There are issues large and small that do make you wonder. This is among the small, but is neither irrelevant or insignificant: Presidential Debate Commission Admits Trump’s Mic Was Messed Up. Trump said it on the day but now it is confirmed.

But then there is the larger ones the most extraordinary one being the removal of Hillary’s notes from her podium by someone who then immediately crosses paths with the moderator after exchanging knowing looks. At Google, it is practically gone, although there were a few versions of this available a few days ago in a more extended form. I only found the one below which followed on from a much more brief version. It shows the man with grey hair and glasses taking something from Hillary’s podium and then looking over at the moderator before they briefly cross paths in the middle of the stage, but then goes on with much much more.

Why would you doubt for a second that if they could cheat they would cheat? And why would you doubt that the media would be in on it to the hilt?

Two articles of the highest importance on the same theme.

The first is Yellen helps Clinton dodge a bullet which comes with the sub-head: “Federal Reserve policymakers keep their key interest rate steady, putting the central bank on the sidelines until after Election Day.” The first sentence of the article is merely about politics. The economics is about what lies in wait. But first that opening sentence:

Scratch one big economic worry off the list for Hillary Clinton.

The worry being scratched off is that interest rates will be raised before the election. Trump knows what a problem this would be for the Democrats better than anyone. Yellen knows exactly what Trump knows, but lies like the rest of her leftist tribe:

Fed Chair Janet Yellen also strongly rejected claims lobbed at her by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump that she is keeping rates artificially low to boost stock prices and aid Democrats.

“I can say emphatically that partisan politics plays no role in our decisions about the appropriate stance of monetary policy,” Yellen said at a news conference after the Fed announced its decision. “We do not discuss politics at our meetings and we do not take politics into account in our decisions.” . . .

“The Federal Reserve is not politically compromised,” she said. “I can’t recall any meeting that I have ever attended where politics has been a matter of discussion. I think the public if they had been watching our meeting on TV today would have felt that we had a rich, deep, serious, intellectual debate about the risks and the forecasts for the economy.”

Since she cannot say otherwise, that was the pre-fab answer. But they of course do think politically 100% of the time, and know full well what will happen when rates start to rise, or even if they hinted that they would rise. It will happen immediately if it’s Trump, more slowly if it’s Hillary, but up they will go. As noted at the end of the article:

The decision [to leave rates where they are] should be a bit of a boost for Clinton, more because it avoids a nightmare scenario than does much to strengthen the economy.

“Nightmare scenario”? What could they possibly mean?

There is then this second article dealing with the same issues: Yellen rejects Trump charges that Fed plays politics. Shorter and again outlines Trump’s complaints in the company of Yellen’s untruths. But it ends with this:

By statute, the Fed is an independent body intended to be shielded from political pressure and whose operations are not funded by the US Congress.

But Fed governors are nominated by the White House and approved by the Senate.

You can see the cynicism in the article but there is even more in the comments to the story. I will just list one, which is like most of the others, and which follows more or less my own sentiments about all of it:

Her denial proves the point. Yellen is a marxist who does Obama’s bidding. If Trump wins in November this fool will raise interest rates in December. Bet the farm on it.

For all that, the sad fact is that the only way our economies can ever get on track is for rates to rise. It will be a rough ride, but without the redirection of savings in productive directions, there is no chance of a recovery either short term or long.

And a story to go with the picture: Hillary’s Enthusiasm Gap Could Cost Her the Election.

As worrying as this video is, it seems to understate the urgency of the problem which ought to terrify anyone who thinks there is anything to it.

It’s from a journalist at The Canberra Times (via Andrew Bolt) so you can see why these are listed as positives for a PM:

Good taste in clothes and art, a beautiful speaking voice, a stellar resume, connections everywhere, and politically correct opinions on almost everything made him Abbott’s perfect foil but, so far at least, these qualities have not been enough to make Turnbull a good prime minister.

Only a journalist might think that they would or could. This is how the story starts:

There were three items for the first meeting of the new Turnbull cabinet: the cliff-hanger federal election, the response to Four Corners’ teenage detention revelations, and Kevin Rudd. And so the Coalition government has started as it seems doomed to continue: reacting badly to events and to other people’s agendas.

I cannot say any of this comes as a surprise, specially the cliff-hanger election.

There is an exceptionally insightful article in The Oz today by Maurice Newman titled not very accurately as: Central banks hell-bent on a currency debauch Lenin would love. This is what I think is the crucial point:

Politicians share responsibility for today’s distorted economy, having recklessly spent tomorrow’s productive capital on consumption.

To a modern macroeconomist, all spending drives demand. To anyone with some kind of appreciation of economic cause and effect, wasting our productive efforts on non-value-adding forms of output will leave us with a barren future that will overtake us sooner than you might like to think. It doesn’t have to come in the form of a recession, although it could, but what is certain is that it will become ever more difficult to maintain our living standards even where they are. Our children are unlikely to live as well as we have done, although they will no doubt have a better class of mobile phone. The point Newman makes about the diversion of current expenditures away from productive investment is the single most depressing fact about out present circumstances, and among the last people to understand what is going on are our Prime Minister and his Treasurer.

Today we find out.