u.s. politics: abortive cure for labor pains

[GAROVORKIN]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Do you remember a few threads back, when I said that I suspected there would be no 2020 election, because Trump and his goonies (lol, that was auto-corrected to ‘goodies’) would cancel elections because of some, dare I say it, trumped-up crisis? Promising elections would be restored, ‘once things get back to normal’?

Looks like things are moving in that direction more quickly than expected. If things for some bizarre reason look good for him in 2020, it might not happen until 2024, but I expect it would happen sooner than later.

Y’all can jump in now and tell me again how you won’t let it happen.

There is a very strong likelihood that  there will be election in 2020 elections  a 2024 election.  Other then the normal continuity of the US political system, nothing is change  So why worry about it? 

[Zorral]

The ongoing face-off in Panama over the orange soda jerk's name hotel continues:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/03/world/americas/donald-trump-panama-hotel-orestes-fintiklis.html?

Perhaps my favorite bit of fact comes at the bottom of this long article -- Fintiklis having bought the majority controlling interest of the hotel, who wants the orange soda jerk's biz interests out because the place is losing so much money:

Quote

In addition, Mr. Fintiklis’s New York lawyers operate out of 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, the financially troubled office tower owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser.

 

[Zorral]

15 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Wouldn't his lawyers have spelled it out for him by now?

Interesting tidbit about the Romans, btw.

His lawyers are a pretty untalented bunch.  They throw presumed wads of money and threaten copiously and loudly and the problem goes away.  It's always worked before.

[Fragile Bird]

I’m obviously a lot more cynical than you guys!

[Shryke]

9 minutes ago, Zorral said:

His lawyers are a pretty untalented bunch.  They throw presumed wads of money and threaten copiously and loudly and the problem goes away.  It's always worked before.

Trump can't hire good lawyers because good lawyers want nothing to do with a client who lies, doesn't take direction and refuses to pay his bills.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Looks like things are moving in that direction more quickly than expected.

Only in the age of Internet Outrage can a joke at a fundraiser provide the basis for why it's "looking like" the president will cancel elections.

[Shryke]

Trump is too lazy to organize a coup and the GOP would never back him on it because they have better ways of rigging elections and better candidates then Trump to rig them for.

As always, Trump is a wannabe strongman fascist dictator but he's not actually one because he's too lazy, stupid and unorganized. So mostly it manifests as rhetoric and fits of pique.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Take the talk of eugenics right the fuck out of here. Thank you. [/mod]

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Trump is too lazy to organize a coup and the GOP would never back him on it because they have better ways of rigging elections and better candidates then Trump to rig them for.

As always, Trump is a wannabe strongman fascist dictator but he's not actually one because he's too lazy, stupid and unorganized. So mostly it manifests as rhetoric and fits of pique.

This may or may not be so but he's more than effective at destroying the US government, economy, rule of law and faith in facts, substituting lies for everything.

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Only in the age of Internet Outrage can a joke at a fundraiser provide the basis for why it's "looking like" the president will cancel elections.

It’s not outrage at an internet joke. He hadn't made the joke several weeks ago when I first made my comment. It’s all the other things going on.

If Mueller gets really tough with him, hang on to your hats. 

It’s more the concept of democracy is more fragile than you think. I really hope that if  he tries to strong arm the country, people will rise up against him.

2 hours ago, Mexal said:

I can't see that happening. He'll need support from the House and Senate and I think he loses the House in 2018.

I have spent the last year reading everyone’s opinion that there’s no way the Republicans will lose the House because of severe gerrymandering. Have things changed that much?

[GAROVORKIN]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

I can't see that happening. He'll need support from the House and Senate and I think he loses the House in 2018.

The revved economy and the tax cuts increasing  popularity with voters might possibly be factors in the 2018 races.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

It’s not outrage at an internet joke. He hadn't made the joke several weeks ago when I first made my comment. It’s all the other things going on.

What other things going on?  You said it looked like things are moving quicker than you expected, and considering the context of this thread I assumed you were referring to Trump's joke.

[Sivin]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

 

I have spent the last year reading everyone’s opinion that there’s no way the Republicans will lose the House because of severe gerrymandering. Have things changed that much?

I don't know what you've been reading but it's considered a pretty foregone conclusion that Dems will take back the house. The question is by how much and whether the Senate is in play (it is).

But obviously that's all subject to the Dear Leader's whims, as god only knows what will happen next. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I don't know what you've been reading but it's considered a pretty foregone conclusion that Dems will take back the house. The question is by how much and whether the Senate is in play (it is).

It's hardly a foregone conclusion but things have shifted to the Dems as slight favorites to take the House (this is really still more of a tossup) because of retirements and the early national metrics being confirmed with quality (and well funded) challengers to vulnerable GOP seats, as well as election results demonstrating Democratic enthusiasm.

[Mexal]

16 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The revved economy and the tax cuts increasing  popularity with voters might possibly be factors in the 20181 races.

The economy isn't revved. The same people who were disillusioned in 2016 are the same people that should be disillusioned now. Nothing has been done to help them even if Trump is taking loads of credit. The stock market growth has helped the richest Americans. The working middle class gains hardly anything from that. I suspect there will be quite a few Obama/Trump voters heading back to the Dems.

As for tax cuts, we'll see. The GOP in PA-18 have dialed back tax ad buys to the point where there is only one short ad being run in the next major buy. It must not be playing there well.

Regardless, the 2018 mid terms will be about the governing body and right now, people hate them a lot more than people like them. The enthusiasm gap is significant right now, as we're seeing in every special election, polling and early voting in Texas. Maybe it changes as we get closer to the mid terms but history isn't really on their side.

22 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I have spent the last year reading everyone’s opinion that there’s no way the Republicans will lose the House because of severe gerrymandering. Have things changed that much?

In some ways, yes. Trump's administration is all corruption and one constant scandal, GOP retirements, Dem enthusiasm is very high and Dems got a boon in PA.

[all swedes are racist]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Somewhere in the void, my butt's heart goes out to you

no screaming on the slog

[Ice Queen]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

The economy isn't revved. The same people who were disillusioned in 2016 are the same people that should be disillusioned now. Nothing has been done to help them even if Trump is taking loads of credit. The stock market growth has helped the richest Americans. The working middle class gains hardly anything from that. I suspect there will be quite a few Obama/Trump voters heading back to the Dems.

As for tax cuts, we'll see. The GOP in PA-18 have dialed back tax ad buys to the point where there is only one short ad being run in the next major buy. It must not be playing there well.

Regardless, the 2018 mid terms will be about the governing body and right now, people hate them a lot more than people like them. The enthusiasm gap is significant right now, as we're seeing in every special election, polling and early voting in Texas. Maybe it changes as we get closer to the mid terms but history isn't really on their side.

In some ways, yes. Trump's administration is all corruption and one constant scandal, GOP retirements, Dem enthusiasm is very high and Dems got a boon in PA.

Lamb is out-raising Saccone by a significant margin and Saccone's ads are pathetic. However even if Lamb wins, he still will have to primary for the new district in May, and that might not be easy. He's pissed off a lot of Dems by saying he is not, repeat NOT, in favor of gun control or regulations. Most Dems will vote for him next week because at the moment getting a Democrat in that seat is the first order of business. In November,  unseating Keith Rothfus is the priority.  After that, however,  if a challenger comes along whose views on gun regulation is more in line with the locals, he will lose. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 3/2/2018 at 10:41 AM, Fragile Bird said:

Years ago I thought the world would gradually re-adjust itself back towards the norm, but I abandoned that thought as I watched how deeply governments mired themselves in debt. But we have had a bull market in bonds for more than 30 years, and all bull markets come to an end eventually. Greenspan spoke about the unwinding of the bond bull being the important factor in stagflation. [Interesting side note - spellcheck does not recognize the word, I bet that changes!] People are going to get burned on bonds.

I do not believe there is going to be a rapid rise in interest rates, not like the craziness that happened in inflation-fighting days. But history has shown us that interest rate moves, up or down, always take us by surprise even when they are expected. And, more importantly, consumer debt in many countries has become enormous, people having been sucked in by low interest rates. Incremental interest rate increases will be felt. The housing sector has already been hit pretty hard in Canada, for example, as a combination of tiny interest rate increases plus the government tightening the rules on mortgage borrowing has hit buyers.

I have had a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach as I have watched the marked increase in television commercials extolling the use of your house as a bank machine. How soon we forget!

I’ll just a make few points here

Perhaps Greenspan believes in the fiscal theory of the price level which basically says that in equilibrium the real value of debt has to equal the time discounted surpluses of the government. If those surpluses fall the price level adjust to push down the real value of bonds. But, I don’t think this theory is correct. One main objection being I don’t think people operate on that far of a horizon. Secondly, traditional monetary theories of the price level make more sense.

Maybe Greenspan thinks the central banks commitment to keep the inflation target is not credible. And if push comes to shove, central banks will monetize the debt rather than face a sovereign default.

Perhaps Greenspan thinks the bond vigilantes will strike soon because long term bond holders see the value of of their bonds eroding quickly as they fear at some point the FED will monetize the debt. And because long rates are tied to short rates that will cause short rates to rise, putting pressure on government funding, causing the Fed to monetize the debt.

Except, except, the day where the FED might start monetizing the debt, even if you believe the FED’s commitment to control inflation is not credible, in the face of a sovereign debt default is still a ways off. According to the CBO, the US debt/GDP ratio is supposed to be around 150% in the mid 2040s . And while that level may not desirable and it may be prudent to avoid it, I’m quite sure the US has the fiscal capacity to hold that level. And that is still about 30 years away from now. And whether that happens depends on the path interest rates and medical cost and nobody is sure how those will exactly pan out. The point is that were still quite awhile from a sovereign debt fault situation where the credibility of the FED to stick to it’s inflation target will be tested.

Just a year ago the CBO was saying the 10 year bond yeild was going to be about 3.7 about this time of year. Right now it’s about 2.9 percent. This doesn’t seem like the bond vigilantes are on their way.

With regard to bond prices what did bond holders expect as we recovered to from the GFC? Certainly they would have expected bond prices to fall some as the economy strengthened. Or did they listen to too much CEO Business Clowntable and believed everything that was going on was “structural”. I’d be remiss though if I didn’t say to a certain extent we should happy to see bond yeilds rise a bit.

But, anyway, the fall in bond yields over the last 30 years is not for some mysterious set of reasons. Likely were not going to have the same rate of economic growth over the 21st Century that we did over the 20th Century. The upshot of that is bond yields will remain low as the marginal return on physical investment projects remain low. When they are high you'd expect people to be less inclined to buy government treasuries. And secondly, bond yields fell, particular those of countries that issue their own money because they are a needed source of safety and liquidity. Back before 2007, many people thought they were holding safe and liquid interest bearing assets in the form of Mortgage Backed Securities. And then when day, those went "poof", just completely gone, and then people went fleeing to the only game in town where safe assets are concerned, which was the interest bearing debt of money issuing nations like the US. And right now, I don't see their being any alternative for awhile.

I’m mean look there is plenty to throw a fit about Trump and the Republican Party’s fiscal choices. Their stupid corporate tax cut mainly just shovels cash out to the rich and doesn’t do much for anybody else. Although, I’m extremely skeptical that lower corporate tax is the manna from heaven that Republicans claim, a sane corporate tax cut would have been at least revenue neutral. But you know the CEO business clown table wanted it at 20%, so that’s what they got and likely the during the periods of full employment, the deficit drag created by it will make it much less effective than it might have been. And of course their timing is terrible. And of course their cynical ploy of causing deficits with their stupid tax cut plan as justification to gut the US’s safety net is maddening too.

There is a lot to complain about.

That said I don’t think the bond vigilantes will be visiting us soon, nor do I think inflation is just around the corner.

[GAROVORKIN]

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

The economy isn't revved. The same people who were disillusioned in 2016 are the same people that should be disillusioned now. Nothing has been done to help them even if Trump is taking loads of credit. The stock market growth has helped the richest Americans. The working middle class gains hardly anything from that. I suspect there will be quite a few Obama/Trump voters heading back to the Dems.

As for tax cuts, we'll see. The GOP in PA-18 have dialed back tax ad buys to the point where there is only one short ad being run in the next major buy. It must not be playing there well.

Regardless, the 2018 mid terms will be about the governing body and right now, people hate them a lot more than people like them. The enthusiasm gap is significant right now, as we're seeing in every special election, polling and early voting in Texas. Maybe it changes as we get closer to the mid terms but history isn't really on their side.

In some ways, yes. Trump's administration is all corruption and one constant scandal, GOP retirements, Dem enthusiasm is very high and Dems got a boon in PA.

Mexal  It was just thought that's  all.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have expanded his probe beyond looking at Moscow’s efforts to meddle in the presidential campaign toward the Middle East. Investigators are questioning witnesses about any efforts by the United Arab Emirates to gain political influence by funneling money to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, reports the New York Times. Investigators appear to be focusing their attention on George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman who is an adviser to the de facto ruler of the U.A.E. and has been a “frequent visitor” to the White House since Trump moved in.

Mueller Is Expanding Probe Beyond Russia to Focus on UAE Efforts to Influence Trump

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/robert-mueller-is-expanding-probe-beyond-russia-to-focus-on-uae-efforts-to-influence-trump.html