Trump

If Trump is so stupid how come the media keep getting fooled? Now they demand an insurance payout

IMG_0672.JPG

I used to read Der Spiegel. I even paid for a subscription but eventually the journalism lost its edge. This week’s article calling for Trump’s removal makes my decision sound. Read the following section several times and honestly ask yourself is this journalism? Put aside personal views of the President and objectively look at what the article ‘Donald Trump is a menace to the world’ written by Klaus Brinkbäumer is suggesting, if not demanding.

“He is a man free of morals. As has been demonstrated hundreds of times, he is a liar, a racist and a cheat. I feel ashamed to use these words, as sharp and loud as they are. But if they apply to anyone, they apply to Trump. And one of the media’s tasks is to continue telling things as they are: Trump has to be removed from the White House. Quickly. He is a danger to the world.”

So how would you suggest we do it? No, that is not an option. Should we ignore the democratic process by which he was elected?  Should we ignore the fact that even if he was a ‘liar, a racist and a cheat’ people voted in full knowledge of all of his ‘pussy grabbing antics’? The problem with this type of article is that it ignores reality on so many fronts. As I’ve written many times, if you are not a citizen of a country your input on their citizens’ voting intentions is irrelevant. Essentially what you are pleading for is the same as making a willingly high risk investment in a stock which goes bust then complaining to your broker you were misled and ask for your money back.

Elections are much like stock markets. Your voting intention is akin to investing in your country. In the case of America you had two stocks to choose form. One was the hedge of the other. If you wanted to reinvest in the diminishing returns of the last 40 years you bought Clinton Inc. If you wanted to bet on higher risk with potentially higher high return with a start up you voted for Trump Corp.  The media were slimeball stockbrokers trying to persuade investors (voters) to buy into the safety of Clinton Inc because they knew that the commission pay-off would be larger for them. However investors had enough of struggling through decades of exceptional losses, downgrades, dividend cuts and incompetent CEOs. Even worse they got sick and tired of the shareholder meetings where CEO Obama would talk about how successful his stewardship had been when an increasingly dissatisfied shareholder base kept on checking their statements and questioning the dud investment let alone disapproving of his suggested successor.

Mr Brinkbaumer, your article is exactly the problem with the media. You claim the media’s task is to ‘continue telling things as they are’ but you’ve failed on so many levels so many times that your trust rating is even lower than President Trump which stands in the early 40% range. The problem is that the only insurance you can buy in politics is the opposition. None other exists because the premiums would be too high and the payouts too low.

What your article painfully overlooks is that had the previous mob, who no doubt you think is the solution, was actually the problem. That 40 years of painful neglect led to record numbers on welfare, food stamps and income inequality. The investors knew that backing Clinton Inc, whose entire manifesto spoke to helping the needy that had been neglected by her own party (by deduction including the man she intended to replace), was such a palpable untruth that had the Democrats so brazenly lied in a stock prospectus she would really have been jailed.

After Comey’s decision to testify, my social media feeds lit up like a Christmas tree. I deliberately held back from making any call at the time because there was no evidence other than speculation. Yet social media had already made up its mind – “impeachment! – the orange buffoon is going down!” “The smoking gun!” Of course it turns out that the knee-jerk reaction was proved a falsehood. The media once again let its subjectivity rule the day. Like Rachel Maddow’s scoop on his taxes. She sold it as grounds to get him on tax evasion like Al Capone in The Untouchables. She essentially said “we’ve got the book keeper.” Yet she was gunned down in the elevator by her own leftist journos. You know when the media attacks its own that even it from time to time has flashes of objectivity, albeit too brief because lessons are never learned.

Sadly for the rest of the world, as much as we may despise Trump (he has flaws) and protest at his actions we have absolutely no rights to lynch a democratically elected President much less encourage his downfall. This type of reckless behavior is indeed more disturbing. It essentially says you don’t respect the democratic rights of Americans. What is worse is it the same downright condescending attitude people had during the elections that completely ignored the plight of those that voted for him remains. I remember reading one article suggesting that there be an intelligence test required to have voting rights.  That is totalitarian behaviour if there ever was!

The leftist media continues to forget that the one sure way to help him do another 4 years is to keep up the same broken record dialogue. Indeed in the next 3+ years the Americans will have the opportunity to sack him if indeed they see a better alternative. Trump was always the start-up IPO bet. American voters knew full well he was a risk and they took it. His volatile stock performance is not a big surprise.

Klaus, you conveniently forget that Trump is a by-product of decades of neglect. Had the past four decades of the incumbent political class done a sound enough job he never would have seen the light of day. Instead of putting blame on the causes you simply place it all on him. Instead of some introspection on asking why he is where he is you can’t remove yourself from the group think of attack dogs. That anything he may achieve will be discredited and anything he does wrong will be given full thermonuclear uranium tipped coverage. That my dear friend is shame on you.

It would be nice to see some balance in coverage because if you don’t social media will drag up example after example for you further discrediting your supposed ‘telling things as they are’. We must all remember that digital media has a half-life of infinity. Is it any wonder 25% of the workforce in media has been culled in recent years. It isn’t that advertising revenues are falling it is because you don’t provide enough value for advertisers to warrant posting ads in your publication. Guaranteed if the journalism attracted readers the ad revenue would climb with it.

So once again, the bigger danger to the world is you not him. We should never encourage the overthrow of democratically elected governments because we dislike the outcome. Don’t forget that Clinton had 99% of the mainstream media on her side, leaked debate questions to give her an advantage, a pussy-grabbing video against her opposition and more but still lost. Why? The attitude of expecting a coronation and frankly Hillary Clinton didn’t put in the work.

Suppose no dirt is found on Trump? That constant media mud slinging fails to stick. Evidence surely that maybe he is just a brash, uncouth, narcisstic bully rather than someone that must be removed as a danger to the world. Sure, he doesn’t exactly act in a manner very befitting of the most powerful office in the world but he got there legitimately.  Indeed if he is as unhinged as you imagine surely Pyongyang would be under a mushroom cloud and Assad would be a victim of SEAL Team 6. In fact you might point out that the incredible weakness of his predecessor on foreign policy makes Trump’s more assertive stance a welcoming relief rather than a terrifying prelude to WW3.

Your article is so typical of the snowflake culture. The type of attitude that seeks to ban people from making addresses at universities, once the cradle of free speech. You ignore what you don’t want to hear and pass judgement on those who fail to hear you. Once you learn to listen to others you may find that you come to understand why even people like Van Jones can eventually see why Trump won’t be outed so easily. For indeed if he is as big a fool as everyone makes out the media won’t be needed to point it out. It will be painfully clear and in 2018 Americans will get a trial IPO and 2020 the opportunity to buy or sell stock in Trump Corp.

I should thank you for this article for helping confirm why I didn’t bother renewing my subscription.

Comey testimony proves media can’t stop playing the man rather than the ball

IMG_0114

Comey admitted in his testimony that he was never pressured by Trump to end any investigations. Damn and blast. The media has done another collective Rachel Maddow “we’ve got his tax returns” backfire. So insistent on trying to seek revenge they forgot the old Chinese proverb, “before setting out on revenge, first dig two graves.” So eager are they to play the man they overlook basic check sheets to find balance. Trump may well be a loose cannon at times but the media is the pot still calling the kettle black.

While I long argued Trump would win the election I’ve been an advocate of trying to seek balance to the one sided argument against him. It doesn’t mean I think he is ideal.  I disagree with many (not all) things he has done and petty things (like his attitude to Merkel) are certainly not fitting the most powerful office in the world. Trump derangement syndrome is none-the-less real. The media attack dogs never seek to do moral equivalence with their beloved Obama over the same supposed crimes of leaking sensitive info or whatever. I do think Trump is Turnbull-esque in lacking judgement as well as constant cabinet reshuffles but the most twisted irony is that financial markets would seem to want him there using any wobble on the back of an impeachment scenario as an excuse rather than admit the hyper asset bubble blown for 8 years.

The mainstream media now preys on clickbait. Thinking the number of clicks, likes and shares are endorsements and can replace quality content (as much as they self appraise it’s high value added factual). In fact the revenue numbers of media outlets who continually rant  is telling. Fairfax in Australia has had two rounds of layoffs in the space of 12 months and The Guardian is openly begging for donations.

The media is surely going to keep launching salvo after salvo to try get him out of office. As stupid as they keep suggesting the ‘orange baffoon” is he keeps getting their measure. I issue a caution though. The deplorables that voted him in want him to get on with the job. With all these distractions the quest that they hope will get them under the “have not” hole is pushed further into the future. Getting an impeachment to stick and force a resignation is not high on a have not’s priority list. They need help as I argued at the time of the election. Whether Trump can provide it is a moot point but they voted for change and the “haves” ought to be careful how they indirectly impact the “have nots”

The screaming, carrying on and promoting blood sport may end up creating proper civil unrest. It’s simmering but the media as usual is oblivious to it all. In any event the last thing the world needs is instability in the world’s largest economy at this point in a peaking cycle.

The French voted for their interests, not yours!

IMG_9796

One of the persistent memes, posts and social media commentaries I’ve read in the last few days on Macron’s win feature ‘thank you France’,  ‘you’ve spared another Trump’ or similar prose. The fact that some feel compelled to write in such ways speaks volumes to their self-assessed sense of shared intellectual superiority despite not being citizens. The French democratically elected Macron. Not the foreigner. The end. It is not our moral duty to tell the French or any other country’s citizens how to vote. You can be assured those that voted for him had their own interests in mind, not yours when they cast their ballot. Do you think the Brits thought for a second they might upset the Americans if they didn’t follow Obama’s wise words of ‘Remain‘ leading into Brexit? Not a chance in hell. In fact his comments saw ‘Leave’ polling surge. Do you think the 10.6mn French that voted for Le Pen were thinking of those in Athens, Madrid or Brussels as the ticked her name? Even those French that voted for Macron would roll their eyes in frustration if you butchered their language in your polite attempt to communicate in pidgin-French. So thanking them would be viewed as a VTFF moment.

We shouldn’t forget that 25% of French voters didn’t bother showing up, probably because neither choice fitted their bill.  So Macron’s 66% could actually be less than 50% of total voters. Maybe Le Pen’s 34% was much higher if those non-voters were held at gunpoint? Perhaps lower? We won’t know but only the French get to decide. Our pontifications mean little to the French. If I decide to vote for One Nation or cast a donkey vote in the next Aussie federal election I would not care a jot what anyone else thought. I wouldn’t care for threats of defriending which was a common occurrence during the lead up to the US election. My vote is for me, not you. Your vote is yours not mine. I have no obligation to give you my vote. You have no obligation to vote for my choice.

Listen to the recent protests about rescinding the voting rights of the elderly because they supposedly sold out their grandkids. Name one time your grandparents deliberately acted against your well being? Ice cream and chocolates are excluded. Although that is evidence of blind love so intentionally in your favour. We can take it to the bank that the elderly were acting and will always act, using their multiple decades of experience, in the best interests of their family’s economic and financial future. They haven’t suffered a bout of Alzheimer’s and sought to elect someone that will punish them.

To suggest the French result is a defeat for populism and the far-right couldn’t be more wishful thinking if it tried.  As written several days back I argued it was a massive win for Le Pen, in fact so much so that if Macron is just Hollande-lite that 2022 could be a Le Pen victory. Doubling her father’s achievement is no mean feat. 10.6mn rejecting the EU should be a massive red flag. However in 2022 the French will line up at the ballot box and vote with the party or candidate that will best represent them. They’ll care not for your posturing and posts telling them how to vote.

For a man that plays the EU anthem over La Marseillaise should tell us something about the next 5 years. The 34% will likely be ignored. Potentially a slug of the 25% that didn’t vote may be neglected as well. I won’t be surprised when you write ‘WTF France?’, ‘how could you be so stupid France?‘ If Macron doesn’t look after enough of his citizens they’ll eventually gang up and fire him. Perhaps there is the folly in your tidings of praise – sitting in your comfortable study tapping away salutations missing the plight of the have nots continuing unabated. Thanks for nothing!

No, it was because you thought it was a coronation not an election

IMG_0568.JPG

Reading through Hillary Clinton’s comments about ‘why’ she lost in November missed one huge point. She thought it was a coronation, not an election. It was supposed to be an ordained affair. Blaming Comey or Putin misses the point entirely. She conveniently forgets she had the entire mainstream media on her side coming in with poll after poll showing it was a forgone conclusion. Even betting agency Paddy Power paid out on a Clinton victory one month before the election. The DNC backed off the gas. To lose to a pussy-grabbing opponent who looked straight down the camera lens at 10s of millions saying “no one respects women more than I do! None!” after the scandal broke says more than most. She wasn’t a good enough candidate period.

Why did she make Debbie Wasserman-Schulz the head of her campaign strategy when she was forced to resign from the DNC chair for deliberately shafting Bernie Sanders? Accepting leaked questions before the CNN debate thanks to Donna Brazile. With all the dirty tricks leading into the campaign she still lost. Her emails were a matter of poor judgement. She had Obama out at every turn talking about how great his legacy was when an ever growing mass of people weren’t experiencing such happiness in their day to day lives. In fact the opposite was happening as poverty, welfare recipients and those working more than one job kept hitting new highs.

People who read this blog would know I’d been saying that Trump would win since the GOP primaries because he was connecting with the strugglers. No matter how big a BS-artist he maybe, he was visiting the manufacturing wastelands and recognizing their plight. Hillary was too busy entertaining her inner-city mates, ignoring the deplorables. I pointed out that he was growing his Twitter following at twice the rate of Clinton. So no matter how horrid you might think Trump was, is, will be, he still won an election by the rules. Perhaps if the establishment had done a better job over so many decades indeed Mrs Clinton would have been crowned first female POTUS. Then again perhaps identity politics was another reason why Americans were fed up her campaign.

On a slightly different topic, note that Macron has grown his Twitter base around 100,000 since he won the first round. Le Pen is around 60,000 net adds. Twitter growth has been a good predictor of election victories as it captures underlying moods that 1,000 people called at random in a poll can’t help to match.

In any event election success boils down to one line to voters – “it is the economy stupid!”

When electoral maps speak much more than 1,000 words you’ll clearly get the picture

One thing that has struck me when looking at before and after electoral maps it is the clear signs of the growing divide of the haves and have nots. Of course people vote but imagine if land mass was the decider it would be a no contest. It is almost as if there is a bubonic plague spreading throughout many nations, especially Europe.

FRANCE (2017)- Le Pen’s first round in Dark Blue, Melenchon in Red, Macron in Grey

IMG_0552.PNG

FRANCE (2002) Presidential first round (Jean Marie Le Pen in Dark Blue, Jacques Chirac light blue and Lionel Jospin in Pink

IMG_0555.PNG

BREXIT (2016)- in blue – how many Labour safe areas turned against the party  line

IMG_0517

UK election (1997) – Labour Party (Red), Tory (Blue)

IMG_0560.PNG

ITALY (2016)- referendum – the redder the stronger the NO vote (generally denotes poorer areas of Italy)

img_0057

USA (2016)- Trump’s GOP in Red

img_9017

USA (2008) – Obama in Blue, McCain in Red

IMG_0556.PNG

AUSTRIA (2017) – Presidential election – Right wing Hofer in Blue, Socialist van der Bellen in green (the winner)

IMG_0561.PNG

HUNGARIAN REFERENDUM ON MIGRANTS (2016) – Redder the zone the higher the NO vote

IMG_0554.PNG

THE NETHERLANDS (2017) – election – Wilders’ VVD in blue

IMG_0553

History of Dutch elections – VVD (Wilders) in blue

IMG_0557.PNG

 

Trump’s tax cuts – how much does corporate America pay? You’ll be surprised by the necessary evil

IMG_0497

How can Trump cut taxes to 15%? For those greedy corporates! Interestingly when one deep dives into the data two things emerge. One is that in 2016 net corporate tax receipts fell to around $444bn. Second US corporate taxes have slumped from 6% of GDP in the 1960s to around 2.4% of GDP today. Income tax and payroll taxes make up around 65% of the tax that fills the Treasury Department’s coffers. Of the $2.2 trillion that the government gets through squeezing us, they splurge around $3.6 trillion (see below).  Since the tech bubble collapse, the budget deficit has becoming a gaping chasm. It is a massive hole to fill.

IMG_0499.JPG

Naturally people scream that giving corporates massive tax breaks is obscene. What they tend to forget is that US corporations hide an obscene amount of taxable revenue (some estimate around $500bn p.a.) overseas. Apple’s €13bn tax bill fight in the EU should spring to mind. In any event we should look at corporate tax in the US that brings in around $444bn p.a. Slashing tax rates does not automatically imply that the $444bn will fall to $200bn. Looking at corporate profitability before tax one wonders are businesses really struggling? Pre-tax profits are hovering at around $2.2 trillion.

IMG_0501

There is a whiff of Poland about Trump’s plan. Poland faced similar corporate tax avoidance issues but in 2004 introduced sensible taxation reform which cured the problem. To lure tax avoiders/evaders from their lairs, Polish athorities introduced a flat business tax (19%) and its impacts were so favourable that the government saw a 50% increase in income reported by those corporates in higher tax brackets before the change and a 50% increase in reported income from individuals that fell into upper income tax brackets. In 2009 income tax rates at the top were slashed from 40% to 32% Despite this income tax receipts jumped 17%. Since 2004 tax receipts soared 56.4%. It clearly proved that lowering taxes created much higher tax compliance. There was a psychological factor at play – the cut ‘encouraged’ honesty.

IMG_0503.JPG

When breaking down the tax take by the Polish government we see that all levels of tax collection rose. Consumption, corporate, personal income and other tax categories jumped  45% or more.

IMG_0504.JPG

So there is method to the madness. Talks of a $2 trillion deficit that will need to be funded if it goes ahead is not based on reasoned economics if the Polish example is anything to go by. Besides we live in such a debt-fueled world now that central banks will just print the gap if others won’t step in and buy it. So this is a risk Trump sees worth taking. Lower taxes, encourage US corporates to repatriate income abroad, create jobs and get small business (50% of employment in America) to expand and create a virtuous circle. Whether he can pass these taxes through remains to be seen. What we can say is that corporate taxes are a measly % of GDP and total tax take compared to income and payroll taxes. However if US corporates aren’t encouraged to build at home then it is harder to squeeze the workforce for the bulk of the revenue pie. Pretty simple really and there is actually very little to lose. So quit the angry ‘evil corporates’ tag line and change it to ‘necessary evil.’

The Guardian thumps Trudeau and (sort of) praises Trump

IMG_9668.PNG

I almost fell over backwards when I saw the headline although it was three words too long to be honest. The Guardian convulsed and regurgitated politics’ commander in chief virtue signaler and gave a backhanded compliment to Trump for keeping a promise. Ironically this was the first Trudeau policy that actually made sense to me. Everything else from the ridiculous Bill M-103, taxing Canadians on almost everything conceivable, calling for Friday off for parliamentarians, the $370mn Bombardier grant which ended up lining the board’s pockets, talking up his record of 65% of judges being female which would help influence (all judges should be impartial) the outcome of victims of sexual violence etc shows him up for identity taking precedence over substance. Yet The Guardian wrote:

“when it comes to the defining issue of our day, climate change, he’s a brother to the old orange  guy…Trudeau says all the right things, over and over. He’s got no Scott Pruitts in his cabinet: everyone who works for him says the right things…But those words are meaningless if you keep digging up more carbon and selling it to people to burn, and that’s exactly what Trudeau is doing. He’s hard at work pushing for new pipelines through Canada and the US to carry yet more oil out of Alberta’s tar sands, which is one of the greatest climate disasters on the planet…Last month, speaking at a Houston petroleum industry gathering, he got a standing ovation from the oilmen for saying: “No country would find 173bn barrels of oil in the ground and just leave them there.”

In what must mark the first time Trudeau has done something sensible, the climate alarmists are up in arms. “The sell out!”, they cry. Perhaps Trudeau realizes that virtue signaling when the global economy is on the ropes mustn’t take place of pragmatism. We have too many examples of the push for renewables backfiring where economies are suffering due to blackouts causing some companies to relocate to more stable grids. South Australia is a perfect example of green madness gone wrong. It is home to the highest unemployment, slowest growth and most expensive electricity prices in the country.

We should not forget Trudeau has a carbon tax on tomato farmers in Canada. The Conservatives argued that the carbon emissions to ship cheaper Mexican tomatoes exempt from the tax is factor fold higher than the savings squeezed out of local producers.

We’ve seen Trudeau’s popularity sink in recent months with polls suggesting he’d be thumped in the 2020 election. Losing the endorsement of a liberal rag like The Guardian is about as  horrid a testimonial there is possible. What is worse is the tacit admission that as much as they hate Trump he hasn’t lied on his promises to ditch climate change targets. The Guardian continued,

Trump is a creep and a danger and unpleasant to look at, but at least he’s not a stunning hypocrite.”

However not even our selfie loving PM Turnbull escaped the paper’s lashing,

Canada’s got company in this scam. Australia’s Malcolm Turnbull is supposed to be more sensitive than his predecessor, a Trump-like blowhard. When he signed on his nation to the Paris climate accords, he said: “It is clear the agreement was a watershed, a turning point and the adoption of a comprehensive strategy has galvanised the international community and spurred on global action…Which is a fine thing to say – or would be, if your government wasn’t backing plans for the largest coal mine on Earth. That single mine, in a country of 24 million people, will produce 362% of the annual carbon emissions that everyone in the Philippines produces in the course of a year. It is obviously, mathematically and morally absurd.”

As livid as the climate alarmists may be they must understand the value of climate summits is pointless because harshening economic realities mean people are worried about their futures today not some inaccurate forecast on how we’re all doomed. As I say to all climate alarmists – what are you doing personally in your day-to-day consumption to offset climate Armageddon? The answer invariably is next to nothing. They’re probably among the 50,000 hypocritical pilgrims belching greenhouse gases from the hundreds of 777s flying them to the next climate junket to tell us to run for our lives. Just be sure to prepare an extra bed for Leo DiCaprio’s eyebrow technician.