What could Trump do to cause his supporters to vote against him?

[TheDeamon]

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]

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]

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]

Ummm... wow: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/nyt-trump-resistance-op-ed/index.html

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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. 

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.

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]

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%.

-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.

-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.

-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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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]

No responders to my theory that Trump is part of a center-left conspiracy to destroy the Republican Party??

[rightleft22]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

As Iago demonstrates in Othello, bluntness and tactlessness does not necessarily mean honest

[rightleft22]

I think we have the answer.

Trump has became a symbol and symbols take on lives of their own. Trump support is no longer about politics but a..... something else. As long as Trump remains a symbol there is nothing he could do that would cause him to lose the support of his followers. 

Whereas at the point of the symbol creation or employment, they are clearly understood to stand for one or more principles that are shared by members of a movement, the underpinnings of that movement tend to fall by the wayside as time goes on.

This is especially true when those who stand behind a symbol are successful. Whether victory comes through revolution, war, or peaceful means, what tends to happen is that a society, or at least a significantly larger group than the original one, adopts the original ends to which those who adopted the symbol aspired. In some cases, the organizations that started the movement disband, while in others, they remain but tend to become less significant over time, as their goals become considered the norm. In other cases, though, the symbols remain, with the groups having grown larger, often to include those who were drawn more to the idea of being part of a movement than to any adherence to the principles espoused by that movement.

[TheDrake]

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.

That Trump's direction is fossilized, unwavering, and inflexible is not something to admire.

[Fenring]

Trump totally did not start the president-symbol. It's been the case for a while that IMO you can just erase the politician's name and replace it with D or R and it practically wouldn't matter. It may have started with Bush43, but for a while the president has been the embodiment of the beliefs of that bloc of voters. You are voting for an ideological viewpoint, not for a person. There is no way a pro-life voter is going to switch from R to D because they think the Democrat's economics make more sense; and no way that a liberal is voting R because their candidate cheated in the primaries. There might be some small contingent of swing voters who are truly open to voting for either party depending on who the better candidate is, but I suspect the vast majority are locked in. In fact, even here on Ornery this seems to be the tacit understanding, as seen when discussing how the presidential election is often linked primarily to supreme court nominations, which obviously has nothing to do with the character of the candidates and is strictly a D vs R consideration.

[rightleft22]

Trump totally did not start the president-symbol. It's been the case for a while that IMO you can just erase the politician's name and replace it with D or R and it practically wouldn't matter. It may have started with Bush43, but for a while the president has been the embodiment of the beliefs of that bloc of voters. You are voting for an ideological viewpoint, not for a person. There is no way a pro-life voter is going to switch from R to D because they think the Democrat's economics make more sense; and no way that a liberal is voting R because their candidate cheated in the primaries. There might be some small contingent of swing voters who are truly open to voting for either party depending on who the better candidate is, but I suspect the vast majority are locked in. In fact, even here on Ornery this seems to be the tacit understanding, as seen when discussing how the presidential election is often linked primarily to supreme court nominations, which obviously has nothing to do with the character of the candidates and is strictly a D vs R consideration.

I agree that Trump did not start the president-symbol.
Its my opinion that Trump as a symbol, though political embodies a 'something' else that isn't based on reason (that is not a political left or right statement)

Your right though people are locked in. Yet I wonder if many are aware of what they are really locking into or reacting to.

[Grant]

Trump totally did not start the president-symbol. It's been the case for a while that IMO you can just erase the politician's name and replace it with D or R and it practically wouldn't matter.

This is called blind partisanship and I thought it was a problem, but I guess since everybody, particularly democrats, are doing it, it's ok.  I kinda used to think that this was one of those things that made conservatives better than liberals, that they were not as partisan, but I appreciate you guys opening my eyes to just how disgustingly partisan republican voters can be as well. 

It may have started with Bush43, but for a while the president has been the embodiment of the beliefs of that bloc of voters.

Oh yeah.  If Dubya had been divorced twice and loved to grab em by the kitty and say such nice things about Puuter and talk about invasions from Mehico etc etc, he definately would have still been the Republican nominee in 2000.  Probably would have won biggerly. 

There is no way a pro-life voter is going to switch from R to D because they think the Democrat's economics make more sense;

Really?  What about all those liberal Catholics?  Liberal Catholics are notorious for being pro-life at home, but not much when it comes to the legal realm.  Then again, they're not actually switching over are they?  And yet, somebody had to switch from R to D in this last election, right?   Who did that? 

You are voting for an ideological viewpoint, not for a person.

This is the heart of the entire problem.  This IS the problem.  It used to just be someone else's problem, but now it's apparently everybody's problem.   The idea that you're voting for a philosophy or ideology.  Honestly, I think the truth is that half of the time people are simply voting AGAINST some other philosophy or ideology.  The underlying assumption being that this or that philosophy or ideology is GOOD, and the other is BAD. 

Good and bad of course brings us to the realm of ethics and morality.  It used to be that conservatives recognized that the end doesn't justify the means.  But apparently when it comes to elections, this can now be thrown out the window.   Because of course the other side is REALLY BAD.  Politics is war now. 

The problem is that when you start down the road to utilitarianism and determinism, forever will it dominate your destiny.  The Greeks, Romans, and early Christians (those dirty libs) were all virtue ethicists.  They didn't concentrate so much on a particular act or it's results, but the character of the individual.  See, they were all root cause analysists.  They asked themselves "WHY DO PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS", not "WHAT IS A BAD THING".  To them, that question was too simplistic.  Their answer to the first question is that people do bad things BECAUSE they lack CHARACTER TRAITS.  They called those character traits "virtues".  The idea behind all this is that a person with good character will do good things because character compels them to.  People without good character traits will do bad things because bad character traits compels them.  Virtue was both a knowledge and skill.  It was something that must be learned but also exercised like a muscle.

Today, apparently, it doesn't matter how much of an *censored* your presidential candidate is, or how many interns fellate him in the oval office, or their past criminal or dubious activities.  As long as they are on your team, it's all good to go.  The Pope can bugger as many little boys as he likes, as long as he's dedicated to crushing the Jews and Muslims. 

So that's apparently where we are at today, supposedly.  It didn't used to be that way.  It doesn't have to be that way.  But before we start casting stones, it would do well to at least put up some brick walls first. 

[Seriati]

This is called blind partisanship and I thought it was a problem, but I guess since everybody, particularly democrats, are doing it, it's ok.  I kinda used to think that this was one of those things that made conservatives better than liberals, that they were not as partisan, but I appreciate you guys opening my eyes to just how disgustingly partisan republican voters can be as well.

Not clear to me that you mean "partisan."  You seem to be implying that "conservatives" are not partisans of the conservative cause but rather sycophants of Trump personally, that can't therefore see his "crimes"?  Not sure that's really the case.  I think it's far more common that "we" don't trust the labels of his accusers (by whom I mean the media and his political enemies), because we've seen them lie time and again and get caught in those lies time and again, and we know they never had our best interests in mind. 

It's not "turn about" or hypocrisy on my part for you to claim that Trump lies all the time and that I don't care about his lies.  I've investigated Trump's "lies" many times and found much of the time that they we were not lies at all, at least not of Trump's, but still more lies by those who oppose him.  When you see ridiculous things like "Trump lies 45 times a day," and you believe them it's not because you should but because you've been conditioned by propaganda to accept it (or in the case of some posters here, don't care whether its true because it endorses their position).

Trump's actual policies on the other hand?  Almost uniformly better for the country than the prior admins or the alternatives this time around.  The only ones that are even arguable to me are the use of tariffs, with which I've come to agree, and whether the pendulum swung too far on environmental regulations. 

If Dubya had been divorced twice and loved to grab em by the kitty and say such nice things about Puuter and talk about invasions from Mehico etc etc, he definately would have still been the Republican nominee in 2000.

You say things like that and expect someone to believe that you're not motivated by a "partisan" anti-Trumpism that's exactly what you seem to see in others?  The grabbing them comment is literally exactly what me too culture is about, and an accurate description of what being a celebrity meant.  Trump was just as right about saying celebrities could get away with that as he was when he told everyone that politicians had granted him access for decades to get contributions from him.   

There is no way a pro-life voter is going to switch from R to D because they think the Democrat's economics make more sense;

Really?  What about all those liberal Catholics?  Liberal Catholics are notorious for being pro-life at home, but not much when it comes to the legal realm.  Then again, they're not actually switching over are they?  And yet, somebody had to switch from R to D in this last election, right?   Who did that?

He makes a fair point, pro lifers are not likely to switch, but there are voting blocks that have a misaligned loyalty to a party and it takes significant periods of time for them to realize it.  Left leaning Catholics are a bad example, at least the ones I've known, as they are not particularly committed to the religious dogma of the Catholic church, including on abortion.   There are definitely other traditional blocks that are far more at odds with DNC party politics and haven't seemed to realize it, Jewish voters, Black and Hispanic voters, and blue collar workers.

Who switched over to the D's?  It seems mostly that Biden did better with white men if you look at the demographics.  Literally Biden owes his election to improved performance with white men.  Kind of undercuts everything the left believes.  He also improved slightly with white women.

Trump meanwhile improved both in raw numbers and percentage of voters with every major minority block (both genders).  Again, kind of undercuts the left story.

You are voting for an ideological viewpoint, not for a person.

This is the heart of the entire problem.  This IS the problem.  It used to just be someone else's problem, but now it's apparently everybody's problem.   The idea that you're voting for a philosophy or ideology.  Honestly, I think the truth is that half of the time people are simply voting AGAINST some other philosophy or ideology.  The underlying assumption being that this or that philosophy or ideology is GOOD, and the other is BAD.

It's both good and bad.  Our government is too complex not to consider ideology when voting.  You may think Biden is a good guy, but do you think everyone he's appointing is also a good person?  We know they aren't, in fact we kind of know exactly who they are, they're a mix of old guard swampers who've routinely ignored our civil rights and ushered in regulation after regulation designed to increase their power at our benefit and new age radicals intent on imposing a failed and destructive philosophy because it sounds nice.  99% of what they do is never crossing Biden's desk in any meaningful way and he has no power - no matter how nice you think he is - to stop it from become "law" (by which I mean regulation that he never has to sign and no one can veto).  Heck his party's entire philosophy is tied into expanding the regulatory state and it's ability to create laws without any democratic feedback into the process.  It was his party that tried to create the CFPB with a director accountable to no one at all, with virtually unlimited power to create law and enforce them with an unlimited budget and with a term designed to skip a President of the wrong party's ability to oust him.  That's a literal attempt at empowering a fascist dictator within the government and they paid no penalty for it (by the way, you should look at the definition of fascism that can be found in any source other than the internet with a publication date prior to 2015, rather than the systemically reprogrammed version that's being spread today).

Trump on the other hand?  His goal was to tear out those excess power grabbing regulations.  His approach was to trample under bureaucrats who believed their own authority was greater than that of the elected officials that are supposed to set our policy direction.  You literally have testimony in Congress during the "whistleblower" mess demonstrating just how convinced those bureaucrats were of their own rightful exercise of power and how the elected officials are interfering.  I mean, sure he made some crappy appointments, but he also wasn't shy about replacing them.  But on the whole the things they were doing to deregulate and dis-empower the bureaucracy were far far better for our future freedom than the inverse.

Good and bad of course brings us to the realm of ethics and morality.  It used to be that conservatives recognized that the end doesn't justify the means.  But apparently when it comes to elections, this can now be thrown out the window.   Because of course the other side is REALLY BAD.  Politics is war now.

This comment has no real meaning.  There is no ends justifying the means in a binary choice.  You can pick the better choice or you can pick the worse choice, and that's it.  Are you suggesting that the only moral choice is to stand down and let others pick the worse choice?  That's not moral, that's good people allowing bad things to happen when they could have acted to prevent them. 

I also think you're ignoring reality.  Trump is in fact a better choice for the freedom of the country and its people.  Picking Trojan Horse Joe may seem like a more palatable option because you think you can respect him more (you can't really, you just think you can), but that's a false comfort.  Its virtue signalling of the worst order. 

The problem is that when you start down the road to utilitarianism and determinism, forever will it dominate your destiny.

Anyone but Trump is pretty much the definition of utilitarianism and determinism.  So yes, you're probably right, following that path is going to create a mistake that it may be impossible to walk back from.

The Greeks, Romans, and early Christians (those dirty libs) were all virtue ethicists.  They didn't concentrate so much on a particular act or it's results, but the character of the individual.  See, they were all root cause analysists.  They asked themselves "WHY DO PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS", not "WHAT IS A BAD THING".  To them, that question was too simplistic.  Their answer to the first question is that people do bad things BECAUSE they lack CHARACTER TRAITS.  They called those character traits "virtues".  The idea behind all this is that a person with good character will do good things because character compels them to.  People without good character traits will do bad things because bad character traits compels them.  Virtue was both a knowledge and skill.  It was something that must be learned but also exercised like a muscle.

Maybe recognize that our government is not a single person and not personified by just Trump or just Biden no matter their personal traits but that it involves tens of thousands of consequential and unaccountable people that your only option to influence is through an election.  Biden represents and always has more of the unaccountable power of that government and more increases in it, Trump represents a reduction of it and rationalizing of it with better limits.  That's how his administration worked.

Today, apparently, it doesn't matter how much of an *censored* your presidential candidate is, or how many interns fellate him in the oval office, or their past criminal or dubious activities.  As long as they are on your team, it's all good to go.  The Pope can bugger as many little boys as he likes, as long as he's dedicated to crushing the Jews and Muslims.

Or rather you can choose to believe what the Muslims say the Pope has done, or what the Catholics say about what the Muslims have done without question or you can make your own judgements.  Trump's actions in office have been for the betterment of the country and all of us. 

So that's apparently where we are at today, supposedly.  It didn't used to be that way.  It doesn't have to be that way.  But before we start casting stones, it would do well to at least put up some brick walls first.

The only way to get better candidates is to hold the candidates that you support to account for their behavior, you get no where holding the other guy's candidates to "account," or demanding that they do so.  It's literally impossible to accept moralizing in support of a party that has no problem with an Adam Schiff but wants others to have problems with a Donald Trump, or even that liked Donald Trump before he was a politician and declared him the devil afterwards. 

So I'll tell you what, when the politicians from "safe" districts are held by a party to be moderate that's an indicator of who the party is.  That's not what we get at all. 

[rightleft22]

The only way to get better candidates is to hold the candidates that you support to account for their behavior, you get no where holding the other guy's candidates to "account," or demanding that they do so.  It's literally impossible to accept moralizing in support of a party that has no problem with an Adam Schiff but wants others to have problems with a Donald Trump, or even that liked Donald Trump before he was a politician and declared him the devil afterwards.

The only way to get better candidates is to hold the candidates that you support to account for their behavior, you get no where holding the other guy's candidates to "account," or demanding that they do so.  It's literally impossible to accept moralizing in support of a party that has no problem with an 'Trump' but wants others to have problems with a 'Adam Schiff' , or even that liked Donald Trump before he was a politician and declared him the devil afterwards.

You apply standards you don't hold yourself to.

[Seriati]

Bet you rightleft22, if you take 15 minutes you can find at least 5 times I've seriously criticized Trump on this website.  Heck you can find dozens of times over the last 4 years of my comments, you can probably find 5 in the last year.

Honestly, Adam Schiff is in a class of his own.  I'm not sure there is another politician quite as openly unethical.

[Fenring]

I think the problem is as obvious as Jefferson made it out to be: when the election becomes about partisanship the notion of cooperative governance vanishes. And as a corollary, when the President is merely an extension of the partisan trench warfare - actually the nexus of it at this point - then there is little to distinguish between the role of president and that of the Congress. It should actually not matter what party the president is part of, as the point of the executive is to effectively execute the will of the Congress and the laws. In theory a R president should be just as capable of serving this function for a D congress as a D president is, so long as it's seen as a matter of capability and skill. But the scenario has been reversed, and now people speak of the President as having goals, and his ability to achieve them is made easier or harder depending on whether his party is dominant in the Congress. But this is completely backwards! The president should have no goals, or at least no goals as such that should depend on having the lawmakers on his side. Sure, a president can have foreign policy goals, diplomatic goals, goals in how to engage in law enforcement most effectively; but the notion of 'getting through' new legal structures and requiring Congress to do it shouldn't be the president's job. But instead the R vs D is barely even about the Congress anymore in the public eye, it's all about the constitutional monarch.

[Seriati]

It should actually not matter what party the president is part of, as the point of the executive is to effectively execute the will of the Congress and the laws. In theory a R president should be just as capable of serving this function for a D congress as a D president is, so long as it's seen as a matter of capability and skill. But the scenario has been reversed, and now people speak of the President as having goals, and his ability to achieve them is made easier or harder depending on whether his party is dominant in the Congress. But this is completely backwards!

Fen, this is the inevitable result of the creation of the administrative state.  Administrative agencies are nominally controlled by the President, but only loosely, and have been created in direct violation of the separation of powers.  Increasing the power of and entrenching themselves in the administrative state has been the express political plan of the left for over 50 years.   There's a reason that Trump found it impossible to reverse pure policy choices of the Obama administration for an entire four years but Biden will have no trouble reversing Trump policies in less than 6 months.

Why does anyone in the executive branch, which is where all administrative agencies sit, have the power to create rules with the force of law?

[Grant]

Why does anyone in the executive branch, which is where all administrative agencies sit, have the power to create rules with the force of law?

I don't know Seriati, why DOES the Army have the ability to create regulations that have the force of law? 

[TheDrake]

I think it is pretty well established why agencies, taking the FCC as just one example. There are limits, of course.

On January 14, 2014 Verizon won their lawsuit over the FCC in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Court. Verizon was suing over increased regulation on internet service providers on the grounds that "even though the commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the commission from nonetheless regulating them as such."[51]

So they've been granted broad authority, but can't override explicit instructions. If every rule and reg had to be passed by congress, it would be hopelessly bound up, and therefore useless. The lawmakers know this and therefore grant their authority. Sometimes agencies overreach, and Congress or the courts reel them in. Trump's biggest problem has been not following the proper rules with regard to public comment, etc. Not his only problem, to be sure.

[Grant]

I don't understand, Drake.

Are you telling me that the Mine Safety and Health Administration can just make up rules, out of nothing, that have the rule of law, without Congressional approval, with no limits? 

They can just say, "All persons shall wear suitable hard hats when in or around a mine or plant where falling objects may create a hazard.", and this has the force of law?  People can go to jail or be deprived of their property if they do not follow this rule that was not voted on by CONGRESS? 

WHAT GIVES THESE PEOPLE THIS AUTHORITY? 

WHAT GIVES THESE PENCIL PUSHING COMMUNIST ADMINISTRATIVE STATE CUCKS THIS RIGHT? 

WHAT CAN THE GOOD GOD-FEARING PATRIOTS OF AMERICA DO AGAINST SUCH HATRED?

I just don't understand, Drake.  Please help me.  You're my only hope. 

[TheDrake]

I just don't understand, Drake.  Please help me.  You're my only hope.

Imagine the Senate debating on how high a platform has to be before you need fall protection. No, seriously, just imagine it. Then imagine how many weird riders would get attached to it, funding everything from the arts to the wall.

Of course what people really mean when they complain about this authority is that any rules apply at all, and that the agency in question should be ground into dust so that people can exercise their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to fall off a roof.

[Grant]

I just don't understand, Drake.  Please help me.  You're my only hope.

Imagine the Senate debating on how high a platform has to be before you need fall protection. No, seriously, just imagine it. Then imagine how many weird riders would get attached to it, funding everything from the arts to the wall.

Of course what people really mean when they complain about this authority is that any rules apply at all, and that the agency in question should be ground into dust so that people can exercise their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to fall off a roof.

MuST hAvE heARiNg oN fAlL pRoTEctIoN
We ThE pEOpLe
AAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH ::scanners head explosion::

What about rulemaking Drake?  What gives these agencies their legal authority?  Are there any public laws related to the rulemaking process?  Are there any procedures that a Federal Agency must go through before creating a new rule? 

[msquared]

Of course not. They just listen to so called experts, who are only expert in destroying business.  I mean what business can survive rules that protect people?

[TheDrake]

I just don't understand, Drake.  Please help me.  You're my only hope.

Imagine the Senate debating on how high a platform has to be before you need fall protection. No, seriously, just imagine it. Then imagine how many weird riders would get attached to it, funding everything from the arts to the wall.

Of course what people really mean when they complain about this authority is that any rules apply at all, and that the agency in question should be ground into dust so that people can exercise their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to fall off a roof.

MuST hAvE heARiNg oN fAlL pRoTEctIoN
We ThE pEOpLe
AAAAAAAAAAGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH ::scanners head explosion::

What about rulemaking Drake?  What gives these agencies their legal authority?  Are there any public laws related to the rulemaking process?  Are there any procedures that a Federal Agency must go through before creating a new rule?

Quite lot of procedures, actually. And some people will have you believe that OSHA (and other like agencies) somehow don't have the authority specifically granted to them by Congress. Including a provision for emergency temporary standards, like say, to address covid-19.

Those *censored* communists in California actually had the nerve to make employers disinfect things and put up plexiglas, without even going to the state legislature! Can you believe it?

[Fenring]

I know Seriati moved my point into an R vs D admin issue, but I just want to clarify that the sort of goals I was referring to as regards presidential elections include things like public health care, ideas about regulating the economy, notions about race politics, and other matters that are the responsibility of the various levels of legislative government. None of these are issues of execution, but rather all issues of ideology and politics. So the 'chief of the executive' is in fact running on legislative issues, which to me makes no sense. It shouldn't even be allowed IMO. It would be like someone being considered for the Supreme Court saying something like "if I'm put on the court my first order of business will be to try to establish tariffs." Well I hope someone would say to them that that's not part of the position being considered and that it's someone else's job. But instead everyone - not just one party Seriati - seems to treat the president like the spearhead of all important legislative issues, or at least the most pubic facing ones. Why should Trump have run on the idea of repealing Obamacare, for instance? What business was it of his, the president shouldn't make laws or even try to make them. That's more my point. I wasn't talking about establishing rules and procedures for how people should do their jobs, since obviously that is by definition what the executive needs to do - to figure out how best to execute the laws.

[Grant]

Those *censored* communists in California actually had the nerve to make employers disinfect things and put up plexiglas, without even going to the state legislature! Can you believe it?

ThE AdMiNIstRaTiVe StaTE iS EvIl anD MuSt bE sToPPeD! 

[DonaldD]

Trump increased the federal debt by 40% in 4 years - from about $20T to about $28T.  Clearly, that wasn't enough to dissuade his voters.

I wonder if the Republican party's cavalier attitude to fiscal restraint will survive the next 10 days...

[cherrypoptart]

Trump just said that crypto looks like a scam to him.

If he were to come out like China did and pretty much try to ban it then I don't think I could support him.

Our governor in Texas and the mayor of Miami as well as el Presidente in El Salvador are more my style, pro crypto. Hopefully that's the future of money; at least an option in addition to it that compliments it. Sure it's extremely volatile but look at currencies which can also be extremely volatile. If you'd had your money in bitcoin recently you'd have lost about half of your value but if you'd had your money in some currencies like we saw in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Hungary, and others the value could lose a lot more than that. It's just another option that people should have the freedom to choose though it does need some smart regulation.

What's the use of it? One use is for making payments and taking the big credit card companies and their high merchant fees out of the loop. Another as El Salvador sees is that it lowers the cost of sending remittances and the volatility can be mitigated with stable coins. Nobody should have to use it if they don't want to but people should be able to if it suits their needs the best. Anyway, if the question is what could Trump do to get you to vote against him, coming out against crypto would be one thing. Banks need competition and so does fiat currency to keep things in check and in control.

[rightleft22]

I agree with Trump on this one
Can't get my head around crypto currencies. All that energy to mine for a mathematical result that is then assigned what seems to me a random value for that "work"

All monetary systems require belief in it and contains elements of illusion but that "work" is a illusion to far for me.
   
I obviously don't understand

[yossarian22c]

I agree with Trump on this one
Can't get my head around crypto currencies. All that energy to mine for a mathematical result that is then assigned what seems to me a random value for that "work"

All monetary systems require belief in it and contains elements of illusion but that "work" is a illusion to far for me.
   
I obviously don't understand

The appeal is that it is a way to decentralize currency. The down side is that if the government won't accept bitcoin as currency then its just a collector item that people trade to store value. That collector item has whatever value people associate with it. I think crypto currencies are vastly over valued, there are many ways they could lose most of their value overnight:

1) A panic/selloff that crushes the value.
2) Crypto being used to fund a large scale terrorist attack and the government decides to try to ban/eliminate crypto currencies.
3) Oversaturation with competing crypto currencies leading to crypto inflation. I know each individual currency is usually designed in a way that caps the maximum number of units but it seems like more currencies are constantly being created.

To me crypto currencies are probably one of the riskiest investments you could make.

[fizz]

As an IT guy, the blockchain technology is interesting, even if it looks more like a solution in search of a problem than anything, and suffering a bit from the ancient database curse that those that do not understand the CAP theorem are condemned to reinvent ACID.

The practical implementation, the way bitcoins were designed, with the intrinsically deflationary value of a progressively harder difficulty for each new bitcoin mined, was intended from the start to work more like a cross between a virtual version of gold and a Ponzi scheme.

It creates an artificial scarcity where there is none, it burns very real energy and resources and leads to scarcity of new computer chips (or storage, with some of the last cryptocurrencies), to deliver no real service apart for a pretty weak anonymity and to move a large amount of money from the pockets of the late comers to the pockets of the first that invested.

(About the use as a currency, I will point out that a service that consume for each single transaction as much energy as nearly a million VISA transactions, and that have an hard theoretical transaction limits of 10 transaction per second worldwide -in practice much less- is not going to be a sane replacement for any real currency).

I find ironical that so many of the people that jump on the bandwagon of the cryptocurrencies do so attracted by the perspective of being able to get huge earnings easily, simply by virtue of being "first" there, and not by hard work and creating nothing of value anywhere, are the same people that would call an unemployed man on welfare a parasite...

P.s. Charles Stross dedicated a post to cripto-currencies few weeks ago, with his modest proposal to Musk... it's amusing, and in the comments section there are a lot of interesting comments too.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2021/05/because-i-am-bored.html

[cherrypoptart]

The power and chip requirements are certainly challenges but the effort to meet those challenges with the financial incentive to do so leads to innovations like the way gaming encouraged the development of better computers and graphics cards. Hopefully crypto  will use more and more renewable energy. Now you could say that renewable energy could have been used for something else and that's true but it might not even be online at all if not for crypto or at least the miners take advantage of renewable energy to encourage building more supply, like a crypto-miner in West Texas. Building out those operations helps us gain insight into how to do it all more efficiently and gives us energy that otherwise wouldn't exist.  This could be even bigger for developing countries like in Latin America. If it's profitable to build renewable energy producing systems and build out the grid because of crypto some of the extra power could spillover to the people and as they build it they learn new ways to build it better for the next energy farm.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-01/bitcoin-miner-is-scoring-700-profits-selling-energy-to-grid

We've been over the fiat money issue but that is huge. Technology solutions in search of a problem? Well that's the problem right there, inflation and out of control money printing. We might be seeing inflation in America and our spending and debt is just bonkers. If it's looking like it could be a problem here than how about smaller countries?

We've got people like AOC and more and more Democrats loving Modern Monetary Theory whose big idea is that governments that control their own currency can spend freely since they can just print more money to pay their debts.

So if that's what your government is doing, whichever government it is around the world, what can you do? Buy gold? Yeah, not seeing regular people being able to buy enough of that to make a difference, or being able to use it conveniently to pay for anything.

Yeah, crypto does have a lot of problems and it is super risky but for many people around the world their governments managing their money supply can also offer a lot of problems and be pretty risky.

It's possible crypto could all collapse of course. Who knows? But it is offering hope, an alternative or complement to fiat, and maybe a solution or a transition to a better idea.

[msquared]

The Right has been claiming that out of control inflation is right around the corner for the past 20-25 years. Still has not happened.

[rightleft22]

I agree with Trump on this one
Can't get my head around crypto currencies. All that energy to mine for a mathematical result that is then assigned what seems to me a random value for that "work"

All monetary systems require belief in it and contains elements of illusion but that "work" is a illusion to far for me.
   
I obviously don't understand

The appeal is that it is a way to decentralize currency. The down side is that if the government won't accept bitcoin as currency then its just a collector item that people trade to store value. That collector item has whatever value people associate with it. I think crypto currencies are vastly over valued, there are many ways they could lose most of their value overnight:

1) A panic/selloff that crushes the value.
2) Crypto being used to fund a large scale terrorist attack and the government decides to try to ban/eliminate crypto currencies.
3) Oversaturation with competing crypto currencies leading to crypto inflation. I know each individual currency is usually designed in a way that caps the maximum number of units but it seems like more currencies are constantly being created.

To me crypto currencies are probably one of the riskiest investments you could make.

Crypto as a collector item helps and explain things. This new NFT trend seems related to a similar idea that digital bits have value in of of themselves.

I've known a few 'collectors' where the collecting become a obsession and a kind of hording. Those attending that Bitcoin conference reminded me of those guy