At a Hillary Clinton town hall yesterday in Haverford, Pennsylvania, a 15 year old girl was supposedly “chosen at random” to ask a question of the former Secretary of State. But, the well-scripted performance raised some suspicion with a YouTuber named Spanglevision who decided to dig a little deeper. And, wouldn’t you know it, the “random” participant was none other than child actor, Brennan Leach, whose father just happens to be Pennsylvania democratic State Senator Daylin Leach. Oh, and in case it wasn’t obvious, Daylin supports Hillary for president…shocking.
This story has been picked up at Instapundint under the heading: HILLARY CAUGHT USING CHILD ACTRESS AT PENNSYLVANIA TOWN HALL. And as part of that post, there is this incredible footage from the movie, Wag the Dog that replicates as part of a film what you have just seen as an actual reality.
The problem may be that I am unable to be as cynical as I need to be about the way things really are to comprehend in full the dishonesty that seems to be found in every part of the public world that I would like to think I know something about.
But really, the question that ought to be asked is why is this even an issue in an American presidential election?
Reinhold Lopatka, political leader of the ÖVP parliamentary group recently said the social system is especially unfair in Vienna and that refugees who have been granted asylum status in Austria get more money from the authorities than farmers receive in pension benefits.
“A farmer who has been working hard his whole life has spoken with me. He now receives pension benefits of €620 and his son has to subsidise him so that he can feed himself. Currently migrants in Vienna receive €837.60, although they have never contributed to our benefits system”.
Far too many on the supposedly conservative right are utter fools. Working class Americans see the problem, but these people are too high minded to understand even the basics. They are Democrats in every respect: Dozens of former GOP lawmakers announce opposition to Trump. Think of this in relation to their never having said anything like it about Obama:
“Given the enormous power of the office, every candidate for president must be judged rigorously in assessing whether he or she has the competence, intelligence, knowledge, understanding, empathy, judgment, and temperament necessary to keep America on a safe and steady course,” the letter continues. “Donald Trump fails on each of those measures, and he has proven himself manifestly unqualified to be president.”
The list of those who have signed on are a bunch of nobodies, but they are trying their best to wreck what little chance there is to save an America that will remain worth saving. And then there is this from Paul Mirengoff at Powerline reflecting on the VP debate.
We also saw the real Mike Pence. In my view, he is the only one of the four candidates who, ideology aside, wouldn’t be an embarrassment in high office.
In one sentence two statements that basically say that Hillary will be all right since the Republicans aren’t providing the right kind of a choice. Trump would be “an embarrassment” if elected. But even Pence is OK only so far as embarrassment goes, but to accept Pence you also have to shift that ideology aside. Once ideology comes into it, Pence is no good either.
He goes off on an even more stupid tangent in his next post: ESCAPISM ANYONE? A LOOK AT 2020. Here he lightly considers what to do in 2020 when and if Hillary wins. By then, he says:
To a considerable extent, GOP voters may be willing to overlook both ideological and genuineness concerns in the name of nominating someone who can defeat Hillary Clinton or whichever leftist the Democrats nominate.
But that is for 2020. Right now he’s fine with bagging the only person in the entire universe who can prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming President since Trump is the Republican nominee and we have three weeks to go. Seriously a fool, and not to be taken seriously on any level.
There are many many like that, but these are the examples I have come across just now. There are many many of these everywhere you turn and then may end up carrying a very heavy responsibility on the morning of November 9th.
So far Trump has gotten no general election endorsements, a stunning development considering even Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, known best for his head-scratching “Aleppo moment,” has scored a few.
There is more to it than pure choice since the costs of not supporting Trump for many of these papers are far less than going out on a limb. But if you see the election in the way some of us do, then this is nothing but a round-up of despair. See below, which comes with the title, Ann Coulter: This Election Will Determine the Survival of Western Civilization.
“Government can and should be a force for good; the state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot; we should employ the power of government for the good of the people. Time to reject the ideological templates provided by the socialist left and the libertarian right and embrace a new centre ground in which government steps up – and not back – to act on behalf of the people.”
Market economics is now thoroughly confused with Austrian political notions. What you find written by May could have just as easily been penned by JSM. This is at the end of his almost 200-page discussion on the role of government which looks suspiciously like the above quote from May:
“In attempting to enumerate the necessary functions of government, we find them to be considerably more multifarious than most people are at first aware of, and not capable of being circumscribed by those very definite lines of demarcation, which, in the inconsiderateness of popular discussion, it is often attempted to draw round them.”
Politics must and always will dominate economics. Leaving things to the market does not mean never try to improve things if you can. What good economics will teach is when you can do good and when you cannot. So doing nothing at all is seldom good economic policy even though sometimes it is.
When the debt overhang is severe, balance sheets may also need to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, without government intervention, balance sheet repair often proceeds very slowly, because of coordination problems, market failures, and the inability of distressed banks to absorb losses (Laeven and Laryea 2009; Laryea 2010). However, leaving the debt overhang unaddressed can result in lower consumption and underinvestment (Olney 1999; Myers 1977), which, if compounded by banks’ foregoing profitable lending opportunities (Philippon and Schnabl 2013), will weaken the recovery. This is an argument for targeted fiscal intervention to speed up the resolution of the debt overhang problem. These types of interventions are usually geared toward addressing weaknesses in the banking sector and typically include recapitalization, asset purchases, and sometimes guarantees. But they can also include measures to facilitate the repair of households’ and firms’ balance sheets. A government-sponsored debt-restructuring program in the latter case often includes subsidies for creditors for lengthening maturities, guarantees, or both and direct lending to companies that are viable but unable to access financial markets, as well as the creation of asset management companies.
The bolded section is also known as “kicking the bucket” and is precisely what China has been aggressively engaged in recently, following news that a quarter of its companies can not cover the interest expense on their debt. . . .
The mere thought of China, with its 300% debt/GDP, entering a recession is enough to bring nightmares for any policy planner in the world today.
And there is nothing special about China in having misdirected its resource base into non-productive activities. The US is as bad and others must be given the aggregate statistic.
I have a post at Quadrant Online dealing with yesterday’s VP debate under the fantastic heading (not mine): Razing Kaine. It was obviously Kaine’s intent to win the interruption derby which he clearly did, but not in any way that prevented Pence from stating just what he had in mind. How much it matters I do not know, but Pence came across as thoughtful and considered while Kaine was a more than usually superficial emissary from the left. My final para:
Trump-Pence might amount to more than running-mates — they might be a succession plan. I think this election remains a toss-up. But if Trump should win next month and Pence is typical of the personnel he chooses to fill the slots in his administration, there is reason to hope. Only Trump can make this at all possible. Pence provides the evidence of how it might even be done.
No doubt I am getting ahead of myself since the first obstacle is for Trump to be elected. The notion that anyone can remain uninfluenced by the continuous media storm created around Trump is a self-delusion. But if Trump has remained competitive in this environment in spite of it all, you have to know there are a lot of people in the United States who really are enraged by what is going on around them but which they have no ability to prevent.
The most interesting part about the Vice Presidential debate was that there was not a dime’s worth of difference between the arguments put by Mike Pence and the views of Donald Trump. The difference is entirely in presentation along with the various self-imposed constraints that Pence has learned through many years of experience. He knows how to phrase what he says and knows how to craft the arguments just so. But so far as what they amount to, they are exactly the same as Trump’s.
Kaine on the other hand was a much worse version of Hillary. She was more polished and understood her position and how to present it to the back teeth. I found Kaine irritating and shallow to a startling degree. I have always recognised that anecdote is the replacement for analysis when you are dealing with people unused to complex ideas. But if underneath anything he said there actually was a complex idea of any sort, I missed it.
Pence described how a Trump administration would deal with national defence, illegal immigration, economic revival and racial tensions. He defended removing illegals along with stop and frisk policing. What possibly surprised me most about Kaine was the extent to which he repeated Trump’s policy proposals over and again, I imagine under the assumption that just to hear what Trump wishes to do is automatically to be in opposition. That’s what comes from locking oneself in the media sounding board where no other ideas seem to come through. My suspicion, however, is that for those who like what Trump has to offer, it is exactly what he proposes that is what they like. Kaine did no more than reinforce in the minds of Trump’s supporters why they are voting as they are.
Who knows if any of the more difficult parts can be done? But there is little doubt that most Americans want a stronger military, defeat of ISIS, border security, a revival of the economy, a tax system that promotes economic growth and a more cohesive community.
And then there were the two personalities on display. Kaine had no presence or substance. Pence seemed a deeper thinker who has had his ideas forged in the fires of debate among those who disagree with many of the things he says. As a conservative, even in a party of the right, he would be a lonely presence. It was a positive pleasure to listen to him.
Trump-Pence are not just running mates, but might hopefully even be thought of as a succession plan. I think this election remains a toss up. But if Trump should manage to win in November, and Pence remains a typical example of the kinds of personnel that Trump chooses for the various slots in his administration, there is reason – perhaps only dimly – but there is reason to hope for improvement, and not just a minor relief but even long term.
Only Trump makes this at all possible. Pence, however, provides evidence how it might even be done.
A very interesting article by one of the supreme observers of the world today on From Orwell to Gladwell and Back. It is about censorship in the modern age and how we are shaped into certain beliefs unless we are vigilant and have a strong sense already about who we can trust and what is likely to be true. I am more than aware of this since it is already very apparent that things that show up on Google will disappear within days if they are not part of “the narrative”.
The narrative is the set of assumptions the press believes in, possibly without even knowing that it believes in them. It’s so powerful because it’s unconscious. It’s not like they get together every morning and decide “These are the lies we tell today.” No, that would be too crude and honest. Rather, it’s a set of casual, nonrigorous assumptions about a reality they’ve never really experienced that’s arranged in such a way as to reinforce their best and most ideal presumptions about themselves and their importance to the system and the way they have chosen to live their lives.
It is to see the world in the form of a novel where the good guys and girls are always on the right side of every issue and the bad ones are always on the wrong side. Facts are selected and shaped, other facts are ignored or suppressed, and the result is like a TV serial that is guaranteed to satisfy anyone who falls into the sway of the story in the way it is told.
There is more at the original link about how we are shaped by the information flow we are permitted to have. It amazes me all the time to listen to people who are on my side of the fence who quote the mainstream press or the left-media when they know – and they really do know this – that these organisations are lying to them. To read that only 27% of people don’t think the media is biased is different from the 95% of people who take a media story as largely true.
That the Fed is a politicised institution — more so than most other central banks — is not a contentious observation. Compared with international counterparts, there is a high degree of declared political affiliation among Fed governors and a tendency for presidents to appoint one of their own as Fed chair. Nor is it unusual for Fed officials also to have served in the executive branch: Alan Greenspan, Fed chairman from 1987-2006, had been chairman of the White House economic advisers council in Gerald Ford’s administration. Ben Bernanke, his successor, did the same job under George W Bush.
But that does not translate into setting monetary policy in a politically partisan way.
Oh no, of course not. But since the Fed would act in exactly the same way if it were a declared agent of the Democratic Party, how are we to tell the difference? Rates should have gone up a long time ago. That they have stayed put makes anyone watching what they do very suspicious.
Law of Markets 