Ugly! "Failure Almost Guaranteed" Regardless of Who Wins the Election

/Wednesday

/ Oct 2016



Posted by mishgea | October 26, 2016 6:07:45 | Economics

*≈ 57 Comments *

The word of the day is "ugly". That's how Steen Jakobsen, Saxo Bank CIO and chief economist describes the US presidential campaign, broken social contracts, public debt, and productivity.

Things are so ugly, Jakobsen says "/failure is almost guaranteed/" regardless of who wins the election.

ugly

This is a guest post by Steen Jakobsen. The original appears at US Election: Nothing to lose - #SaxoStrats

*US Election: Nothing to Lose*

My present macro speech is titled "Ugly: Don't fight with 'ugly' people as they have nothing to lose".

To me, this is the essence of the US presidential campaign. The ugly truth surrounding this ballot lies in the bigger picture, as whomever becomes president will go down in history as the "non-president" --- the president who made us need, see, and demand something else.

For all of the colourful headlines, and the almost McCarthy-esque pursuit of Trump by mainstream media, this is not going to be about "Trump, the person" or his more or less moronic views; Trump merely represents the catalyst for change. He is the anti-establishment candidate, yes, but not our vision for the future.

Ultimately, Trump may still win despite (rather than because of) being... Trump.

That does not excuse mainstream media for not going after Clinton. If elected, she will be the least-liked president in US history, and I doubt any of her policies will do anything good for America.

More Barack Obama-type policy is not what the world needs. Obama may have created more jobs, but the average income for American has actually fallen during his presidency. What does this mean? It means he has presided over an economy that has created more jobs but less valuable ones, and growth during his tenure has been lower than during any other president, with the largest build-up in debt.

I am pretty sure that even this economist could create jobs with the amount of money Obama has spent!

total-us-public-debt

Mind you I am 100% agnostic, politically-speaking. In fact, I don't even think this election really matters! No, this is not a new trend; no, Clinton is not the answer... but what this is a generational repositioning and renegotiation of the social contract.

The last time that this happened was in the 1960s, when the children of World War II went for peace, love, and a lot of drugs. Now we have the Berlin Wall generation coming of age, and this time the focus is anti-globalisation and anti establishment sentiment... and yes, again a lot of drugs.

The real election issue in America, but also in Europe. is how to deal with a broken social contract. Society has been pushed so far away from its natural equilibrium in terms of markets, social homogeneity, equality, and productivity that the move back to "normal" will bear both a political price and a penalty in terms of growth and outlook.

Put differently, when we look throughout history we know that part of the process of evaluation is to smell, feel, taste, and experience what we don't need in order to move towards what we do --- a better version of society, but mainly a better one of ourselves.

The next election cycle is about protest; it will be followed by crisis and then new beginnings.

I firmly believe, and have repeatedly focused on the fact, that we as human beings need to fail in order to create a mandate for change. With regards to this dynamic, the US presidential campaign comes up short in many categories except one: failure is almost guaranteed.

If Clinton wins, the probability of a recession increases immediately and big business with return to a '70s-like state under a Politburo-esque White House.

If Trump wins, we will have taken the fast track to massive political upheaval as the end of the Democratic/GOP monopoly on politics shifts towards a social agenda against globalisation, openness, and trade... the only good thing to come out of such a change would be the fact of change itself.

This US elections will not have any winners, only losers --- but don't despair. The US and the world economy will come back, and with surprising strength, but the political timeline is now finally aligned with the economics malaise created by central bankers. By this I mean that the corresponding low points in politics, economics, interest rates, and inflation, and the high points in terms of financial asset valuation and inequality, are coming to an end.

Volatility and uncertainty will be high the next over the next nine months (through the German election) but in the end, talk must cease and reality must reassert itself.

This is the best news of all. By accepting that the social contract is in dire need of being corrected, we could see a strong V-shaped recovery as early as the US midterm elections of 2018.

Voters are the ones with nothing to lose, not the ugly. This time around, change is what they crave; understand this and you will navigate the next election cycle with confidence.

protest-election

Steen Jakobsen is chief economist and CIO at Saxo Bank

*Mish Comments*

Removal of a single word will make the title more accurate: "Failure Almost Guaranteed".

* Trade policy will be a disaster under either Hillary or Trump. * Hillary is far more likely to start a major war. * Neither has a realistic plan to reduce the deficit. * Hillary will not fix Obamacare, she will make it worse. * Congress might not let Trump start over on Obamacare. * Hillary will support freedom of choice, Trump won't.

*Not a Coin Toss*

This is not a coin toss. Hillary's supreme court nominations will be a guaranteed abomination.

This is a case of heads you lose, tails you lose more, possibly to the point of getting into a war with Russia under Hillary.

In disagreement with Steen's assessment "/In fact, I don't even think this election really matters!/" I propose the election does indeed matter, for several reasons, even though I agree we all lose because both candidates have serious issues.

*V-Shaped Recovery?*

I question Steen's "strong V-shaped recovery" by 2018 thesis.

Why? I fail to see how we get any meaningful reform under Hillary. I also fail to see central banks doing anything other than repeating the same mistakes they have made for the past three decades.

Look at demographics in Europe and Asia. Look at housing bubbles in China, the UK, Australia, and Canada.

Structural problems are massive. Risk of a collapse in trade is very real. What is going to fix the Eurozone?

If the "V-shaped recovery" depends on a "crash" then we may indeed see a strong recovery, but from where to where, and what about pension assumptions of 8% annualized?

Yes, it's ugly!

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Share this:

* Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) * 44Share on Facebook (Opens in new window)44 * Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) * 3Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)3 * Click to email (Opens in new window) * Click to print (Opens in new window) *

Like this:

Like Loading...

/Related/

Steen Jakobsen Explains the Rise of Trump "Social Contract is Broken" In "Economics"

Irony of the Day: Hollande Lectures US About Trump; Two-Way Frexit? In "Economics"

Lesson of the Day: The Political Class Always Wins

About mishgea

Mike "Mish" Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management. View all posts by mishgea »

Post navigation

← Previous post



BitGold: Open Your Account Today!

*Disclaimer:* The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content, including advertisements, shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a position in any company or advertiser referenced above. Any action that you take as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.

57 thoughts on "Ugly! "Failure Almost Guaranteed" Regardless of Who Wins the Election"

1.

craigums /said:

/

October 26, 2016 6:20:34 at 6:20 PM

I enjoyed this guest post. That said, whether or not Trump or Hillary wins, I think the collective eye of humanity is finally being pointed towards the overall corruption and more importantly *intentional concealment* of the facts of globalism/government/etc. It's already massively apparent, and as Victor Hugo said:

All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

Like

Like

Reply

*

madashellowell /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:01:02 at 8:01 PM

A person can only be agnostic in this election if they see no value in the constitution, or the rule of law. There is only one choice in that regard.

Like

Like

Reply

o

Mike (not that Mike) /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:25:33 at 9:25 AM

Which choice would that be? Darrell Castle or Evan McMullin?

Like

Like

Reply

2.

greg /said:

/

October 26, 2016 6:21:55 at 6:21 PM

This should mesh quite nicely...

Like

Like

Reply

*

Firstname Lastname /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:54:22 at 9:54 AM

Can we take-up a collection and buy this guy a Popper Stopper for his microphone? My subwoofer is trembling with fear that I'll unpause the playback.

Like

Like

Reply

3.

peterblogdanovich /said:

/

October 26, 2016 6:41:19 at 6:41 PM

Same idea from Fred Reed but much funnier.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/10/fred-reed/americas-doomed/

Like

Like

Reply

4.

David A /said:

/

October 26, 2016 6:56:23 at 6:56 PM

"Hillary will support freedom of choice, Trump won't" ========================================= What does that mean?

Like

Like

Reply

*

madashellowell /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:02:45 at 8:02 PM

It means the freedom to kill viable fetuses and the removal of choice in self defense.

Like

Like

Reply

5.

Jack Coughlin /said:

/

October 26, 2016 7:01:35 at 7:01 PM

Freedom of choice ?? Are you saying this election, for all its ugliness, is about a mother's right to kill her child vrs an innocent child's right to live ??

Like

Like

Reply

*

madashellowell /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:06:22 at 8:06 PM

Curious to see the statistics on abortions compared to gun deaths. The right to choose life or death. Defenseless.

Like

Like

Reply

o

KHS71 /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:11:02 at 9:11 PM

Abortion statistics in the United States Year Number of Abortions reported to CDC induced abortion ratio per 1,000 live births 2010 765,651 228 2011 730,322 219 2012 699,202 210 Total 51,923,070 since 1970

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens);[2] 11,208 homicides (3.5 per 100,000);[3] 21,175 suicides;[4] 505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm; and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent",[4] included in a total of 33,636 deaths due to "Injury by firearms",[4] or 10.6 deaths per 100,000 people.[4] Of the 2,596,993 total deaths in the US in 2013, 1.3% were related to firearms

Approximately 1.4 million people have been killed using firearms in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011

51.9/1.4 = 37/1 ratio for about the same time span.

All info from Wakipedia.

Like

Like

Reply

6.

Frank Brady /said:

/

October 26, 2016 7:41:29 at 7:41 PM

Hi Mish. You wrote, "If Trump wins, we will have taken the fast track to massive political upheaval as the end of the Democratic/GOP monopoly on politics shifts towards a social agenda against globalisation, openness, and trade... the only good thing to come out of such a change would be the fact of change itself."

What the hell does THAT mean. That "good thing" is exactly why an agnostic position on Trump vs. Clinton makes absolutely no sense at all. That "good thing" is the ONLY thing that really matters in this election. Snding globalization and state-managed "free trade" to the abyss is a total plus and Trump is certainly more "open" than the Hildebeast.

Like

Like

Reply

*

madashellowell /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:29:25 at 8:29 PM

The opposite of corruption IS the rule of law. Anyone who does not see corruption as our greatest threat at this point, just isn't paying attention. The very foundation of our society and economy is TRUST and the confidence in that trust. The audacity of corruption threatens everything. We can survive debt and even bankruptcy. We can survive almost anything EXCEPT the loss of trust and confidence. We print fake only backed by nothing BUT confidence. We proliferate contracts with the legal burden to our economy immense, only to discover that they, like our money , is rarely worth the paper its printed on.

Like

Like

Reply

*

greg /said:

/

October 26, 2016 10:15:29 at 10:15 PM

Like

Like

Reply

o

peterblogdanovich /said:

/

October 27, 2016 12:46:00 at 12:46 AM

Thank you for posting this. Really. It's quite fantastic. This needs to go viral. Seriously.

Like

Like

Reply

o

Roger /said:

/

October 27, 2016 2:01:48 at 2:01 AM

Brilliant, brilliant post, Greg!

Like

Like

Reply

+

Diogenes /said:

/

October 27, 2016 5:01:46 at 5:01 AM

1994 : Sir James Goldsmith appearing on The Charlue Rose Show, doing a one-bullet-point-at-a-time rebuking of NAFTA and hoping against all hope that people would understand what it means for their future.

2016 : The PGA Tour rebuking Donald Trump and threatening to relocate The Cadillac Open golf tournament from the Trump owned country club that is hosting it because of Trump's comments about Cadillac building new automotive assembly plants in Mexico.

Does it look like anybody got the message that Goldsmith so passionately tried to convey some 22 years ago? I doubt they will understand what this fellow is trying to say here on the video that Greg has posted, but thank-you for trying anyways.

Like

Like

Reply

7.

Illegal /said:

/

October 26, 2016 7:54:00 at 7:54 PM

Maybe if this election destroys the MSM we would be better off. Internet sites like this will become more important for getting information and discussing important topics.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Diogenes /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:49:31 at 8:49 PM

If the MSM was ever going to be destroyed over their left leaning bias, I have to wonder why it didn't happen when Dan Rather set out to topple Dubya with his drummed up documents from Bush's Texas Air National Guard service.

Nothing will change the media. It's up to the voters to send the Clintons on their way. Not the Dems, not the GOP, not Assange or Snowden or Project Veritas. Hells Bells, not even Trump for that matter!

The American people must simply, but collectively, say no more and reject Hillary as their president. That opportunity will be presented to them on November 8th. Will they accept their duty and send her away? We shall see.

Like

Like

Reply

o

k0jeg /said:

/

October 27, 2016 8:57:13 at 8:57 AM

The media is left-biased because they understand how easy it is to influence people, mostly because of the advertising effect. A few years ago the marketing guy stopped by my cube (he had an office, btw), to check on orders booked for the next week, which were very light. He mentioned that he had an ad dropping in the Sunday paper and wanted to make sure we had enough job time available. Even though I had a background in advertising, I made a cynical comment about newspaper advertising and went on my way. The following monday we were booked out the entire week. Advertising works, marketing works, and people are easily manipulated. The media understands that, and because of this they think someone needs to protect us from ourselves.

Even the intelligent amongst us are often pulled in. How many high-IQ people get giddy over a new movie? One that has the same poorly written story that's in every other movie? One that seems to have more opportunity for toys and tie-ins than actual character development? How many of those same high-IQ people go as far as to play dress-up and drop hundreds of dollars on various "cons" that promote even more poorly written overproduced films? If the smart people get suckered in, what happens when stupid people are exposed to marketing?

We're really not equipped to handle mass media and marketing on a global scale. Our brains can't really tell the difference between a character in a film, a celebrity, or our own friends. How many times have you met a celebrity (even a very minor one like a favorite author) and felt like you have a relationship with them? With the rise of blogging and social media that feeling has become magnified. I'm sure if I met Mish I'd probably talk to him like he was a friend, not just someone who's blog I read.

Again, the media in this new world see these things happening and want to make sure the masses are not just kept in their place, but also that the only way to help us is to control us. And the majority of the masses really do want to be controlled, or at least have many of the big scary decisions made for us, because if the decision is wrong, we can blame anyone but ourselves.

Like

Like

Reply

+

Ron J /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:33:51 at 9:33 AM

"How many of those same high-IQ people go as far as to play dress-up and drop hundreds of dollars on various "cons" that promote even more poorly written overproduced films?"

How many movies bomb at the box office, after poor films are highly promoted? Even a highly bankable star, won't get people out to see a really bad movie.

Like

Like

Reply

8.

David /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:28:40 at 8:28 PM

MISH, with all due respect. When u lost faith with Trump, U lost credibilility. Get it?

Like

Like

Reply

*

craigums /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:46:47 at 8:46 PM

I wouldn't go that far. Mish's credibility lies in economic analysis (as the title of this blog says.) But, in my eyes, he does not have Scott Adams level credibility when it comes to predicting the outcome of this election.

Like

Like

Reply

9.

vooch /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:28:54 at 8:28 PM

Trump's Plan to eliminare federal debt is currently downplayed but he was consistent in the beginning on a few key points:

1) Entirely Shut down certain federal ministries such as Depart. of Education

2) eliminate corruption in gov't contracts

3) restructure entire federal workforce

4) privatization of big swaths of gov't owned property

5) renegotiate federal debt obligations

He stated a couple of times in begining of his campaign that he could eliminate the entire $20 trillion debt in less than 8 years. He believes the federal gov't is insolvent and appears to believe treating the situation as a business restructuring challenge is the way to go.

Like

Like

Reply

*

kidhorn /said:

/

October 27, 2016 8:01:58 at 8:01 AM

The problem is entitlements and nothing addresses that. Paying gov't employee salaries is a small fraction of expenses and much of it is collected back in taxes. That's far from the most important thing to attack.

Like

Like

Reply

10.

David /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:36:42 at 8:36 PM

In other words, now U sound like u are backtracking. Unbecoming, I must say. I thought u were a man. Another one bites the dust . why comment now? U already made ur prediction. U sound pathetic. U look more and more like speaker Ryan. In fact u sound like St. Peter when he was asked 3 times and denied it all. I will no longer read ur blog. I hear something...it's a rooster . Get it? MISH ooops I forgot "PETE".

Like

Like

Reply

11.

Six000MileYear /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:38:06 at 8:38 PM

In looking at the cycles in the US financial markets, I see a potential low into the first half of 2018 due to the 3.3 and 7.3 yr cycles, followed by a bear market rally. Since there is a cycle larger than 20 years heading down in 2018, the strength of the 7.3 year cycle will not be enough to offset the 3.3 yr cycle slide into late 2019/early 2020.

Like

Like

Reply

12.

elliptico /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:39:58 at 8:39 PM

Mish, if by "freedom of choice" you mean abortion, in spite of what Trump said, I doubt very much he is against abortion. He needs the conservative vote, and will talk up anti-choice SCJ nominees when he has to.

Like

Like

Reply

13.

Mike /said:

/

October 26, 2016 8:44:24 at 8:44 PM

It doesn't matter who wins if bankers continue engaging in inefficient bank central planning of the economy. Bankers will create a future banana republic regardless. Corporate and city pensions are toast if bankers keep printing.

Like

Liked by 1 person <#>

Reply

14.

Kinuachdrach /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:13:28 at 9:13 PM

What I can't understand is why people who are in favor of abortion cannot say "abortion". Why do they lie to themselves with silly expressions like "freedom of choice"? And are they trying to lie to us too?

One thing is entirely obvious - everyone has "freedom of choice" all the time! If a woman wants to take a baseball bat to her neighbor's head, she has freedom of choice to act that way. It a man wants to do a Bill Clinton to every woman he meets, he too has that freedom of choice.

But everybody has to live (or sometimes, die) with the consequences of the exercise of "freedom of choice".

Like

Like

Reply

*

kilkenny123 /said:

/

October 27, 2016 12:02:54 at 12:02 AM

First, saying one is in favor of 'abortion' frames that person as having a preference to the unwanted pregnancy's outcome (meaning, kill the fetus). Framing the issue as a woman's right to choose (i.e. "Freedom of Choice") shifts the focus away from the supporter and onto the mother to make the choice. It also takes the power of the choice away from the public (actually, from the law) and returns it back to the woman.

Please don't get me wrong. In my opinion, abortion is murder. But, as a former soldier, I long ago accepted the prospect of murder as potentially justifiable. Anyway, I abhor the thought of abortion, but can understand circumstances where not-aborting becomes a genuine threat to the mother health and welfare (i.e. it becomes a matter of self-defense). Anyone who disagrees with that, BTW, is free to adopt unwanted kids to prove raising a child won't impact their welfare.

As for why the abortion rights movement uses the term "freedom of choice" when referring to the abortion debate, your words seem to confuse the freedom to exorcise one's preference with a choice that breaks the law. A 'preference' carry's the consequences mostly related to one's future standard of living. The other carries the consequences of breaking the law. There's a big difference: In other words, yeah, we're free to speak any word we wish, but if that word is 'FIRE', and it's yelled out in a crowded movie theater... that choice incurs the law's consequences.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Jon Sellers /said:

/

October 27, 2016 5:58:43 at 5:58 AM

Abortion. There you go.

Like

Like

Reply

15.

RH /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:17:18 at 9:17 PM

The point of the article is valid. What will hopefully come out of this though is that next election will be contested by different people with much better agendas:- a sort of Trump mark II and maybe even a Bernie Sanders mark II.

It was time to for the US to reinvent itself but the forces will be even more evident next time.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Roger /said:

/

October 27, 2016 2:56:31 at 2:56 AM

I don't see the US reinventing itself --- at least peaceably. As a keen observer from the other side of the Atlantic (I'm English), my fear is that the US has but one intrinsic way and that is to push and push and push the system until it breaks. It will then push a little bit further until whatever is left is completely smashed to pieces. Unfortunately it often seems that America has no other way; incremental improvement and evolution don't seem to sit comfortably in its culture.

In this case the system happens to be its own society, and the people doing the pushing are the political and banking classes and the few SIGs pulling the strings in the background. My judgement is that society in the US isn't even at the broken stage yet. It may be creaking at the seams a little bit. People may feel worse off than they did a generation ago ... but there are still plenty of people who are comfortable enough with their lot to continue with the status quo. I saw a short film yesterday (by of all people Infowars) and was amazed at how many voters continue to blindly accept Clinton as the virtuous party, and Trump as the source of all evil. Moreover TPTB are not simply going to roll over.

So despite the discontent, I believe that we may well see a Clinton victory by hook and by crook. Society in the US will continue to be pillaged and the pillaging will go on and on maybe for years to come until it is utterly broken. All sorts of tricks will be played by the power brokers to ensure this happens. But we will certainly known society is broken beyond redemption as the rule of law will have substantially broken down. A tipping point will have been reached and some (possibly quite minor) discontinuity will spark all hell to break loose. That is the point at which the US will reinvent itself, but it won't be a quiet democratic transition and sadly not before a great deal of civil unrest has taken place.

I truly hope I am wrong about this, and as noted in Greg's excellent video above, the US does have a historic chance to peaceably change direction RIGHT NOW. It's just that I personally don't see things panning out that way and don't share his optimism. I sure hope I"m wrong.

Respectfully

Like

Like

Reply

16.

Mission Accomplished /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:20:33 at 9:20 PM

Broken social contract? Only for the former middle class. The millions of 3rd world migrants are happy as pigs in shit. Sometimes they really can 'rip off the other guy and pass the savings on to you'. Hillary-ous!

Like

Like

Reply

17.

akiddy111 /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:23:00 at 9:23 PM

Steen Jakobsen:

I followed him closely since Spring 2009. He was bearish on the USA (and bullish on emerging markets) at that point.

If memory serves, he said he was shorting everything at the beginning of February this year when the market was close to it's low point.

Jakobsen and Albert Edwards. Those guys are serious Armageddon material.

Like

Like

Reply

18.

LFOldTimer /said:

/

October 26, 2016 9:36:42 at 9:36 PM

What a defeatist attitude and stupid way to think. IOW's it doesn't matter who you vote for we get the same outcome. Hogwash!

At least Trump would try to dig us out of the hole. Hillary would only dig a deeper one.

The Republican elite want Hillary in the White House because she's their ace in the hole. If the Republicans ruled the 2 Houses and the Executive Office --- then the GOP wouldn't have any more excuses for refusing to repeal ObamaCare, to enforce our immigration laws, to protect US jobs via trade policies, to balance the budget, to halt the increase of the debt ceiling and deficit spending, etc....

All the Republicans need to say is "Hillary will veto our bills and we don't have enough Senate votes to override her veto" or "If we vote to halt government operations the democrats will turn the country against us".

All of 'em are full of BS.

At least Trump has new ideas and ways to turn the country around.

Anybody who buys Jakobsen's argument is swallowing the bait all the way down to the gut. Essentially he's saying regardless of who you vote for you get the same outcome. Total malarkey.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Diogenes /said:

/

October 27, 2016 5:32:49 at 5:32 AM

In 2014, the voters delivered a Republican majority in both bodies of the legislature : US Senate and the House of Representatives.

In return, the Republican establishment delivered what, exactly? John Boehner's resignation for one, for which most of us are eternally grateful, but also a ridiculous budget and a stonewalling of Merrick Garland for Supreme Court. Big deal. Boehner started heading for the exit the moment he realized it was expected that he lead. We may yet regret not accepting Garland.

You see how hard this is going to be? Even with a sworn and seated majority, there will be an awful lot of sitting on hands and doing nothing. A shake up is needed and only a Trump type character can effect such a shake up. The left (read : the media) was going to villify whoever was nominated, but at least with Trump he's trying to fight back.

Like

Like

Reply

19.

joelg5 /said:

/

October 26, 2016 10:13:50 at 10:13 PM

Sounds about right, LFOldTimer. It is shaping up to be an interesting election. Trump seems to have the momentum to win, and is ahead once again in the western states, Ohio, Florida and Texas. I catch the TV news in snatches here and there, and they now tout an average of the polls going back 10 days to keep Hillary in the lead. A ton of Hillary popular votes in California and New York cannot offset losing all the key swing states. I think sending all her surrogates out is backfiring, as people realize these yin-yang Hillary campaign surrogates will be the cabinet. Hence, AZ and NV revolting from their Hillary flirtation and turning Trump again.

Jakobsen is in Germany, and from a distance you miss the fine print here in the USA. I wonder if it makes no difference to him if Merkel or AfD rules Germany. In any case, change is coming.

Like

Like

Reply

20.

akiddy111 /said:

/

October 26, 2016 10:37:16 at 10:37 PM

Trump has said that his impulse is to grab every attractive woman he sees. He also said that these type of women find him irresistable...... and he was not saying this for the camera

The guy needs to get to a shrink, not to the Oval Office. Why not bring in Silvio Berlusconi as his chief of staff while he's at it ?

He takes the term "loose cannon" to a whole new level.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Skeptic /said:

/

October 26, 2016 10:50:46 at 10:50 PM

JFK believed the same things. What's your opinion of him?

Like

Like

Reply

*

LFOldTimer /said:

/

October 26, 2016 11:07:35 at 11:07 PM

Bill Clinton makes Trump look like a piker when it comes to sexual predation. And Hillary has been Bill's enabler and defender for the last 30 years. She's trash talked every one of his victims.

Strange that you would ignore the obvious.

Like

Like

Reply

21.

Maximus Minimus /said:

/

October 26, 2016 11:29:11 at 11:29 PM

Let me summarize the same in other words. The can has been kicked down the road, and the end of the road is now and here. The future has been pre-paid, and the payment is due. The only way out is stir up conflict to rally the sheep under the flag. The MSM is fully on board.

Like

Like

Reply

22.

mishgea /said:

/

October 27, 2016 12:25:29 at 12:25 AM

I am in favor of freedom of choice. The right to abortion. A few expanding cells is not human life. Most Americans would agree. Most would also agree that 8 months would be too late. Religious beliefs have ridiculously distorted the issue into yes or no. It's not that simple.

Abortion is one issue in which I would generally side with Hillary. Iran policy was one issue in which I would generally side with Obama.

As for Adams. He is crazy. Trump does not have a 98% chance of winning. But I hope I am wrong. We need a shake-up. I am very much against war-mongering and statist policies.

I am totally sick of left-right ideology. Finally, I am not backtracking on anything. My beliefs have not changed one iota. My perceptions of candidates may have.

I state my positions and I stand by them. Most bloggers adopt one of two strategies

1. hide under a rock. 2. Take an extreme left or extreme right position

I take a position, issue by issue.

Like

Like

Reply

*

peterblogdanovich /said:

/

October 27, 2016 1:01:50 at 1:01 AM

I pray we are in a "Nobody saw this coming" end game landslide victory for Trump. Though it will hurt my business, reliant as it is on more govt over each, regulation, and control, I honestly believe Trump on a bad day is better than Her on a good one. Trump for sure has momentum. Plus it really looks (by his effort) like he truly wants the job. Good for him. I was worried he'd quit trying. All I can say at this point is: Go Trump!

Like

Liked by 1 person <#>

Reply

o

LFOldTimer /said:

/

October 27, 2016 1:25:07 at 1:25 AM

I'm uncertain what Trump would give us.

I know what Hillary would give us. More of the same or worse.

I would vote for uncertainty any day of the week over sure disaster.

Where are all those liberal Occupy Wall Street activists?

Are they so stupid that they can't see that Hillary is in the back pockets of the Wall Street crooks?

Of course not. They see it. They just don't care. Why? Because the the Wall Street crony happens to play on the home team.

Ideology supersedes conscience once again.

Like

Like

Reply

+

Anonymous /said:

/

October 27, 2016 6:37:51 at 6:37 AM

Every time and always.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Genada (@Genada5) /said:

/

October 27, 2016 6:19:58 at 6:19 AM

Adams writes comedy, how people have failed to understand he's not being serious and he's having fun with the shit show we call elections is sad.

You should really read his blog it's funny as hell.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Winston /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:34:50 at 9:34 AM

"I am in favor of freedom of choice. The right to abortion. A few expanding cells is not human life. Most Americans would agree. Most would also agree that 8 months would be too late."

I agree and believe that the limit suggested by Carl Sagan --- just before the portion of the brain that makes us uniquely human, the cerebral cortex, begins to develop --- is the correct one. Either by coincidence or by design, that just happens to be the current allowed fetal development time limit for abortion if I recall correctly my research on this topic long ago.

Like

Like

Reply

23.

Mike Bravo /said:

/

October 27, 2016 2:57:58 at 2:57 AM

"Obama may have created more jobs ...."

Created more jobs than whom? Yeah, there might be 9 million more people employed today than when he took office in 2009, but the labor force participation rate has declined from 65.7% to 62.9% over the same period (more people, fewer working).

Like

Like

Reply

24.

Genada (@Genada5) /said:

/

October 27, 2016 6:23:58 at 6:23 AM

Mish would you care to explain how it is that the national debt went up every year during the Clinton presidency while they claim to have been running massive surpluses that would soon be paying off the national debt?

I really fail to see how anyone thinks we can have a strong recovery by 18 when the next crisis is going to be a massive debt crisis that you can not print your way out of. Seems like the next crisis will require taking the massive write downs in debt and that's going to be very painful and long lasting.

Like

Like

Reply

*

kidhorn /said:

/

October 27, 2016 8:47:25 at 8:47 AM

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Like

Like

Reply

*

mishgea /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:25:31 at 9:25 AM

I already explained that https://mishtalk.com/2016/10/17/us-deficit-up-590-billion-but-debt-up-1-2-trillion-sleight-of-hand-magic/

Like

Like

Reply

25.

Gummans Gubbe /said:

/

October 27, 2016 6:41:24 at 6:41 AM

Failure Guaranteed. For anyone dependent on government handouts.

Do not believe in stupid, follow the money!

Like

Like

Reply

26.

Seenitallbefore /said:

/

October 27, 2016 8:22:28 at 8:22 AM

There is no such thing as total freedom or total democracy. America is in decline and change is coming. Will it be war, political, business practices or collapse and chaos. I have no idea but I am sure major changes are coming.

I find it amusing how the young want segregated housing, classes etc. I don't think they even realize how radical it is. Basically they want to overthrow the laws of the land. Lol.

Like

Like

Reply

*

Ron J /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:51:36 at 9:51 AM

"I find it amusing how the young want segregated housing, classes etc. I don't think they even realize how radical it is."

It is Leftist Agenda. Yes, they do realize how radical it is. You need to wake up to that fact.

Like

Like

Reply

27.

k0jeg /said:

/

October 27, 2016 9:04:48 at 9:04 AM

Superficial changes around the edges aren't going to make a difference this time. 14,000 people a day are retiring. Following the Keynesian formulas isn't working and won't work. Everyone in Washington knows this but has no idea what to do about it, since they all are lawyers and poli sci people.

I've seen the pictures of Trump and Clinton with the caption "330,000 people and this is the best we can come up with?" No, that's not the best we can come up with, but anyone who might be a good candidate knows that whoever wins will be in the same camp as Hoover and Carter, and why bother when waiting a little longer means you can be up there with Roosevelt and Reagan.