Blog

Get Ready... Change Is Upon Us

The 'economic peace' we've enjoyed for decades is over
Friday, November 11, 2016, 8:05 PM

“After four years of warfare that tore the world apart like never before, a peace was finally reached.  But it was a peace which one man in particular vociferously condemned — and that man was John Maynard Keynes.

In just two months, Keynes wrote the book that would make him a household name around the world — The Economic Consequences of the Peace.

In the book, Keynes was highly critical of the deal struck at Versailles, which he felt sure would lead to further conflict in Europe — describing the agreement as a “Carthaginian peace” — and with the passing of a surprisingly short period of time, he would be proven correct.”

  ~ Grant Williams in The Economic Consequences of Peace

After WWI, a particularly noxious set of treaties and economic reparations agreements were put in place that all but guaranteed a future WWII.   Mr. Keynes sniffed that out and, sadly, was proven correct.

The lesson from this is that, at certain times, it’s really not that hard to predict "what" is going to happen next after disastrously short-sighted and self-interested policies are enacted. Predicting the "when", with precision, is much trickier. But obvious misguided economic policies are destined to have a limited period of apparent (but false) prosperity, after which they end with a nasty Bang!.

We have entered just such a time. This isn't a Trump vs. Clinton thing; I'd make this claim regardless of who won this week's presidential election -- as our plight is much bigger than a single Administration. And my observation is that neither political party had much interest beyond some temporary election year lip-service to the economic plight of the middle class.

And by “middle class” I mean anybody not in the top 5% economic bracket. For those doing the math at home, that leaves the remaining 95% of us stuck in the meat grinder.

WTF Happened?

I know a lot of people who are suffering very raw emotional wounds from the harsh negativity and divisiveness of the seemingly never-ending election we just went through.  There will be a period of healing and adjustment for many, and I can fully empathize with how they feel.

For the Clinton supporters stunned that she didn't experience the victory so many predicted, here's a “what went wrong” post-mortem given by the brilliant British comedian Jonathan Pie that I think hits close to the mark (caution: it's a pretty heated rant): 


Pie asks some very important questions, chief among them: Have we lost the ability to entertain alternative points of view? Are we ready to begin finally talking to each other again?

The Left has a lot of soul searching to do. As does the Right.  Because let’s be clear: Trump wasn’t the Republican’s preferred choice either.  They fought him tooth and nail. In terms of the traditional Left vs Right rivalry, both sides lost this time.

If we're to heal and progress from here, it's critical that we take the time to understand why.

The conversation has to begin here, I believe, with this excellent article that I ran across in Cracked – yes, the comedy alt-everything online outfit – explaining how it's the rural vs urban divide more than anything else that's pulling our society apart at the moment.

For those desperately seeking answers to Trump's surprise win, this article, of which I have reproduced only a small part, provides essential context. It's explanation has done wonders for everyone I have shared it with who was struggling:

How Half Of America Lost Its F**king Mind

Oct 12, 2016

[Note: please go to the article to read reasons #6 through #3 as they are very important for understanding the two I have snipped out below]

(…)

Reason #2:  Everyone Lashes Out When They Don't Have A Voice

[To a rural person] it really does feel like the worst of both worlds: all the ravages of poverty, but none of the sympathy. "Blacks burn police cars, and those liberal elites say it's not their fault because they're poor. My son gets jailed and fired over a baggie of meth, and those same elites make jokes about his missing teeth!" You're everyone's punching bag, one of society's last remaining safe comedy targets.

They take it hard. These are people who come from a long line of folks who took pride in looking after themselves. Where I'm from, you weren't a real man unless you could repair a car, patch a roof, hunt your own meat, and defend your home from an intruder. It was a source of shame to be dependent on anyone -- especially the government. You mowed your own lawn and fixed your own pipes when they leaked, you hauled your own firewood in your own pickup truck. (Mine was a 1994 Ford Ranger! The current owner says it still runs!)

Not like those hipsters in their tiny apartments, or "those people" in their public housing projects, waiting for the landlord any time something breaks, knowing if things get too bad they can just pick up and move. When you don't own anything, it's all somebody else's problem. "They probably don't pay taxes, either! Just treating America itself as a subsidized apartment they can trash!"

The rural folk with the Trump signs in their yards say their way of life is dying, and you smirk and say what they really mean is that blacks and gays are finally getting equal rights and they hate it. But I'm telling you, they say their way of life is dying because their way of life is dying. It's not their imagination. No movie about the future portrays it as being full of traditional families, hunters, and coal mines. Well, except for Hunger Games, and that was depicted as an apocalypse.

So yes, they vote for the guy promising to put things back the way they were, the guy who'd be a wake-up call to the blue islands. They voted for the brick through the window.

It was a vote of desperation.

#1. Assholes Are Heroes

But Trump is objectively a piece of shit!" you say. "He insults people, he objectifies women, and cheats whenever possible! And he's not an everyman; he's a smarmy, arrogant billionaire!"

Wait, are you talking about Donald Trump, or this guy:

Marvel Studios

You've never rooted for somebody like that? Someone powerful who gives your enemies the insults they deserve? Somebody with big fun appetites who screws up just enough to make them relatable? Like Dr. House or Walter White? Or any of the several million renegade cop characters who can break all the rules because they get shit done? Who only get shit done because they don't care about the rules?

"But those are fictional characters!" Okay, what about all those millionaire left-leaning talk show hosts? You think they keep their insults classy? Tune into any bit about Chris Christie and start counting down the seconds until the fat joke. Google David Letterman's sex scandals. But it's okay, because they're on our side, and everybody wants an asshole on their team -- a spiked bat to smash their enemies with. That's all Trump is. The howls of elite outrage are like the sounds of bombs landing on the enemy's fortress. The louder the better.

Already some of you have gotten angry, feeling this gut-level revulsion at any attempt to excuse or even understand these people. After all, they're hardly people, right? Aren't they just a mass of ignorant, rageful, crude, cursing, spitting subhumans?

Gee, I hope not. I have to hug a bunch of them at Thanksgiving. And when I do, it will be with the knowledge that if I hadn't moved away, I'd be on the other side of the fence, leaving nasty comments on this article.

The essential context is simply that rural residents are drowning under chronic economic blight. And when they dare to complain about it, they're castigated and humiliated by the dominant city culture that has no awareness of or sympathy for their troubles.

We've NAFTA'd away millions of manufacturing jobs (and those that served manufacturing communities) without providing the displaced labor a path to reskill and apply itself. Instead, we've left a patchwork of bomb crater communities across the heartland, where there are no employers and no prospects. To these rural folks, being cast as racist, misogynist, ignorant, or uneducated buffoons for being angry about their plight just adds kerosene to the fire that's been smoldering within theem. A fire which just conflagrated during this week's election.

So to reiterate: the cultural divide that's really in play here is not between the 'enlightened/progressive' people and their supposed opposites. Rather, it's Urban vs Rural.  

And as the rural dwellers have increasingly felt marginalized, demonized and otherwise unfairly treated, they are now angry enough at the perceived injustice to lash out against the status quo and roll the dice with an outsider who promises to shake things up. It's not surprising, really -- as I've written about before, we humans are wired to reject unfairness. This next short video is a favorite of mine, because it perfectly demonstrates how it's in our genes to become enraged when we perceive we're being unjustly treated:

To put in in monkey terms: since surbanites set the rules because they happen to outvote the rural people, and those same urbanites don't have to live with the consequences of their decisions, then it's cucumbers for rural people and grapes for the urban folks.

Adding to this understanding is today's article by our good friend Charles Hughes Smith, who validates the rage the downtrodden are feeling these days:

The Source of our Rage: The Ruling Elite Is Protected from the Consequences of its Dominance

There are many sources of rage: injustice, the destruction of truth, powerlessness.

But if we had to identify the one key source of non-elite rage that cuts across all age, ethnicity, gender and regional boundaries, it is this: The Ruling Elite is protected from the destructive consequences of its predatory dominance.

We see this reality across the entire political, social and economic landscape. If I had to pick one chart that illustrates the widening divide between the Ruling Elite and the non-elites, it is this chart of wages as a share of the nation's output (GDP): 46 years of relentless decline, interrupted by gushing fountains of credit and asset bubbles that enriched the few while leaving the economic landscape of the many in ruins.

The Ruling Elite once had an obligation to uphold the social contract as a responsibility that came with their vast privilege, power and wealth (i.e. noblesse oblige).

America's Ruling Elite has transmogrified into an incestuous self-serving few unapologetically plundering the many. In their hubris-soaked arrogance, their right to rule is unquestioningly based on their moral and intellectual superiority to "the little people" they loot with abandon.

Rather than feel a responsibility to the nation, America's Elite views the status quo as a free pass to self-aggrandizement. Much has changed in America in the past 46 years. Not only have wages and salaries declined as a share of "economic growth," but the wealth that has been generated has flowed to the top of the wealth/power pyramid (see chart below).

Social mobility has also declined drastically: Restoring America’s Economic Mobility, as has trust in government and key institutions.

As Frank Buckley, the author of The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America observed: "In a corrupt country, trust is a rare commodity. That’s America today. Only 19 percent of Americans say they trust the government most of the time, down from 73 percent in 1958 according to the Pew Research Center."

The top .01% has seen its share of the household wealth triple from 7% to 22% in the past four decades, while the share of the nation's wealth owned by the bottom 90% has plummeted from 36% to 23%.

Look at that.  The share of the national wealth has been steadily, if not increasingly, siphoned away from the 95% and towards the 5%.  In reality, it's almost entirely gone towards the 0.1%.

The economic “peace” we’ve seemingly enjoyed over the past number of decades turned out to be no peace at all. It was the same sort of peace that existed between the Treaty of Versailles and the outbreak of WWII -- a crippling arrangement that overwhelmingly favored one side over the other. Germany eventually had no choice but to rebel.

Similarly, by failing to protect anyone but their cloistered and wealthy friends, the elites of both current US political parties has laid the fuel for the fire that now burns.

Bernie Sanders’ post-election statement had this to say about the economics that drove the result:

"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.”

Bernie would have easily bested Trump in my opinion. It was a huge twin set of mistakes by the DNC to first hamper his primary efforts, and then fail to at least make him Clinton's running mate. 

Redistribution of money and power seem to happen peacefully only rarely among humans and virtually never in America.  Labor rights?  Fought and died over.  Women’s right to vote?  Fought and died over.  Environmental rights?  Brought kicking and screaming across the moats.  Racial rights?  Only partially achieved after the greatest amount of violence and bloodshed of all these causes.

Can we do better? Absolutely, in theory.  But so far we don’t a lot of better examples to point to inside the US.

So this battle is just getting started and will far outlive Trump and everybody reading this. Decades of ill-advised growth and financial squandering cannot be wished away -- we, and our children (and likely our grandchildren, too), will be cleaning up the messes of our profligacy for a long time.

And just as one can easily peer at Charles Hughes Smith's charts and conclude that eventually a rebellion of sorts is inevitable, there’s an even more startling chart you need to see. If you can truly internalize it, you'll understand why the new era of status quo rejection is just getting underway.

Promises That Can’t Be Kept

There's a lot of data I can provide here, but I’ll go with a single -- but critically important -- chart from Ray Dalio’s Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest money management firms out there.

I’m sorry that you have to squint a little to see this, but here’s all you need to know: when you add up both the debts and the liabilities of the US, those are more than 1,000% of current GDP:

(Source)

One thousand one hundred percent?!?!?  As in eleven times GDP??  You might as well say eleventy gajillion because there’s no sense in any of these numbers.

Yep.  No country has ever dug out from under such a load. None have even come close.  The “prediction,” which is so simple it’s not really a prediction at all, that flows from the above chart is this: Somebody is going to have to eat the losses.

Massive, fabulously enormous losses. 

Trillions and trillions of losses in current dollars. Even if the economic elites don’t try to force all of those losses on the ‘little people’, the pain is still going to be so extraordinary that serious political and social crises will erupt.

You can count on it.

You can already see that larger future predicament playing out painfully around us. One example is how pensions are cutting back benefits, lowering expectations, demanding higher funding payments by taxpayers, and otherwise displaying signs of distress.

And this is with equity markets perched at all-time highs (at the moment of this writing, the Dow is at a new record).

So our recent decades of economic peace must end, given the thousand percent indebtedness predicament revealed by the chart above.

We got into that thousand percent predicament the exact same way the DNC lost to Trump: by failing to address things that plainly needed to be dealt with.  We proved to ourselves, yet again, that pretending something uncomfortable doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away.

“Well, we might just grow out from under those debts and obligations” some might be tempted to say. My response is to ask you to go back and look at that chart again and note that it has grown from 700% to 1,100% since 2001.  If GDP had been growing at the same pace, the ratio value wouldn't have budged. It would have remained at 700%.

But it grew to 1,100%, which means the debts and obligations were growing much faster than GDP.

So for the past 15 years the “grow out of it” mantra -- which has been echoed ad nauseum -- has been a complete train wreck of a failure.  How many more years before we can all just admit the obvious?

Just as both the RNC and DNC opted to ignore the extreme damage their policies had been inflicting on the upper, middle and lower classes, sparing only the very tippy-top elites (but hand-feeding those elites peeled grapes it should be noted, because their lot improved wildly over the past decades), everybody in power has been steadfastly ignoring our massive debt and liability problems, too.

Those are going to shape the future, and that future is going to be plenty painful. The longer we wait, the more painful it will be. This has been our steady message at Peak Prosperity for a very long time, and we are actually hopeful that now, finally, we can speak about the unspeakable to those who had no willing ear for it just a short week ago.

Conclusion

The political upheaval of Donald Trump is best understood through the lens of economic erosion suffered by the vast majority of people.  If a democracy is measured in how well it serves the interests of the majority, the United States is not a democracy at all.

Of course, nearly everyone already knows this. But it's been all but unspeakable in polite circles to say so.

Now, it is finally becoming okay to voice.

Which is, admittedly, a breath of fresh air for us at Peak Prosperity.  Because not only are massive, obvious economic issues going to unavoidably visit the US in the not-too-distant future, but they'll be doing so at a time when many critical resources will be in decline.

Chief among those? Oil, of course.

To skirt the impact of a future oil supply crunch, we'll need an incredible effort of joined forces and strict prioritization to assure that whatever transition we can effect will be a smooth as possible.  Even then, we’ll be lucky to evade painful disruption.

But if we don't begin to view our future with clear eyes and a united sense of what the predicaments are, if we instead turn to another version of four more years of preservation of the status quo, then we will face a future of disruption so painful it will make the worst of post-election Wednesday for the most ardent liberal seem like a minor inconvenience (by comparison, I mean, of course). 

It will take an enormous amount of effort simply to stem the tide of economic erosion that now besets the land.  And that’s just as true for the US as it is for Japan, Europe and the UK.  The same forces are at play in all of these centers.

It will take another massive bowlful of effort to begin to address the debts and liabilities issues.  And yet another cauldron of effort to revamp our energy infrastructure in parallel with all the other challenges.  Put it all together and you can begin to understand why, if we're going to deplore something from the recent election, it should be the running of an intentionally divisive set of campaigns that have driven as large a wedge between people in the US as has existed in a very long time.

We need to be working together on the common predicaments that care not if we are liberal or conservative, religious or not, male or female, or which race or sexual persuasion best applies to us. Declining global net energy per capita. Our massive fiscal over-indebtedness. The collapse of too many ecosystems we depend on for food and drinkable water. The list is sadly long...

It’s not just time to heal; it’s imperative that we do. So that we stand united to deal with these predicaments as they arrive in full force.

There’s really not a moment to spare.

And for those looking to get a jump on what's coming, we need to better understand the implications of what just happened this week. The Trump upset has changed all of the probabilities that we track.

I've been keeping a running update of the developing situation in Part 2: OK, Here's What We Think Is In Store After Trump's Win. We'll be continuing to update this important assessment as new information filters in over the next few days.

Click here to access Part 2 (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

~ Chris Martenson

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

144 Comments

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2718
Thank you

Best article yet.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Pies Video

I offered up Pie's video to Australia's ABC for their amusement and gratification  and was told this morning that they prefer cultured comments, not rants. They prefer style over substance. 

The ABC is part of our hectoring elite. Fortunately Australians have a low tolerance for that sort of thing.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 426
Don't forget to breathe, Chris.

Well done! 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2718
A message that resonates

PS: Don't trust these MSM snakes any further than you can throw them.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1661
Purple Revolution

I think I have it.   And two authors just said the same thing.

Wayne Madsen:   The Clintons and Soros Launch America's Purple Revolution

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

Paul Craig Roberts this morning (11/12/2016)

The Anti-Trump Protesters Are Tools of the Oligarchy

«Reform always provokes rage on the part of those who profit by the old order». Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Crisis of the Old Order

Who are the anti-Trump protesters besmirching the name of progressives by pretending to be progressives and by refusing to accept the outcome of the presidential election? They look like, and are acting worse than, the «white trash» that they are denouncing.

I think I know who they are. They are thugs for hire and are paid by the Oligarchy to delegitimize Trump’s presidency in the way that Washington and the German Marshall Fund paid students in Kiev to protest the democratically elected Ukrainian government in order to prepare the way for a coup.

From Breitbart News   [Editor's Note: MoveOn.org has received significant funding from George Soros in the past. ]

MoveOn.org released the following press release Wednesday afternoon:

Americans to Come Together in Hundreds Peaceful Gatherings of Solidarity, Resistance, and Resolve Following Election Results

Hundreds of Americans, dozens of organizations to gather peacefully outside the White House and in cities and towns nationwide to take a continued stand against misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia.

The gatherings – organized by MoveOn.org and allies – will affirm a continued rejection of Donald Trump’s bigotry, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and misogyny and demonstrate our resolve to fight together for the America we still believe is possible.

Within two hours of the call-to-action, MoveOn members had created more than 200 gatherings nationwide, with the number continuing to grow on Wednesday afternoon.

WHEN / WHERE: Find local gatherings here. Major gatherings include in New York City’s Columbus Circle and outside the White House in Washington, DC.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations.

For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

George Soros, Black Lives Matter and Manufactured Civil Unrest

...leaked documents from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation show that the organization’s goal behind funding the Black Lives Matter movement is ultimately to federalize America’s police forces.

The document is aptly called, “Police Reform: How to Take Advantage of the Crisis of the Moment and Drive Long-Term Institutional Change in Police-Community Practice.” Breitbart reported:

The document states that the Foundations’ U.S. Programs (USP) was seeking to use “this moment” – meaning the so-called crisis in policing following high profile shootings and charges of racism – to “create a national movement” for police reform.

 

Police in Ferguson and Charlotte reported than many of the "protesters" arrested in those cities were brought in from out of state to feed the fires. 

The New American recently reported, Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor.  That was before hackers with DCLeaks.com published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM.

-----------------------------------------------

My summary:  The discontent and fear among GREEN, people of color and LBGT Community is REAL.  Very real and very deeply felt.  I am not at all belittling the reality of the anguish.  

And this anguish is to be the fuel to be used to tear the social fabric, similar to what was done in the Ukraine.

I guess the division is between GREEN on one side, and ORANGE and BLUE on the other.

 

 

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2718
Re: Green
Quote:

My summary:  The discontent and fear among GREEN, people of color and LBGT Community is REAL.  Very real and very deeply felt.  I am not at all belittling the reality of the anguish.  

And this anguish is to be the fuel to be used to tear the social fabric, similar to what was done in the Ukraine.

I guess the division is between GREEN on one side, and ORANGE and BLUE on the other.

GREEN being manipulated, shifted, into MGM (Mean Green Meme)?

If so, can ORANGE and/or BLUE be manipulated in a similar fashion?

Edwardelinski's picture
Edwardelinski
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 23 2012
Posts: 309
A Million Women March on D.C

The ladies have begun to mobilize.Although in early stages,they plan to demonstrate on Jan 21 opposing alot of what Trump stands for.There are problems right now with the national facebook page but 20 individual states have set them up.The Times,Huff Post,Elle among others have spread the word.The  grassroots efforts is on...

Luke Moffat's picture
Luke Moffat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 25 2014
Posts: 351
A Green Revolution?

Perhaps they can recycle the placards they used last time to protest Bill Clinton's misogyny involving a certain Monica Lewinsky on state time. Just strike a line through Bill's name and that way we don't have to cut down any more trees. Just seeing the opportunity in a crisis...

Uncletommy's picture
Uncletommy
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: May 3 2014
Posts: 426
History repeating?

lambertad's picture
lambertad
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2013
Posts: 156
opposing a lot of what Trump stands for

Care to offer some insights into what they may marching against as "opposing alot (sic) of what Trump stands for " doesn't offer much insight that I can wrap my head around.

I suppose Trump stands for less pay for women for equal work? This theory has been debunked so many times it's not even funny. Here's one article from the Foundation for Economic Education that lays that out. Here's another article from the WSJ on same topic. 

What other issues are important to women that they would be marching against? They are arguably more successful early in their career than men, attend college and earn degrees in greater numbers than men, have good paying jobs that is equal or exceeds that of men, so I'm not sure. Possibly Obamacare? That law that sees huge increases year after year from 20-75% in some areas (Minnesota for one), that has reduced health insurance competition and a full 1/3 of people only have 1 choice and 55% only have "2 or fewer" options on the exchange (BTW, that 1/3 is up from 4% in 2016, quite the death spiral isn't it?). Like Chris says, if you want to know how the law works out for the insurance companies look at their stock price, if you want to see how it works out for the man on the street, well, we already know he is struggling. So the women will possibly be marching to keep funding huge salaries for insurance company CEOs and corporate profits while keeping the little man down? That doesn't sound like a liberal policy to me. A liberal policy would be to force hospitals to publish the cost of each and every procedure and then someone would create an app for who's the cheapest and who provides the best care as that is already published. Then you could actually shop for healthcare and reduce the middle man (insurance companies) and then maybe you could say, hey, I can afford a HDHP and pay out of pocket for this stuff instead of paying $300/mo for insurance that has a 5,000 deductible that you never hit each year anyway. I'm a big fan of HDHP, as they allow premium pass through where you can pocket in your HSA 1/2 of your monthly premium in some cases and your deductible just isn't that high ($3,000 in my case with 0 coverage by insurance for the first 3,000 and then they cover 80% over that and everything over 10,000 up to 1 million). 

It's funny to me that people decide to protest President Trump, yet have nothing bad to say about former President Clinton who used his power to coerce an intern into performing oral sex on him, has more than 10 women who claimed he either sexually assaulted/harassed or raped them, and we have flight logs that show he has flown on the plane of a convicted pedophile multiple times without his Secret Security escort and with soft core porn stars and other suspicious sounding aliases on board the same flight. Here's that article with flight logs.

Look, I don't support everything Trump says, but a lot of the divisiveness in this country is specifically generated by the MSM looking to drive a wedge between groups of people. Mindlessly demonstrating without knowing what you are demonstrating against or for just goes to show the thought control the elites still maintain over a certain portion of the country. The only justification I can see at this point in time for protesting Trump is his policy on immigration and his intent on deporting large numbers of illegal immigrants. That's just stupid and it's a waste of money and will create more of a police state where anyone who looks "latino" will be targeted. 

I know I won't be protesting, I enjoy watching the stick through the spokes effect that Trump is having the elites. I just hope he doesn't give them a helmet before they fly over the handlebars. 

lambertad's picture
lambertad
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2013
Posts: 156
Thanks for sharing this

First the interviewers eyes shifted away as soon as Moore said these people aren't racist and I think he was waiting for someone from the panel to chime in and interrupt him.

Then when MM goes to the economic argument about BASIC FOOD like cereals the interviewer looks away again and someone interrupts Mr. Moore (Damn it, we just can't have our guests coming on here and proposing plausible ideas for why those white rural hillbillies aren't racist and sexist and that's why we lost). We're not talking foie gras, we're talking basic food. I don't like MM as I feel his movies are basically propaganda, but when anyone talks common sense stuff I'm willing to listen. Thanks for sharing, this is classic leftist media. 

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 716
A story that needs to get out

One of the reasons being used to justify the protests and violence is that Hillary won the popular vote.

WRONG.

In order for a vote to be legitimate, the voter must be a US Citizen.  Most states are not adequately verifying citizenship when registering voters.

Hillary's votes:  60,467,601
Trump's votes:  60,072,551
Difference:             425,050

Number of non US Citizens residing in the US: 24,800,000
Est % who voted (illegally) 5% or 1,240,000
Est % who voted democratic 85% or 1,054,000
15% equals 186,000
Net Democratic gain equals 868,000

Estimated legitimate popular vote:

Hillary's estimated legitimate votes: 59,413,601
Trump's estimated legitimate votes: 59,886,551
Difference:                                             472,950

Trump won the legitimate popular vote!

I obviously don't have accurate numbers to do the above calculations.  The numbers above were rounded down examples from the best sources I could find.

However, I am convinced they are either conservative or in the ball park of reality.

Unless honesty starts becoming a MSM staple, we are in for more of the same. 

MarkM's picture
MarkM
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 22 2008
Posts: 836
lambertad You took the words

lambertad
You took the words right out of my mouth. Nobody "marched" when the sitting president was committing the actual deed right in the white house rather than just talking trash about it to another guy.

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 581
Republican libretarian

That's right, HRC is a republican libertarian.  The left does not exist any more, it hasn't for years and years. Why "democrats", who consider themselves "liberal" would even think of supporting someone like HRC is really beyond my belief.  That was the jaw dropping unbelievable thing about this past election, not that DT won, but that people actual thought that there was any difference between the two, as I ranted on and on about.

That was the goal.  Take the things that don't matter, in other words the things that have no impact on the financial and social order, make everything about that.  And further, take these inconsequential things and make the election about that, in such a way as to divide people against each other and their own interests.  This was a divisive election?  What serious policy issues were really even talked about.

Black live matter?  Hell yes, of course.  But how in the world did TPTB get this whole conflated with some evil scheme by George Soros.  Years of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, racism, none of it real of course, just a scheme to piss off poor whites. The vast middle class has been getting the short end of the stick for years, African Americans have been getting beaten with it.  This is a reason for solidarity, its the same damn crappy stick!  Its the same vicious predatory rapacious system screwing everybody.  WTF!

HRC is a libertarian, oh yes.  You think libertarianism and you think, small government, personal freedom, low taxes.  Your corporate overlord owners are cackling with glee.  The one thing they are afraid of is an organized population, that is it. If you organize outside governmental structures you're a terrorist, inside government, your a liberal. Either way, they need to create the idea that organizing collectively is off the table. And we are accommodating them in spades.

The insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry write health care legislation and gave it to their corporate task masters to ram to Americas throat, and what do they call it - Obama Care.  Miss-direction at its very finest.  Government did this to you, we didn't have anything to do with this.  Abandon your government, don't worry, we'll manage it very well for you.  And we'll give you a wonderful group of candidates to vote for every two years, oh yes there will be real differences between them.  Spend all your time debating and analyzing that. Please, please don't think about anything else.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 752
So now, is Trump headed to Disneyland

Now that Trump has clinched the presidency and completely defeated the neocons, what are his first moves now?

Just sayin', there's still the electoral college.  I've never known the neocons to get up in the middle of a game.

 

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2215
More on Soros from Paul Craig Roberts...

From PCR's website, "Has George Soros Committed Treason?", http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/12/has-george-soros-committed-treason/

Has George Soros Committed Treason?

“His only legitimacy is his wallet.”

https://www.rt.com/usa/366579-soros-orgs-driving-trump-protests/

The press prostitutes continue to lie to us. They pretend that the anti-Trump protests are real spontaneous events although the prostitutes know that the “protests” are orchestrated by George Soros and front groups for the Oligarchy such as change.org and other fake progressive groups funded by the oligarchs.

Soros, change.org and various progressive and leftwing fronts for the oligarchs pretend to be for democracy, but they are acting in behalf of Oligarchy. We are witnessing a direct attack on American democracy. These protesters are the hired mercenary enemy of the American people.

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 211
Where is Obama?

I suspect that the irony of  the protesters  simultaneously  proclaiming Love trumps hate! and assassinate Trump while burning him in effigy  and calling for violent revolution is lost on the average low information protester.  

Given the magnitude of violence and looting in the wake of the election it would seem like the president has a duty to calm people down and work towards healing the divide.

Apart from his pro forma comments post election and his de rigeuer meeting with trump   It is a moral imperative that he use his "bully" pulpit  to chill out the cry bullies that are burning, looting and  in some cases beating people in the streets.    

His radio silence on that speaks volumes about his character, integrity and agenda.

Perhaps  some of the Washington elites who have such great back door communication with the media could send a memo to their lap dogs to tone down  the stoking fears and legitimizing faux moral outrage, that have summoned and empowered a  veritable army of useful idiots

I fully expect things will escalate and by the time the inauguration comes we will have national guard and martial law in the cities.

mememonkey

Time2help's picture
Time2help
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 9 2011
Posts: 2718
Not buying into the "new" narrative

My default position is that we are being played once again, that the Neocons and their associated ilk have doubled down, and that all is not as it seems.

LogansRun wrote:

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO'S ELECTED!  So, stop sniveling (HRC Lovers/voters) or pumping your fists (DT Lovers/voters).  Get over it.

That being said I hope we're both wrong, and I reserve the right to change my opinion given facts as they emerge.

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 1661
Good will to all

Just want to let all my women friends, black friends and family, gay and lesbian friends and family, Jewish friends and family, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and atheist family and friends that I love them and 100% support them. Me, my wife and all of us, care for you and support you all without any hesitation. This core attitude is strong and constant, not dependent on ANY political development.

With all the talk about Neocons here on PP, I want to especially, especially convey my good will to my Jewish friends and Jewish PP members.

locksmithuk's picture
locksmithuk
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 19 2011
Posts: 114
Candidate Irrelevance
Two weeks ago many on here were hoping Clinton wouldn't win. Wish granted. Now we're dissecting the resultant set of circumstances of that desired outcome. Why?
 
If you subscribe to the general theory - as many have done here, including I - that the Prez is selected and not elected, then the amount of electronic real estate & energy now devoted on these pages to Trump, rigging, and voter protests is largely irrelevant. Under that theory the course of future events was already charted many months ago, and we are now at the start of that future.
 
Instead, I ask myself: why was Trump selected by that powerful invisible engine to be the juggernaut's driver? He has no political experience, a big mouth... but of course he has nothing to lose. He's a perfect scapegoat. Or to some he's a change agent with fresh ideas. Or maybe both. Me, I suspect he will in reality have few executive powers. Everything will be steered from the back seat.
 
I don't pretend in the slightest to know what the elites are up to. I cannot peel back the many layers which surely underpin Trump's selection. However, I - like Chris - sense a massive change coming, and we aren't even at the start yet. The change could be good. But what are those chances, given the endlessly climbing tower of debt while we hurtled faster towards a mathematically-certain brick wall of finite growth? Anything which could've benefited the 95% (i.e. the likes of us) would've happened already. We're now looking at the alternative. 
 
Many of us here have suffered preparedness fatigue for 3,4, maybe 7 years while waiting - and probably hoping - for the house of cards to collapse and the broom to be swept through. Now we may well have got what we wanted. Are you prepared?
 
Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 376
I dunno

On Facebook, and somewhat on here, I see a lot of pro-Trump celebrating, as if he is going to usher in a new age, solve our problems, and actually hand things back to the little people. Guys and gals, he's a billionaire who was born into money. He belongs to the very same class of people who have been screwing us over for decades, AND he elevated racism, misogyny and bigotry to new heights of acceptability in public discourse. Clinton was hardly better, of course, but have you seen his cabinet choices? He's no more going to represent "middle America" than Hillary could represent the working classes, so I stand by my original pre-election prediction: With Hillary, we're f**ked, and with Trump we're screwed. Out with the old, in with the old.

 

Don't put away your Vaseline so soon, because this pain-train is just leaving the station.

 

When I see the amount of name-calling, labeling, and vitriol on my Facebook feed between and among my liberal friends/family and my conservative ones, I can't help but tip my cap to the elite...because here they have us going at each other again, while they laugh all the way to the bank and their bunkers, saying "You little people can eat cake."

 

-S

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
The moral angle.

Imagine a different history where Hillary won and the Trumpsters rioted.

What would the State's reaction have been?

There is absolutely no moral imperative to treat your opponent any better than he treats you.

Philosopher Stephan Molyneux discusses this issue.

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3494/antidonald-trump-protests-and-riots-tr...

New_Life's picture
New_Life
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2011
Posts: 109
Phaedrus the younger's picture
Phaedrus the younger
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 21 2013
Posts: 61
So did FDR..

he came from the upper class in a perilous time not unlike this one.  Delivered the New Deal. 

Time will tell..

hughacland's picture
hughacland
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 25
Great article Chris.. Just

Great article Chris.. Just FYI, Jonathan Pie is actually just a character "played" by the British actor Tom Walker..but Jonathan/Tom absolutely nails it 100%.

Hugh

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 264
RE: Republican libretarian

treebeard,

your post was irresponsible and anti-factual and i feel i have to respond.

HRC is not by even the wildest stretch of the imagination, a libertarian.

she does not represent any libertarian values, and isn't supported by any libertarians that i know of.

go to any libertarian oriented website, such as liberty.me, and have a look at what people were saying before the election. libertarians supported johnson, or trump. HRC had a support of zero, i literally don't recall a single libertarian supporting HRC.

yes, libertarian values include small government, low taxes, personal freedom (and i would add to that: respect for the constitution and rule of law). HRC embodies none of those.

HRC is a neocon, not a libertarian.

if you want to argue that HRC favors small government, low taxes, personal freedom, and respect for the rule of law, then by all means go ahead and make a case for it, but you didn't, and you won't be able to, because that's not reality.

i don't know what compelled you to write such a thing. perhaps you don't like libertarians, and that's fine. but to attempt to besmirch them by saying HRC is one of them is irresponsible, and simply not truthful.

stick to the facts, please.

Mark Cochrane's picture
Mark Cochrane
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: May 24 2011
Posts: 1216
50:50

Isn't it surprising how close the popular vote is in our elections year after year? The electoral college may be a landslide but the popular vote is generally fairly close. However, this makes 5 of the last 7 elections when neither candidate even reached 50% of the popular vote. We haven't had a 60% turnout of voters since 1968 or a 70% turnout since 1900. There must be some serious gains in disaffecting 40-50% of the voters.

Divide and Rule isn't just for colonies, it is also effective at controlling populations at home. Unless there is an existential threat to the nation (maybe war with Russia?) there is no real desire to unite the country's population. If we voted based on our economic wellbeing then a candidate could theoretically unite 95% (or any other percent below 99.9%) by proposing more equitable allotment of the nation's GDP, as occurred pre 1970, much to the detriment of 'the elite'. Social issues are effective at dividing us though, so many of us vote against our own economic interests. In principle, this would be fine, since not all of us are solely driven by our personal bottom lines. What boggles the mind though is that we continue to vote for 'parties' that promise us many things but never deliver. Delivering is not important for them though since having the dispute to continually motivate us is what is key.

So, in sum, 40-50% of us can't be motivated with 'hot-button' topics and the rest of us have the memory spans of goldfish swimming around a bowl every four years to the perception of having a new experience.

Homo sapiens sapiens...

 

LesPhelps's picture
LesPhelps
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 30 2009
Posts: 716
The Message On Election Day

Despite the MSM rhetoric, I don't for a second believe that the choice was between misogamy, sexism, bigotry, and homophobia vs diversity and inclusion.  To me that was yet another tool being used to influence voters.

Whatever other themes were playing on Election Day, I believe a large portion of the message delivered was NOT HILLARY.  The DNC is largely to blame for that, not the voters who couldn't abide the DNC candidate.

Along the same lines, wanting reasonable control over immigration does not imply racism.  Even as we speak, Europe is showing us that uncontrolled immigration has a price.

Arthur Robey's picture
Arthur Robey
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2010
Posts: 3936
Population Pressure

Here is what is the immigration issue is about.

le Grange is looking better and better.

treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 581
I'm confused

Here is the libertarian platform:

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life—accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action—accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property—accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

 

HRC is bent on the removal of government influence on the free markets, as well as every other aspect of civic life. The "trade" deals explicit purpose is (NAFTA, TPP, etc) is to circumvent all government influence on international trade and national laws, leaving them impotent.  Allowing multinational corps (an entity in the free market acting as a free trader) to sue national governments for any infringement on their ability to make a profit, whether that cause be from labor laws, environmental laws, health and welfare laws, food safety laws, etc.

Prison industrial complex, removal of government control in all aspects of that, so that prison system can act in the free market of the criminal just system in order to pursue their interests as a free trader.

Health care system, remove the government of all controls so that big pharma, insurance giants, medical industry can act as free trader in the free market without the fear of government regulation.

Wall Street and the Banking System, eliminate government influence and regulation so the private "federal" reserve banking system can act in the free market to pursue its interests as a free trader.

Military industrial complex, eliminate government influence there as well.  So that military armament sales and wars can be based on a free market entity pursuing their interests as a free trader.  There is no draft, so conscripts are there of their own free will, acting as free agents in a free market as well so no problem there right?

What vestiges of government remain are simply instruments that free market entities use to pursue market share nationally and on the global stage and of course give the illusion that citizens have a say in national affairs.  If you were to ask HRC and her cronies on wall street if they favored the elimination of Government all together, I'm sure the answer would be a resounding YES!  Of course they would never say that, as she has advised already, you need to have a separate private and public persona.

Government is already dead, private banking interests and multinational corps already rule the world.  So what are we supposed to do now, burry the dead copses of government.  Hate to turn a phrase, but stand around and kick a dead horse? I'm sure this Neoliberal disaster is not what libertarians had mind. Enlighten as to how we are supposed to from here to what libertarians have in mind.

Am I being too negative here?

 

 

Bankers Slave's picture
Bankers Slave
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 26 2012
Posts: 513
treebeard's picture
treebeard
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 18 2010
Posts: 581
Surprise, surprise!

If anyone is surprised by this, I have land in the Florida everglades I want to sell you.  Thanks for the link Bankers Slave.  I'm not sure that 46% of the population staying home is exactly good news.  If people showed up, it would force the hand, and fraud would be out in the open, so perhaps something would start to happen.  Who knows.

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 213
We are the people that survive...

newsbuoy's picture
newsbuoy
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 10 2013
Posts: 213
Sicherheitsdienst by any other name is still Sicherheitsdienst

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicherheitsdienst

locksmithuk's picture
locksmithuk
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 19 2011
Posts: 114
Arthur Robey wrote: I offered
Arthur Robey wrote:

I offered up Pie's video to Australia's ABC for their amusement and gratification  and was told this morning that they prefer cultured comments, not rants. They prefer style over substance. 

The ABC is part of our hectoring elite. Fortunately Australians have a low tolerance for that sort of thing.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/

 

Arthur, Australia's ABC wouldn't recognise style even if it was walked all over by a 100 pairs of Jimmy Choos.

Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 578
Looks like a Rainbow to me
Snydeman wrote:

On Facebook, and somewhat on here, I see a lot of pro-Trump celebrating, as if he is going to usher in a new age, solve our problems,

Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 376
Oliveoilguy wrote:Snydeman
Oliveoilguy wrote:
Snydeman wrote:

On Facebook, and somewhat on here, I see a lot of pro-Trump celebrating, as if he is going to usher in a new age, solve our problems,

Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.

Mkay, sure. Trump, the embracer of rainbow diversity. Yep.

 

We'll see, won't we? I'm not going to hold my breath for that brave, new world and all.

I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong if it comes to pass, though.

lambertad's picture
lambertad
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 31 2013
Posts: 156
Healthcare and "govt controls"

Treebeard,

I've got to disagree with you on this one. You said:

"Health care system, remove the government of all controls so that big pharma, insurance giants, medical industry can act as free trader in the free market without the fear of government regulation."

Do you suppose we currently have a free market in healthcare and that the government is doing a good job of managing the costs of healthcare? Is that your assessment of what is currently going on in the healthcare industry? Great, I didn't think so. 

So lets look at the free market aspect of health. 

1. Health insurance companies are a racket because they insure everything, not catastrophic events like auto insurance. Everyone knows they will have to go to the doctor, just like everyone knows they have to change their oil, but your car insurance doesn't cover your oil changes, does it? Likewise, your health insurance shouldn't cover simple doctors visits, it should largely be used for high cost events. If this were the case, people would be more sensitive to the costs incurred for going to doctor for stupid problems (I've had a sore throat for 3 days now, gee golly). Obamacare also dictates what must be covered by the policy which has added to the cost of the policies. 

2. Health insurance tied to employment came out of the WWII as a result of price and wage controls. Thanks, government. If it wasn't for this, individuals would be able to pool together to get health insurance free of employer sponsored care. That isn't the case now due to the precedent that has been set and now individuals trying to purchase insurance are pretty much screwed. 

3. Prices are not transparent. In a 'free market' prices would be transparent like this surgery center in Oklahoma. Why? Because the market would dictate such. Would you go to a hospital where an MRI costs $3,000 versus an imaging center down the street where it costs 600? No, no you wouldn't. The only reason people do this now is that the co-pay is the same whether the MRI is $3,000 or $600. Would you pay 500 bucks for an oil change when you can get one for $75? Not likely. Transparency decreases prices. 

4. It takes 10 years and billions of dollars to get a drug through to market. These drug companies submit terabytes, you read that right, terabytes of data when getting their products approved. In one sense it's good because it is well researched, but that takes a long time and is expensive. This creates a barrier to entry. Why on earth is an Epi-pen $300-600? Auto injector + epinephrine = not expensive. Because the barrier to entry is so high no one can come along and disrupt the market in a short amount of time. Thanks, government. If we had lower barriers to entry and more of a free market, there would be actual competition. Another example is CroFab vs. Anavip. Anavip is produced in Mexico and is trying to get into the US market but CroFab producers have filed a lawsuit against them. CroFab is more expensive and less effective, government protectionism at it's finest. Competition lowers prices - look at your computer screen for proof. 

5. Reductionism doesn't work in healthcare. The government boondoggle has completely screwed the pooch and has created a healthcare epidemic of obesity and diabetes by emphasizing simple carbohydrates over healthy fats (including saturated). If you need more evidence, read The Paleo Diet and Good Calories, Bad Calories. Subsidizing corn, soy, and wheat and not vegetables and fruit has partially led us to where we are (not libertarian). Likewise, suburbs and driving instead of urban density and walk able neighborhoods are not smart and leads to poorer health. Government subsidies for certain foods have led to poorer health, not libertarian.

While the libertarian perspective is an improvement over the current situation in medicine, it's not perfect. If anyone has any interest in a better approach to medicine, I suggest you read this free e-book that covers the Singapore healthcare model. Here are the cliff notes:

1. Govt provides guaranteed coverage for those in need, but it's not nice - no private rooms, no cushy hospital stays, but it's cheap and it works. 

2. Different organizations work together in the government to create a market for healthy foods and walk able neighborhoods.

3. Citizens have to save a certain portion of their paycheck for health insurance, but prices are transparent. If you go to the hospital you can choose a double room vs. private room if you want to save money on your stay. Likewise, insurance prices are transparent. Making people responsible for their healthcare dollars incentivizes savings (unlike medicare/medicaid). 

4. That's all I remember from the book, but it's free and a lot of it would be an improvement over our current situation, which, is about as far from a libertarian 'free market' as you can get. 

 
Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 578
Diversity

Snyedman....I'm just stating facts....Do you dispute my statement?........ "Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.".........These are real people and he has really chosen them.....and they are really diverse. I'm sorry if the reality doesn't fit with your theory.

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 211
Continued modulation
Oliveoilguy wrote:
Snydeman wrote:

On Facebook, and somewhat on here, I see a lot of pro-Trump celebrating, as if he is going to usher in a new age, solve our problems,

Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.

I haven't seen that kind of pro trump celebrating here at PP.    My perception is that there has been a guarded sigh of relief that we won't have HRC attempting to put a no fly zone in Syria with the attendant risks of nuclear war with Russia that entailed,  as well as a realistic awareness that Trumps foreign policy will probably suck in many other ways including a good chance we'll end up with a different slate of neocons coming to power.

I suspect that   Trump presidency will represent a mix of good and bad outcomes.     He has already effectively killed the TPP   That goes into the Win column for me. 

There are  a bunch of other things on his list that would be great too if he manages them. Term limits and real checks on revolving door lobbying come to mind.

He will also do and try some stuff that is completely boneheaded and indefensible for those of us who get the bigger picture. 

What your not going to see is the histrionic  projections of the propaganda deluded protesters come true. i.e. a Hitler like  character rounding up gays and  minorities and sending them to concentration camps. 

If  you've been paying attention to how he has strategically modulated his positions over time and relative to realities of the election cycle,  the most likely outcome is that he will continue to modulate his stance moving to the center. now that he has won.  You are already seeing that with his trial balloon on ACA that he might modify to keep pre existing conditions rather than scrap the whole thing.  Expect more revelations that will even piss of his base.

Trump is an entertainer at heart and he knows how to work a crowd.  He is driven by his ego needing to be seen as HUGELY successful.  His crowd now includes the whole country and I expect he will position himself to succeed with that audience. 

Success for a politician is all about reelection.  He has to deliver on key change elements for his base vis a vie cleaning the swamp  and he needs to assuage fears that he is what he has been painted as by the HRC campaign and their communication division, the MSM.

mememonkey

 

 

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 376
Oliveoilguy
Oliveoilguy wrote:

Snyedman....I'm just stating facts....Do you dispute my statement?........ "Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.".........These are real people and he has really chosen them.....and they are really diverse. I'm sorry if the reality doesn't fit with your theory.

 

Having diverse people on your team doesn't mean you embrace true diversity, but you probably know this. Fact, he had a female, a homosexual, and a brown man on his team, and they are just "tokens" meant to look like he embraces diversity. of course, the second half of my statement is conjecture, as is yours. We can say he has these people on his team, but the actual reasons why are speculation. Given the types of statements he has made about "different" people during his career and campaign, I'll just say he has to work pretty hard to convince me that he actually cares about anyone else but himself. I'd love for him to prove me wrong on this. See, that's my opinion...just like my previous post was. Therefore it isn't something I need to "defend" either way. It simply is.

 

 

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 376
Oliveoilguy
Oliveoilguy wrote:

Snyedman....I'm just stating facts....Do you dispute my statement?........ "Actually off to a good start with Kellyanne Conway breaking the glass ceiling as campaign advisor, and Peter Theil (Gay) and Ben Carson (Black) on the transition team. Looks like a rainbow to me.".........These are real people and he has really chosen them.....and they are really diverse. I'm sorry if the reality doesn't fit with your theory.

By the by, that "glass ceiling" you refer to was broken back in '88 by Susan Estrich. I'm sorry if the reality doesn't fit with your theory.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 376
Mememonkey

Yeah, I agree with most of what you say. Hence why I said "somewhat seen here." I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong...I just sense a snow-job and have serious doubts as to his embracing the principle of diversity. But, hey, that's my opinion.

mememonkey's picture
mememonkey
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 211
Perceptions and Reality
Snydeman wrote:

Yeah, I agree with most of what you say. Hence why I said "somewhat seen here." I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong...I just sense a snow-job and have serious doubts as to his embracing the principle of diversity. But, hey, that's my opinion.

Time will tell of course,  I think you will be surprised, ( on this score anyway)  He already has and does embrace the principle of diversity,  I know that causes cognitive dissonance when measured against the perceptions that exist now after the campaign.  I come by this opinion after the painful work of dissecting his actual words relative to how they were selectively edited, framed  and presented for the MSM echo chamber.

The clues are in his history as a cosmopolitian New Yorker.  He has a clear and unambiguous track record of tolerance and support of the gay community.  for example, even though he won't formally 'support gay marriage'  for political reasons he clearly supports it personally. 

New York Times wrote:

Elton John and his longtime boyfriend, David Furnish, entered a civil partnership on Dec. 21, 2005, in England under a law the country had just enacted granting recognition to same-sex couples. The congratulations poured in as the two men appeared at a joyous ceremony at Windsor Guildhall, amid a crush of paparazzi. Donald J. Trump, who had known the couple for years, took to his blog to express his excitement.

“I know both of them, and they get along wonderfully. It’s a marriage that’s going to work,” Mr. Trump wrote, adding: “I’m very happy for them. If two people dig each other, they dig each other.”

There is a similar track record of support for black and other minorities including Hispanics not withstanding his controversial statements about Mexicans(A nationality not a race) Illegals (a status) Criminals (a category)  

I personaly  don't find nationalism an attractive quality.  But I do recognize that it is not equivalent to racism.  Even though many nationalists are also racist it is not a given. It is my contention that the record and background of Trump shows he is a Nationalist  not a Racist or a Homophobe. 

  To the extent that he displays prejudice it is against Islam. ( a religion)   He like so many people believe that Muslims were the driving force behind 911 and that informs his distrust.  Other than instituting extreme vetting, for immigrants that come from areas where radical Islam is a problem, ( Ironically those happen to be the same places we blew up on behalf of Israel of whom he is a Yuuge supporter ) he won't be in a position to significantly discriminate against Muslim communities here. 

To the extent that discrimination happens it will be based on a 'false' security rational'  I believe the checks and balances in our system still will provide a measure of restraint there.  This is to my mind the most realistic area that abuses could occur.

DT has made some significant promises to inner city blacks and Latinos to focus on jobs revitalization.

I think you are going to see him really make a visible and tangible effort there.  He has staked his ego based reputation on it.

  If he does and he converts a significant portion of people into supporters,  the democratic party is going to suffer for a long time.   This is a demographic that, if he can crack it,  will make him unstoppable for reelection in 2000

Of course what he not counting on is the Tsnumani of economic collapse coming our way when the bond bubble bursts.  So who knows how things play out in that context.

 

Again,  not  a DT endorsement,  just a perception reality check based on my research and understanding

 

mememonkey

 

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 2365
Trump a racist?

I see no evidence.  I do see this;

GeoffZee's picture
GeoffZee
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 13 2016
Posts: 1
What's happening locally

I always appreciate Chris's articles.

I agree with the economic origins that propelled the energy behind Trump supporters, but are they aware of the package deal that comes with him?

Locally, here in NC, the KKK has scheduled an election victory cavalcade.  A few towns over from me flyers were left in people's mailboxes - these flyers had swastikas and talked about Jews 'controlng immigration and degeneracy' and called for joining together to save European heritage.  It had a link to a known alt right website.  You are probably aware of other incidents like this across the nation.  

As a mental health clinician I have had multiple crisis calls last week from parents asking for my help with their children becoming hysterical thinking that Trump will come after them.  I have also seen people reveling in the fact that "...I don't have to be Politically Correct anymore!!!" and verbally lashing out with demeaning and derogatory logorrhea.  Other colleague clinicians have had similar experiences.     

No, not all of his supporters are racist, but the drip drip drip of his message since he announced his candidacy had its' impact and I fear that Pandora's box has opened.  I doubt that we are ready for what will happen now that the wound-up spring has become unsprung.  I just read that Steve Bannon will be Chief Strategist for the Trump administration and it is known that he is an alt right proponent.  Will Machiavellian nationalism be seen as legitimate and a norm? 

A Kasich or Romney or Rubio may have had conservative policies but I guess they were not able to serve as a lightening rod for people's resentment.

We definitely aren't in Kansas anymore....

Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 578
Susan Estrich

Double Post

Oliveoilguy's picture
Oliveoilguy
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 29 2012
Posts: 578
Susan Estrich

Glad to be corrected on the glass ceiling detail and will revise my statement that Trump hired Kellyanne and put his trust in a woman and he won the election, and hired 2 others who are black and gay.  I enjoyed the discussion with you, but will sign off now because we need to see what really happens going forward. Not much use in speculating on what might happen, or the quality of public servants they will be.  We will find out soon enough.

capesurvivor's picture
capesurvivor
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 12 2008
Posts: 962
Different dichotomous conceptualization

Good essay, Chris, but I disagree that rural vs. urban is the best way to characterize the divide here.  I think it is secure vs. insecure. The elite know that they will always be fed, housed, medically treated, and enjoy life. The insecure know they will always be struggling to meet these needs, essentially Maslow's physiological needs, and will work until they die to put bread on the table.

I  had plumbing problems this week and asked my plumber who he voted for...not HRC. The little people, the only ones who pay taxes as Leona Helmsley famously said, have spoken. But billionaire Trump's "policies" are so wrong headed and conflict with each other in so many ways that the little people have been suckered once again.

reflector's picture
reflector
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2011
Posts: 264
RE: I'm confused

ok treebeard, since you asked, i will reply to the points you raised:

treebeard wrote:

HRC is bent on the removal of government influence on the free markets, as well as every other aspect of civic life.

i'm not sure where you got that idea, that seem to me to be the exact opposite of reality, as i see it.

it would be more accurate to say, she is bent on removal of government laws and regulations that hamper her and her crony donors and co-conspirators from amassing ever greater power and wealth for themselves.

the government laws and regulations which grant her and her associates special privileges, she absolutely loves those and wants to keep them around.

treebeard wrote:

The "trade" deals explicit purpose is (NAFTA, TPP, etc) is to circumvent all government influence on international trade and national laws, leaving them impotent.  Allowing multinational corps (an entity in the free market acting as a free trader) to sue national governments for any infringement on their ability to make a profit, whether that cause be from labor laws, environmental laws, health and welfare laws, food safety laws, etc.

agreed, the so called free trade deals are not at all about free trade, they are about destroying national sovereignty, and subjugating nations to the will of the corporatists. i don't happen to know what her position is on that, but, fortunately with trump's election, it appears those faux-freetrade deals are done for anyways.

treebeard wrote:

Prison industrial complex, removal of government control in all aspects of that, so that prison system can act in the free market of the criminal just system in order to pursue their interests as a free trader.

Health care system, remove the government of all controls so that big pharma, insurance giants, medical industry can act as free trader in the free market without the fear of government regulation.

Wall Street and the Banking System, eliminate government influence and regulation so the private "federal" reserve banking system can act in the free market to pursue its interests as a free trader.

Military industrial complex, eliminate government influence there as well.  So that military armament sales and wars can be based on a free market entity pursuing their interests as a free trader.  There is no draft, so conscripts are there of their own free will, acting as free agents in a free market as well so no problem there right?

i don't think you quite understand the concept of free market. in a free market, participants are able to make choices based on their own merits, to the extent that it benefits them, freely, and without coercion (such as the threat an armed agent of a government would exert, whether explicitly or implicitly).

but sure, i'll be happy to reply on those 4 points you mention:

prison industrial complex - how would it even exist without government? this monstrosity exists due to government cronyist contracts being given to private for-profit corporations; without government the prison industrial complex would obviously not exist at all.

health care system - health care system is a disaster and horribly overpriced in this country, and why? patent law with regard to manufacture of drugs, the FDA approval process, medical malpractice insurance to protect from lawsuits, obamacare - all of these items are disasters that hit the american consumer directly and are caused by government interference in the marketplace. you really believe HRC would eliminate these barriers to entry to smaller practices and clinics and drug producers so that competition in the marketplace would thrive and costs would be lowered to an affordable level? i don't.

banking system - you're aware that the banking cartel has special privileges and powers granted to it by the federal government, right? and this is the essential source of their power, which they use to manipulate markets and bribe politicians. again, this is the exact opposite of the free market. to suggest that HRC would do away with the bankers' special privilege, is just crazy talk.

military industrial complex - the military industrial complex is the very essence of government violence, and the funding for it comes from the banksters' funny-money and debt based fiat ponzi schemes, which is granted to them by, of course, the federal government. there's an brilliant talk out on youtube by michael rivero titled "all wars are bankers' wars", i would recommend it if you have any doubts about where the funding for war comes from. there is precisely zero chance that HRC would interfere with this gravy train.

treebeard wrote:

What vestiges of government remain are simply instruments that free market entities use to pursue market share nationally and on the global stage and of course give the illusion that citizens have a say in national affairs.  If you were to ask HRC and her cronies on wall street if they favored the elimination of Government all together, I'm sure the answer would be a resounding YES!  Of course they would never say that, as she has advised already, you need to have a separate private and public persona.

Government is already dead, private banking interests and multinational corps already rule the world.  So what are we supposed to do now, burry the dead copses of government.  Hate to turn a phrase, but stand around and kick a dead horse? I'm sure this Neoliberal disaster is not what libertarians had mind. Enlighten as to how we are supposed to from here to what libertarians have in mind.

Am I being too negative here?

HRC does not support the free market or small government at all, she supports a strong government that tramples any opposition underfoot by any means necessary, and that rewards crony corporatists that support her personally. this is the exact *opposite* of the free market.

also, an essential pillar of libertarian thought is respect for the constitution and rule of law, and the evidence is pretty clear that HRC has no respect for any law but the law of the jungle.

it is simply not factual to suggest that HRC is a libertarian, that she represents libertarian views, or that she enjoys any support whatsoever from the libertarian community.

as far as "how we are supposed to from here to what libertarians have in mind", here's a few good steps: end america's imperial wars of aggression, bring the troops home, stop giving out funds to other countries when ours is bankrupt, end the war on drugs, and most importantly: end the fed! federal reserve counterfeiting is the source of the oligarchs' power and steals wealth from every working american.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments