Author Topic: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?  (Read 33242 times)

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #250 on: September 04, 2018, 03:51:19 PM »
This is not likely to change anybody's mind, since Bob Woodward is probably seen as a partisan by Trump supporters, but if even a fraction of this is true... it's still a disturbing picture.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/04/bob-woodward-book-fear-donald-trump-white-house

So the Russian Investigation is Trump's version of Carter's Iran Hostage Crisis, only the "hostages" in this case are personal associates of Trump.

It doesn't change much not because Woodward is considered partisan, but that it is unlikely any rational person is going to be shocked to discover that the Media-Obsessed Trump is obsessed over one of his biggest perceived problems. In other words, it isn't news strictly speaking in that nothing particularly new came to light.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #251 on: September 04, 2018, 10:04:02 PM »
The problem with any principle or philosophy is there are always some hacks who can say they are followers but actually distort the key fundamentals. Keynesian economics is not immune - for forty years there have been those calling themselves Keynesians who fundamentally accept the market-clearing assumptions common to Austrian economics and just account for a little turbulence before the market naturally finds the optimum at some point in the long run. But not Keynes, who noted in the long run we are all dead.

There really is a difference

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #252 on: September 04, 2018, 10:29:03 PM »
The problem with any principle or philosophy is there are always some hacks who can say they are followers but actually distort the key fundamentals. Keynesian economics is not immune - for forty years there have been those calling themselves Keynesians who fundamentally accept the market-clearing assumptions common to Austrian economics and just account for a little turbulence before the market naturally finds the optimum at some point in the long run. But not Keynes, who noted in the long run we are all dead.

There really is a difference

Sure. But my point is that you can adopt any philosophy you want, and all it's going to do is to suggest that you should do (with monetary policy, for instance). But what it's not going to do is make any striking predictions or anticipate most of the significant variables in the system. So while Keynes may suggest that an influx of capital (say, into the real estate market) via credit will have a multiplier effect and 'zoom the economy' as Reagan put it, it does not in any way suggest what exact micro-systems will form, what people will prefer to do within that system, how prudent they will be, how enforceable prudence will even be, and whether the influx itself may inevitably be responsible for or at least create the danger of a particular pathological pattern forming. It won't and can't state any of that, since its purpose such as it is is to suggest a general course. It's a decision-making system but not a diagnostic or prognostic system. So Keynesian theory will neither predict nor prevent pathological patterns that emerge from micro behaviors out of macro decisions, and is therefore not to blame for systemic failures but also not to praise either. It simply isn't in the business of diagnostic of this kind and in fact we lack any system for diagnostic in that way. So that's what I mean about the lack of 'experts' in the way people think of expertise in regards "why didn't they foresee the collapse." It's because there is in fact no "they"; the "they" we think of (e.g. economists) aren't in the practice of knowing legitimate diagnostic methods since they are for all intents and purposes economic philosophers. That's not a direct attack on them but it is an attack on the expertise they often claim to have but don't.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #253 on: September 05, 2018, 04:41:25 PM »
Ummm... wow: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/nyt-trump-resistance-op-ed/index.html

Quote
The author writes the resistance inside the White House is not the same "resistance" of the left against Trump, and wrote, "we want the administration to succeed. ... But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

"That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."
This cannot end well.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #254 on: September 05, 2018, 09:29:36 PM »
Quote
But my point is that you can adopt any philosophy you want, and all it's going to do is to suggest that you should do (with monetary policy, for instance). But what it's not going to do is make any striking predictions or anticipate most of the significant variables in the system. So while Keynes may suggest that an influx of capital (say, into the real estate market) via credit will have a multiplier effect and 'zoom the economy' as Reagan put it, it does not in any way suggest what exact micro-systems will form, what people will prefer to do within that system, how prudent they will be, how enforceable prudence will even be, and whether the influx itself may inevitably be responsible for or at least create the danger of a particular pathological pattern forming. It won't and can't state any of that, since its purpose such as it is is to suggest a general course. It's a decision-making system but not a diagnostic or prognostic system. So Keynesian theory will neither predict nor prevent pathological patterns that emerge from micro behaviors out of macro decisions, and is therefore not to blame for systemic failures but also not to praise either.

Your assertion is completely wrong. From the above comment, I see the assertion that there are no meaningful predictions from Keynes that could drove policy in a way that better protects the economy. If that is your claim, it is entirely false. The first meaningful prediction of Keynesian theory is that the economy is vulnerable to economy-wide collapse. That is not possible in the context of Austrian economics. Secondly, there are specific Keynesian policies to pro-actively address the risk of economic collapse such as government regulation of banks and financial institutions (including antitrust) - these are specific policies implemented in the 1930's that primarily Republicans have been fighting against, with success starting in the 1980's. In addition, once an economic collapse has started, there are very different policies that come out of a Keynesian framework relative to an Austrian economic framework. Keynes would suggest a government stimulus to stop the downward spiral of business expectations, while the Austrian economics response is austerity.  United States policy in response to the economic collapse was different in two ways from the rest of the developed economies: we had relatively higher stimulus, and we had a faster recover.  And all of this happened even though the stimulus was not enough (because initial estimates in January 2009 of the severity of the collapse in Aug-Dec 2008 were far too low, and because many state governments pursued an austerity path that counteracted some of the federal stimulus). 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #255 on: September 16, 2018, 06:10:55 PM »
Quote
The ONLY thing I've ever claimed was so stable as that it would be nonsensical to have "predicted" such a non-historic change is the default rate.  That was the underlying factual basis for the entire sub-prime crisis, and honestly, its just an indisputable fact as to its stability.

Right, and that "ONLY" claim is both wrong and not germane. When you are changing policy in a dramatic way because of your economic ideology, you have a responsibility to assess the likelihood of uncertainties and risks. That is not nonsensical - it is basic competence.

This is why debate here has gone down hill.  The argument is complex and was fully fleshed out on the prior thread.  Your response here is utter nonsense.

What does a stable default rate on residential mortgages (A FACT) have to do with "changing policy in a dramatic manner"?  There wasn't a dramatic policy change behind the economic meltdown, there was a deliberate and gradual pressure as politicians exploited the stability of the mortgage default rate to force more risk into banks to ensure that more people got into homes.

The bankers IN FACT analyzed the risks and probabilities.

Quote
I hope and assume that you have never been hit by a car - but it would be nonsensical for you to assume that since you had never been hit, you never could.

Oddly, that's partly why I've delayed so long in responding. 

To put it in the actual context of the mortgage default rate, it would be like you refuse to drive, to take a taxi, to take an Uber, to cross a street, to walk on a street, or even to go into the front rooms of your house which are "too close" to the street, because some people are in car accidents.

Quote
We have never had human-caused effects that changed the climate, are you saying that it is nonsensical to even consider such a possibility because it is "a-historical"?

No.  I'm saying, it must have happened that a coin flip has come up "edge" somewhere and sometime, but that doesn't make it rationale to bet that it will do so this time.

The idea that any changes to the environment don't have a impact violates what we understand about cause and effect.  The question is one of scale, not one of whether.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #256 on: September 16, 2018, 06:19:30 PM »
Quote
To be fair here, it was more Keynesian Economics that failed to predict what happened than the "Austrian" school
The risk from a collapse exactly like the one in 2008 is at the heart of the writings of John Maynard Keynes - the notion that industry can be collectively driven by irrational speculation ("animal spirits" in Keynes colorful language), and that once there is a collapse in business prospects, that can create a spiral of collapse in which businesses foresee a still worse business prospects in the future, so they fire workers and cut investments, leading to fewer purchases on newly-fired employees and reductions in orders for capital investments, all of which cause future cut-backs across industries.

If my "animal spirits" you mean the direct and deliberate policies of Congress that rewarded such behavior, and then of several administrations in a row that punished anyone that would have put the brakes on it, you could make such a claim. 

Quote
In contrast, Austrian economics is driven by the concept of praxeology, which means that you take on faith that people and firms always optimize in the aggregate. In Austrian economics it might be possible for one or several firms to fail, but you cannot have a speculative failure across the entire financial system.

If you design your policies and laws to reward speculation and punish conservatism it becomes rationally optimal to speculate.  The economy is not in isolation from the rules set by the government.

Quote
And your "without historical precedent" comment is also way off base.

Well it is if you were being honest about exactly what was without historical precedent and the size of the data record that it was based on.  Why don't you actually look at the stats and come back to us on what you find.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #257 on: September 16, 2018, 06:30:42 PM »
I make this specification because it should be clarified that the lack of foreseeing and stopping 2008 isn't the result of the failure of one philosophical system versus the other; the failure comes from a lack of 'economics' being tied in with psychology and motivation. What happened in 2008 was obvious if seen in the following way:

-The odds that many people will jump at cheap mortgages with no money down: 100%
-The odds that banks will be satisfied sitting on worthless subprime mortgages with no effort to monetize them: 0%

I think this second one has problems.  Subprime mortgages were not worthless.  The individual odds on each one of them were that they would generate greater revenues than a comparable value mortgage.  They were worth quite a lot, the problem was the greater risk.  Collateralization came about to spread risk, so that no one bank got unlucky and stuck with too many losers in a row, and all could share in the higher return (even after accounting for the increased number of defaults).

The odds that other banks wouldn't want to buy-in to more valuable safe assets.  Also 0%.

Quote
-The odds that a process that seems successful in the short term will continue: 99.99%
-The odds that financial institutions will base decision-making on short-term gains rather than long-term theoretical ramifications: 99.99%

This second one is also not accurate  Bankers always consider long term, as well as, short term financial rewards.  The difference here is that collaterallization is actually better long term than it is short term.  They also found a massive short term windfall from creating the products as they were so high performing for their level of safety that they became demanded by non-bank investors.

Quote
-The odds that in any sufficiently complicated system an actual person in the system will be able to unravel to 'totality' of what's going on: 0.01%

This is true, but misleading.  The products themselves worked and still work as intended to do the task they were designed to do.  Picking up that all the pressure on the system was pointed in the same direction, was too much for anyone to actually see without hindsight.

Quote
-The odds that a complicated system is the inevitable result of a shady operation actually predicated on people not knowing the true value of a tranche: 100% (opaqueness is requisite for the success of the system in these cases)

Again, I think you only think this because its hard to understand as an outsider.  This product is not a mystery to financial professionals.  It's far from being on the "complicated" side of what is routinely traded and commonly understood.  This is literally the same principal upon which your health insurance works (or should work), by pooling lots of people's contributions and only having a few people get sick or hurt you are averaging out the costs over time.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #258 on: September 16, 2018, 07:33:37 PM »
Seriati, among the many things you are missing is that the market for mortgages was transformed into a market for mortgage derivatives and a betting market associated with those derivatives. There was far more money in those markets than just in the mortgage markets (by a factor of 10-20 more). Clever financial people in the private sector arbitraged past mortgage stability into instruments that had the appearance of stability without all of the associated costs that historically went in to that stability.

As for your right wing theory that the government has primary responsibility for this economic collapse, please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the $54 trillion in bad bets made by investment banks? Please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the private sector ratings agencies making the false determination that these mortgage derivatives were AAA and low risk. Please explain why the government and not the private sector is responsible for mortgage companies such as Countrywide making many billions of dollars of bad loans (Fannie Mae should get a minority fraction of the blame, but remember even as you call them a "governmental" entity, it is important to include the caveat that their employees were not civil servants and they were driven by their share price just like stock firms).. Oh, and please explain why government is responsible for the actions of all of those private sector individuals who signed up for mortgages they could later not pay.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #259 on: September 17, 2018, 01:30:12 AM »
Re the topic question:

He could:

Admit the bill Clinton recruited him as a straw man to ensure hillary’s Foreordained victory, and that he had never intended to win.

Explain why his agenda has tirelessly supported the Koch brothers and other plutocrats that had contributed to Clinton’s campaign and not to his own.

Admit that he is intentionally leading the Republican Party off a cliff.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #260 on: September 17, 2018, 12:18:16 PM »
Seriati, among the many things you are missing is that the market for mortgages was transformed into a market for mortgage derivatives and a betting market associated with those derivatives.

What makes you think I "missed it"?  My detailed explanations of how those derivatives were structured?  My extensive writings on those points in the detailed threads on the crisis (that you ignore responding to when you jump to a new thread)?  Or was it the several links I provided you to detailed write ups on the last detailed thread?

I don't get you.  The factors that led to this are known, and most all of them lead to the government. 

There's certainly no denying that greed had an impact, it kept the foot on the gas.  But Congress built the down hill track, put everyone in race cars and cut the brake lines.  Yet in your world it's only the foot on the gas that was a problem.

Quote
There was far more money in those markets than just in the mortgage markets (by a factor of 10-20 more). Clever financial people in the private sector arbitraged past mortgage stability into instruments that had the appearance of stability without all of the associated costs that historically went in to that stability.

Synthetics (credit default swaps) were not 10x20 multiples of the market.  The market itself was $7 trillion and the synthetic market was $5trillion (at least if you believe Wikipedia).  I agree that's crazy high for credit default swaps which are insurance products that should have been regulated from day 1, required to be linked to positions in the actual underlying securities and prohibited for speculative investing.  There are other derivatives that do trade at extreme multiples but as a whole synthetics are not as large a part of the market as you imply (that would be $70 to 140 trillion).

Are you just confused about the instruments involved?  MBS is not synthetic.

Quote
As for your right wing theory that the government has primary responsibility for this economic collapse, please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the $54 trillion in bad bets made by investment banks?

I did this in detail last time you asked.  Go back and respond to what I said.  It's not good faith to move on and pretend like a prior conversation never happened.

Long and short is that the government set a deliberate policy to force banks to make bad loans to serve other policy goals.

Quote
Please explain why government and not the private sector is responsible for the private sector ratings agencies making the false determination that these mortgage derivatives were AAA and low risk.

MBS is and was low risk.  Nothing false about that.  Feel free to take a look at Chart 1 in the attached:

https://www.standardandpoors.com/ja_JP/delegate/getPDF?articleId=1498583&type=COMMENTS&subType=

The AAA default rate, even at the height of the crisis in 2008 and 2009 is not even one percent.  Look at Table 1, AAA (with one exception) doesn't even have a default rate until 2007 and only exceeds half a percent in 2008.  Take a look at Chart 3 for that matter, which shows how far down the line you have to hit to see consistent default risk. 

Is that not the definition of low risk?

Quote
Please explain why the government and not the private sector is responsible for mortgage companies such as Countrywide making many billions of dollars of bad loans (Fannie Mae should get a minority fraction of the blame, but remember even as you call them a "governmental" entity, it is important to include the caveat that their employees were not civil servants and they were driven by their share price just like stock firms)..

You mean the mortgage brokers that were formed specifically to make no documentation loans to anyone that walked through the door without any investigation of ability to repay, because such an investigation was deemed racial profiling and could subject a financial institution to massive consequences by governmental fiat?  The mortgage brokers ended up being the foot on the gas, the giant profit motive in the last stage that was the gas on the broken system Congress created.  No doubt about that.

Those loans were backed by Freddie and Fannie, and eventually they became big direct customers because of the returns that were being generated, which was a DIRECT government foot on the gas to help make sure private industries foot didn't slip.

And Countrywide was also famous for the scandals it had connected with Democratic politicians receiving below market mortgages in exchange for what....  Any interest in a special prosecutor on that corruption?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countrywide_Financial_political_loan_scandal

Quote
Oh, and please explain why government is responsible for the actions of all of those private sector individuals who signed up for mortgages they could later not pay.

Because the politicians in charge of this specifically told them that they deserve to be in a house, and that it was only unfair lending policies that kept them out?  That your side endorses a view of the people taking out those loans that is based on denying that they have any personal responsibility and that it's the job of the government to take care of them?

Or how about the government specifically threatening lenders who, I don't know, denied loans because a borrower couldn't demonstrate an ability to repay them?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #261 on: September 17, 2018, 04:59:43 PM »
No responders to my theory that Trump is part of a center-left conspiracy to destroy the Republican Party??

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #262 on: September 17, 2018, 05:19:12 PM »
If Trump admitted to being part of the deep state and evil genius behind 'a center-left conspiracy to destroy the Republican Party'...
His followers would still support him even as they leap off the cliff behind him. Any survivors may, if they land on their back and are able stair up at the sky, reflect that maybe they should have withdrawn there support.   

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #263 on: September 17, 2018, 11:06:39 PM »
To be sure since the conspiracy is clearly not “deep state” — the so called “intelligence community is united in hatred of Trump.”  I’m talking a small or tiny center left conspiracy not necessarily involving more than Trump and Bill Clinton. A hatchet job not really more organized than that of the Marathon bombers.  Things have not gone as planned and they are winging it. 

But seriously, how else do you explain Trump doing so much for the Koch brothers who panned and opposed his election?


rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #264 on: September 18, 2018, 09:44:35 AM »
The only thing I can think of is Money.  Koch brothers have money, Trump likes money and does not have as much as people think he has. When the game is over he wants to be able to have unquestioned proof.
 
Also even though its a mistake to underestimate Trump (there is order in his manufactured chaos. Something the left is to dim to counter)
I think Trump can and is being played

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #265 on: September 18, 2018, 10:20:48 AM »
Quote
Synthetics (credit default swaps) were not 10x20 multiples of the market.  The market itself was $7 trillion and the synthetic market was $5trillion (at least if you believe Wikipedia).

The market may have been $5 trillion but the exposure was $54 trillion (https://democrats-oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/migrated/20081024163819.pdf) - and that was private sector firms making that decision. 
That level of exposure is validated by repeated estimates

Quote
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has just published its latest quarterly report on bank trading in derivatives, and disclosed that the exposure of US banks to them now totals $US237 trillion.

Of that, the big four - JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America - account for US$219.7 trillion. And that's just the Americans.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-12/kohler-controlling-derivatives/5515666

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #266 on: September 18, 2018, 10:57:15 AM »
First of all that's the entire derivatives market, which includes far more than just credit default swaps.  It includes commodities contracts (you know the classic orange crop futures, or gold futures), where there's a real commercial interest and the trading value of the "principal" is low risk with the trading value being the change in value.

It includes things like interest rate swaps, where notwithstanding a $100 million face value, the thing being traded is the difference between a fixed rate interest payment of 4% and a variable rate of prime plus 2%. 

It includes foreign exchange contracts, where again you have a large face amount and the actual trade is for the difference between 2 currencies exchanged today versus six months from now.

Are you just confused about how derivatives work - are you mistaking the face amount for what's actually at risk?  The way you post these things it seems like you're spreading misinformation and I'd like to know if it's intentional or just honest misunderstanding.

The bank holdings also specifically include transactions they entered into cover deals they made with their customers.  Effectively, eliminating most of the risk of the transaction.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #267 on: September 19, 2018, 07:56:26 AM »
The only thing I can think of is Money.  Koch brothers have money, Trump likes money and does not have as much as people think he has. When the game is over he wants to be able to have unquestioned proof.
 
Also even though its a mistake to underestimate Trump (there is order in his manufactured chaos. Something the left is to dim to counter)
I think Trump can and is being played

Fair enough. I just think that Bill Clinton is the player.  Everything that’s occurred  other than Trump’s victory (an accident) either benefits BC or avenges a wrong done against him.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #268 on: September 20, 2018, 09:34:27 PM »
Re the topic question:

He could:

Admit the bill Clinton recruited him as a straw man to ensure hillary’s Foreordained victory, and that he had never intended to win.

Explain why his agenda has tirelessly supported the Koch brothers and other plutocrats that had contributed to Clinton’s campaign and not to his own.

Admit that he is intentionally leading the Republican Party off a cliff.

I considered this remotely plausible during the election but not anymore.

Trump's "agenda" is self promotion. If the republican legislature writes a tax bill that benefits the Koch's to the tune of billions of dollars Trump doesn't give a **** either way as long as it also benefits him and he gets a "win". Likewise he doesn't care what the EPA un-regulates as long as he gets a "win". Its not like he is going to have to drink the contaminated water.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #269 on: September 21, 2018, 05:38:09 AM »
Call me crazy (just a figure of speech) but my sense of Trump is that he's totally legit. There is no hidden agenda. He's completely honest if often mistaken. The guy just doesn't have the guile to pull off subtle machinations or deep plots. As the saying goes, he means what he says and says what he means even if it's just the first thing to pop into his head. I actually see a lot of myself in Trump, heaven help me.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #270 on: September 23, 2018, 12:24:58 PM »
Completely Honest? How do you define Honest?

In his own book he praises the art of misleading, truthful hyperbole, the preemptive counter punch, (if its preemptive is it still a counter punch), and to always deny, deny, deny and accuse rivals of doing the very thing they accuse him of doing. A very honest way of doing business? But your not talking about how he does business just the goals?

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #271 on: September 23, 2018, 12:45:13 PM »
Completely honest isn't the best choice of words, I suppose. I think he's being completely honest about his big issues and where he wants to take the country and why he thinks it will make America better and that form of honesty is actually different from many other politicians who put their finger into the wind to see which way it's blowing and then go in that direction even if they don't think  it's really in the best interests of the country. Look at how Obama changed on gay marriage, immigration and the border, the national debt, and the individual mandate. He said what he needed to say to get elected and then he did an about face. Trump said what just about everyone told him would ensure he could never win an election because that's what he really thought and now he's doing it. Reducing immigration, going hard on fairer trade, getting rid of the red tape for businesses, beating ISIS by taking the gloves off, and so on. Trump is dishonest on the little stuff as opposed to Obama who was dishonest about the big stuff.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?
« Reply #272 on: September 23, 2018, 04:24:12 PM »
As Iago demonstrates in Othello, bluntness and tactlessness does not necessarily mean honest