surprised? happens every day. qualifications and job success rarely meet. Its jobs for the girls/boys everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
bye dillary, hello disaster
Printable View
surprised? happens every day. qualifications and job success rarely meet. Its jobs for the girls/boys everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
bye dillary, hello disaster
looking forward to the wacky capers of Chief Justice Peter Thiel
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/95/956cf...33f49dcf24.jpg
1. Interest rates are endogenously determined by the central bank. The Fed / Government can choose any rate it desires and then increase or decrease liquidity in the system by buying or selling interest bearing alternatives to money [Bonds, Repos, and so on].Quote:
Originally Posted by steve136
2. Government spending puts downward pressure on interest rates because it increases liquidity in the exchange settlement accounts held by private banks at the Central Bank / Fed.
The system you think is in place is called the loanable funds framework - but the reality is that it is a textbook model which does not apply to how the banking sector actually works.
The reality is and endogenously determined money supply which tracks economic activity, and exogenously determined rate of interest, and a floating exchange rate.
Not trying to run you down here but there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the idea that deficit spending increases interest rates - in fact the reverse is more likely.
Japan as an example, have been running much larger deficits as a percentage of GDP than Australia or the USA for a very long time and their interest rate is essentially zero.
THe myth is that governments function like households - nothing could be further from the truth.
Where people come unstuck is they look at examples such as Wiemar Germany, Zimbabwe, or Brazil which simply do not apply for reasons such as reparations, fixed exchange rates, no excess capacity, agrarian rather than commercial economy... and so on
http://f.tqn.com/y/politicalhumor/1/...-president.jpg
Tell you what....the last 24 hours has confirmed my theory that social media represents the vocal minority.
No matter what you think...the fact remains "The Land of the Free" has democratically elected a new leader, who the majority support.
Yes we can!!! - turned out to be no we can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Trump will do fine as long as the banking sector doesn't get complete control over congress. If that happens then he's dead in the water like everyone before him back to 1971 when Nixon closed the gold window.
The banking sector / Wall Street needs households to hold high levels of debt to maintain it's business. If government takes on more debt then households effectively hold less and the banking sector becomes less relevant / liquid.
This is the reason why the banking owned media crap on so much about bringing budgets back to surplus - they want households in deficit so they can make more money off them.
The level of marketing on this bullshit is insane and even filters down to primary school curriculum - to the point whereby group think tanks over.
It only represents what circles you roll in, this was a ripper take I read the other day and I'm inclined to agree with itQuote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
"Blame Facebook for creating a massive reality-distortion field; for allowing its more than 200 million active North American users to dwell in a fever swamp of misinformation and ridiculous falsehood."
Although not broadcasting it from the rooftops like the vocal minority on either side, the amount of absolute nonsense and outright lies on Facebook that is swallowed up by the silent mass in the middle definitely has an effect.
Fair-dos to the Reps and the Trump campaign for exploiting it as well, people lapped up the Clinton narrative that was whipped up on the Internet, primarily through re-posts on Facebook. The Internet is an amazing leveller, where an article from Infowars can look just as convincing as something from the NYT if you want to believe the narrative. Twitter is overstated in it's effect for mine, but FB is the single biggest media outlet on the planet these days.
What will be interesting now is the legitimising of the Get Clinton rhetoric, where these right-wing pundits take the positions in the mainstream media that they so reportedly despise.
That being said social media is an amplifying echo chamber for the Left as well. In the end everyone who shows up vote counts and Trump absolutely nailed the states he had to win. Hats off.
Agreed, and with the Wikileaks exposure of a huge percentage of mainstream media actively campaigning for and working with the Dems it legitimised that suspicion even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Now all of a sudden Alex Jones and the New York Times are just as credible as each other.
What a time to be alive.
A great example of this has been the hippies reaction to Julian Assange. 12 months ago he was a 'freedom fighter deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize' now he's a 'filthy Russian sympathiser and a traitor who is trying to influence an election'.Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Blimey.
My logic was based around the idea that due to how safe an investment US debt is perceived to be, the idea that investors would receive less then they were promised by the US government would trigger huge consequences throughout the economy. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this, which seems much more informed then mine. I will take time to think about this more closely and understand it better.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
If there's anything comforting to see today, it's that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. Yet another president who didn't win the popular vote...
Not saying the popular vote is the way to go necessarily, but surely they could explore the possibility of preferential voting or abolishing the archaic electoral college.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvypn0UWYAABl7X.jpg:largeQuote:
Originally Posted by q-money
This is the real reason why Clinton lost the election and it didn't take facebook or even a graph for them to realise they needed to look at another option. The group think driving the media is beyond laughable when you look at the data - and if you are someone in that bottom 90% your lack of work / life balance is proof enough.
The next piece of the puzzle is to get people to understand how government spending really functions and the role the banking sector plays in the media groupthink debacle. This won't be easy though because the Democrat / Republican Two party dictatorship is ultimately in bed with each other here.
I've never overly thought this before, until now (except, you know, social media is the vocal majority for jerks wanting e&c - sup porksey).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
Before yesterday around lunch time, I'd barely heard of anyone actually supporting or believing in Trump. All reports I'd heard/read/etc were all the Hillary would win in a landslide and there weren't any sane people who would vote for Trump.
Fast forward to last night & this morning and everyone is all "I knew it was coming, was always going to happen, 3 or 4 swing states were always going to be Hillary's demise, I knew Florida was the worry, knew i should have gotten on Trump at $10, etc". I hadn't heard a single person say any of this shit until yesterday.
But there you have it, a democratic system & the majority have voted in the "71%-29% underdog".
Hey, no doubt Dunster - that data - and the grim reality, fostered with effective, rapid-fire means of communicating it and spreading the dissatisfaction about it got big Donny home imo.
Where does the don go from here? because seriously I still have absolutely zero idea what he is actually going to do
granted there is no perfect system, and preferential voting opens up a whole other bunch of problems, but from what I read Clinton won the popular vote due to big wins in traditional high population Dem states New York and California. They swing the result as Texas does for the GOP.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve136
Clinton lost key Obama held states and now everyone is pointing out how her team put little to no effort in holding them.
That's on her and her team, not the system.
Again, she lost to Donald ****ing Trump, how unlikable must she be?
In Wyoming, there is 143 000 people per electoral college vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
In California, there is 508 000 people per electoral college vote.
It's a crazy difference in the power of a single vote per state. Agree about her poor campaigning and lack of foresight though - even moreso, the lack of foresight by the Democratic party to elect an establishment candidate when 2016 clearly wasn't the time for that.
Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that could have possibly lost to Donald Trump, and they gave that to him on a platter.
I did hear and read quite a few people adamant that Trump would win, one boffin had tipped every president for 100 years or something and he tipped Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
Ross Cameron and Mark Latham on Sky News were tipping him but I always believed it was them shit stirring rather than an informed decision.
Granted though your man on the street etc was no where near it.
I bet hard cash on Hillary and was confident right up until Ohio got called. Then I just laughed.
The Griff works in mysterious ways man.
Yeah it's been a good debate whether Sanders would have beat Trump. I don't reackon he would have.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve136
Not sure how socialism would have gone down in middle America.
At least Sanders was ranting about the things that the middle class were upset about, like crippling student loan debt and trade deals that hadn't worked out for the average joe. Also, it looks like Clinton lost because of low turnout (even Trump got 2 million votes less than Romney). I believe that Sanders would have mobilised and inspired more young voters to get out and vote, and despite the rejection of the notion of democratic socialism from the right (because apparently they don't realise America already is a democratic socialist nation), Sanders could not have inspired the same levels of hatred that have been building towards Clinton for 30 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The fact that people assume Sanders is a socialist is the reason why he would have lost. Nothing could be further from the truth and yet because the media labeled Sanders as a socialist the mud stuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The reality is that on economic policy Trump and Sanders are pretty much on the same page - and Hillary is on another.
Where Trump and Sanders differ is with respect to Race, Religion, the environment, Xenophobia... and so on.
But when it comes to mobilizing idle resources be they human and non-human they share a lot of common ground.
Have heard a few people say they didn't want Sanders as the Democractic representative because he was "too old". The dude is only like 4 years older than Trump :rof:
Damn Sanders just really gets it. Love the shot at the tax-dodging Trump.
“Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics, and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes, and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids — all while the very rich become much richer.
To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic, and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."
Oh don't worry I don't think Sanders is a classic commie socialist either, but that's what the media painted him as, so he had to wear it (as Trump was a sexist pig and Clinton was dodgy).
The smartest thing Trump could do is immediately stick Sanders somewhere in cabinet to show how 'inclusive' he intends to be while still giving double middle fingers to the Dems.
I do admire Trumps comeback whenever the 'tax dodging' stuff comes up.
He simply explains that he's utilising the system that the Govt implemented. And he's correct, and the argument then ends.
Now, the test will be whether he now changes that system.
Oh, and just as an aside, this is good Foz at the moment. Points of view, opinion, debate, but no stupidity. Cheers guys.
Yeah it was an extremely clever way to deal with it - the system is broken because politicians set it up, and as a businessman I know what the loopholes are so I can close them if I'm elected.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Yeah those corrupt politicians always getting everything wrong. Trump will shake the system up and fix it.
The whole thing reeks a bit of the "fizzy drink in the bubblers" school captain bit. I'll concede that my view of him has been influenced heavily by media and is therefore biased or possibly outright incorrect (not that they made up his quotes), but as was said, noone here can really claim to have any idea what sort of bloke he is. He could be an ignorant dumbass or a genius who's played out the game 3 moves ahead of everyone.
I'm thinking there could be a few options for how it plays out -
Puppet/figurehead president with well assembled staff etc and everything goes better than expected
The Trump presented by media is legit and runs a sort of dictatorship doing whatever he wants.
Very little to nothing changes and he's reined in by whoever it is that normally pulls the strings, the party or the banks or illuminati, whatever.
As long as he doesn't **** the world over it should be interesting to see how it pans out though.
Something that sparked my interest about Trump's promises was how he didn't like the trade agreements USA has with China and will "definitely renegotiate them". What that says to me, and note I have an extremely naive view of all of this, is USA will end up exporting less to China and that gives Australia the chance to pick up the scraps as it were. Feel free, and please do, correct me if I'm wrong but as I said, naive view of it all. So with my naive view, I've googled and found this page instantly:
http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/w...orts-to-china/
There seems like a fair bit there to me, number 10 sparking my particular interest, that Australia can 100% fill the void IMO.Quote:
The Top 10 US Exports to China
1. Soybeans: $15 billion
2. Civilian aircraft: $8.4 billion
3. Cotton: $3.4 billion
4. Copper materials: $3 billion
5. Passenger vehicles (small engines): $3 billion
6. Aluminum materials: $2.4 billion
7. Passenger vehicles (large engines): $2.2 billion
8. Electronic integrated circuits: $1.7 billion
9. Corn: $1.3 billion
10. Coal: $1.2 billion
I think it's the other way round, he wants to put a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
Maybe Duns can correct me here but the manufacturing jobs that used to be in the Rust Belt (i.e. cars, machines, steel) haven't necessarily gone to China, but to Mexico and Latin America. The Yanks have never made the computers/consoles, phones, televisions etc themselves in high volume for years, but own the companies and make the high-tech parts i.e. circuits at home and ship them off to Asia for final manufacturing.
Their own companies, i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler etc have sold them out for cheaper labour closer to home, not necessarily the Chinese?
http://www.automotivemeetings.com/me...os_ligeros.jpgQuote:
Mexico is the world’s eighth car, truck, part and component producer. It’s main export market is still the United States, even when in recent years, several markets, such as many Latin American countries, have increased their share in Mexican exports.
Hopefully, tensions will cool down over Christmas and they will just let him get down to business in January and then see how it goes from there.
It is interesting trawling some past articles on the possibility of the US becoming so divided that the people could turn on each other...a couple of examples below (one opinion, one fiction). Scary stuff as if there is one country in the free world that is capable of getting stuck into each other it is the USA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-dr...b_9501120.html
https://www.rt.com/usa/civil-war-2016-us-582/
Why not, pockets of civil war in many countries over the last 25 yrs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetmaster
Its all a big beat up sook fest from the demos cause their baby didnt win. The sky didnt fall today and wont tomorrow. Relations will probs improve with mekiko due to Trump shady deals
I think you'll find a lot of the people that are scared of a Trump presidency aren't actually "democrats" per se. They're immigrants, people of colour, women who have been sexually assaulted, people who care about the environment, people who need access to healthcare because they can't afford it. It's not hyperbolic to say people will die because of Obamacare being dismantled - have you looked at the prices of healthcare in the US lately? I was lucky enough to have private health insurance while in the States and it still cost me a damn fortune for the simplest of things - god help those that aren't as fortunate as I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
By the way Paul Keating is still keeping it real going on a good rant that who gives a **** what the USA does we should focus on Asia. He's been a (public) leader of this his entire career so bless him there's still a bit of fire in the belly.
Interesting discussion between David Axelrod (Chief Strategist for Obama's presidential campaigns) and Jon Stewart a few months back. Provide an interesting framing of the election and the candidates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut8C_IOqEtU
It's difficult to say America was ever great based on their history of mass slavery, using an Atomic bomb on women and children - twice, and essentially inventing biological warfare when they handed Native Americans blankets laced with small pox.
Sure they have done some remarkable things as well like the Moon Landings and breast implants. But over all the bad will always outweigh the good.
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
plus they invented Las Vegas and that place is dope.
hashtagstaywoke
I truly hope the Americans enjoy the creation of their new slave class, serving the robots which will drive their new age of manufacturing dominance
Not to mention the LBTQI communityQuote:
Originally Posted by steve136
I think you'll find Trump is quite supportive of gay rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by furns
His running mate errrrr, not so much.