vox populi vox dei. A mass political movement is thus a powerful and, to those who would oppose it, frightening weapon. When controlled and directed by a single leader, it can be aimed at whomever the leader chooses. If someone criticizes or opposes the leader, it doesn’t matter how popular or admired that person has been. He might be a famous war hero, but if the leader derides and ridicules his heroism, the followers laugh and jeer. He might be the highest-ranking elected guardian of the party’s most cherished principles. But if he hesitates to support the leader, he faces political death.
In such an environment, every political figure confronts a stark choice: Get right with the leader and his mass following or get run over. The human race in such circumstances breaks down into predictable categories — and democratic politicians are the most predictable. There are those whose ambition leads them to jump on the bandwagon. They praise the leader’s incoherent speeches as the beginning of wisdom, hoping he will reward them with a plum post in the new order. There are those who merely hope to survive. Their consciences won’t let them curry favor so shamelessly, so they mumble their pledges of support, like the victims in Stalin’s show trials, perhaps not realizing that the leader and his followers will get them in the end anyway.
A great number will simply kid themselves, refusing to admit that something very different from the usual politics is afoot. Let the storm pass, they insist, and then we can pick up the pieces, rebuild and get back to normal. Meanwhile, don’t alienate the leader’s mass following. After all, they are voters and will need to brought back into the fold. As for Trump himself, let’s shape him, advise him, steer him in the right direction and, not incidentally, save our political skins.
What these people do not or will not see is that, once in power, Trump will owe them and their party nothing. He will have ridden to power despite the party, catapulted into the White House by a mass following devoted only to him. By then that following will have grown dramatically. Today, less than 5 percent of eligible voters have voted for Trump. But if he wins the election, his legions will comprise a majority of the nation. Imagine the power he would wield then. In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following, he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command: the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious, more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life? Does vast power un-corrupt?
This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.
[Periscope] Getting a tattoo of Donald Trump sucking a dick
18 USC 793 Section (e) begs to differ lol.
R.I.P., GOP: How Trump Is Killing the Republican Party
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-republican-party-20160518
Similar threads
Sponsors
Latest posts
-
-
THEPROVIDER GH ONLY USA , EU and rest of world int. and dom service
- Latest: MyNameIsJeff
-
