American Politics

[EihTooms]

I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. I'm not sure what it means, but suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.

As I use it, "Bothsiderism" is only a derogatory term or a pejorative if one sees being identified as "pro-Repub" as an insult.

Bothsiderism and False Equivalencies are generally meant to elevate the slackers, bring them up a notch or two, and denigrate the performers, bring them down a notch or two so as to suggest "both sides" are more or less "equally" responsible for good or bad outcomes. Sure, that can be a fun exercise. But it can be quite damaging when it comes to elections and who is handed the levers of control for serious matters like money, jobs, national security, etc.

For example, there is no reputable source of economic data or spin on it that can or has shown that over the past 100 years or so, right up to Trump, it was Repubs and not Dems who were better at producing prosperity, increasing GDP growth, creating jobs, putting money in pockets and businesses, paying down the debt and deficit, averting or avoiding major economic downturns, recovering us from major economic downturns and so on. None.

So by rights Repubs ought to by now have no more than, oh, maybe a 5% fluky chance of ever winning any election for any office ever.

However, thanks to the magic of "Bothsiderism" and "False Equivalency", their chances are often raised to as much 47-50%! That is quite an improvement for those folks. And if MSM and other "Bothsider, False Equivalency" practitioners do a bang up job of demonizing some relatively insignificant sucker social issue here and there, the Repubs' chances improve to as mush as 52% or so and, bingo, we're saddled with another Repub economic steward bent on finding whatever new and unprecedented way to crash the USA economy and wipe out millions of jobs is out there to be embraced by them.

See, it is only an insult if you think that is a bad thing for which to be a proponent.

[EihTooms]

I don't much care what happened 100 years ago, during FDR's time or whenever.

My reasons for favoring Republicans are two fold:

1. I believe more Republicans than Democrats favor smaller federal government. And clearly, IMO, smaller government is correlated with greater prosperity. When you leave more money in the pockets of the people and businesses, instead of channeling it off as directed by politicians in Washington D.C. to a massive federal bureaucracy, we're better off. Government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector does.

2. Republicans are less likely to levy extortionate taxes on me.

So how do I justify "1"? Well, as follows.

This table shows GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...P) _per_capita

When you kick out small places and petrostates, including Norway, the wealthiest countries per capita in the world are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong.

This table shows government expenditure and government revenue as a % of GDP, by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP

Sort this table by government revenue, in increasing order. Kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government revenue as a % of GDP are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, the United States, and Switzerland.

You could also sort the same table by government expenditure as a % of GDP. But the ranking of the USA and other countries will be misleading because of the massive amounts dumped into economies for COVID stimulus in 2020. So, instead, look at the same table, with 2018 data, in the Wayback Machine. (Wikipedia never provided the 2019 data):

https://web.archive.org/web/20210224...centage_of_GDP

You'll need to copy and paste to Excel to Sort. Sort from smallest to largest by government expenditure. Again, kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government expenditure as a % of GDP are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States.

Do you see a pattern? The five wealthiest countries in the world, sans small places and petrostates, are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. And the developed countries, excluding small places and petrostates, with the smallest governments are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. So they're the same, except for Taiwan! And Taiwan is no slouch.

An interesting observation IMO, the United States has the most progressive taxation system in the OECD. And Hong Kong, if it were a country, would have one of the most regressive tax systems among developed countries. In other words, the level of taxation and government expenditure, i.e. the size of government, is what matters most, not the progressivity of the tax system.

The majority of the Democratic Party wants to grow government so it's comparable in size, in relation to the economy, to European social welfare states. I figure over the long term this would perhaps result in a 15% to 25% hit to GDP per capita. That is, a reduction to levels comparable to Germany or France. And that's huge.

The left's response to what I've thrown out would be, so what. The GDP per capita for those countries is pumped up by the billionaires. What does that do for the workingman? And I suspect they'd have basis to say that for Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent for Ireland. But in terms of "median equivalent adult income" for OECD countries, which represents median disposable income per person including all forms of income and taxes and transfer payments from government, the USA is number 2 and Switzerland is number 4. The number 1 country, Luxembourg, is a small place (600,000 population) and number 3, Norway, is a petrostate. Please recall the definition of median. Median means the 50th percentile -- half of Americans make more than the median income and half make less. Here's a link to median equivalent adult income by country, for the OECD:

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

Note that median equivalent adult income for Germany is 27% less than the USA, and it's 33% less for France! We in the USA are blessed to have small (relatively speaking) government.

Interesting that your 1 and 2 reasons for favoring Repubs are among the many reasons I favor Dems and have only voted for Dems without voting for a Repub since Reagan's first term in office. I don't vote based on repeatedly unfulfilled campaign promises. I vote based on what actually happens when each of the two major Parties is in the White House. Factoring in the Repub penchant for never meeting an opportunity to plunge America into a Great Recession they didn't embrace, those piddling tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans they dangle before us on the campaign trail and sometimes plant into legislation pale in comparison to the massive jobs destruction, skyrocketing debt and deficits spent during and to pull us out of them that must be paid for by somebody eventually.

Yes, that pattern began even before FDR. But it didn't stop there. It continued right through to Trump less than two years ago. Even Trump's pre-Trump's Pandemic years underperformed on "greater prosperity" if prosperity has anything to do with jobs creation, earned income and GDP growth and "smaller federal government" if by that you mean less government spending with virtually nothing to show for it. And, of course, by the end of Trump's disastrous four year economic stewardship it is certain more people and businesses did not find themselves with "more money in their pockets".

Now, I didn't live, work, invest, buy things and pay taxes in Switzerland, Singapore or any of those other countries. So while it is interesting to note how they did over time, what matters more to me in terms of those very 1 and 2 factors you mentioned as well as many others is what happened in the USA over time.

Why Are Republican Presidents So Bad for the Economy?
G.D.P., jobs and other indicators have all risen faster under Democrats for nearly the past century.
Feb. 2, 2021


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/o...s-economy.html

Since 1933, the economy has grown at an annual average rate of 4.6 percent under Democratic presidents and 2.4 percent under Republicans, according to a Times analysis. In more concrete terms: The average income of Americans would be more than double its current level if the economy had somehow grown at the Democratic rate for all of the past nine decades. If anything, that period (which is based on data availability) is too kind to Republicans, because it excludes the portion of the Great Depression that happened on Herbert Hoovers watch.

The six presidents who have presided over the fastest job growth have all been Democrats, as you can see above. The four presidents who have presided over the slowest growth have all been Republicans.

Why?
What, then, are the most plausible theories?

First, its worth rejecting a few unlikely possibilities. Congressional control is not the answer. The pattern holds regardless of which party is running Congress. Deficit spending also doesnt explain the gap: It is not the case that Democrats juice the economy by spending money and then leave Republicans to clean up the mess. Over the last four decades, in fact, Republican presidents have*run up larger deficits*than Democrats.

That leaves one broad possibility with a good amount of supporting evidence: Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe like the supposedly magical power of tax cuts and deregulation. Democrats, in short, have been more pragmatic.

[Tiny 12]

Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.

Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.

Speaking of out of the box thinking about politics, I watched all of your short video and about 20% of the long one while I was doing my three S's this morning (shit, shower, shave). I think they're definitely right about sanctions. They don't hurt the leaders, just the people, and give the leaders an excuse to blame all their f*ck ups on the USA. And they're partly right about meddling in other country's affairs. I'd part company with them on economics though. Pinochet may have been a son of a bi*tch, and his regime may have killed 2000 or 2500 people, but he did wonders for the economy. I don't think the ends justified the means though. We shouldn't have helped depose Allende.

[JustTK]

I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. ... suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.

Thats exactly what it is. And usually from the people that CANNOT think for themselves. How ironic. Yes, its how it works. Our way, or the highway. Thats the US system. Been that way for a few decades, I call it binary thinking, and yes it does spell trouble.

Don't worry, the protagonist has joined my shortlist of ignored folk. No doubt he will respond here with more drivel. He is like a dog w a bone. Hehe.

[MarquisdeSade1]

Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/ph...0QJO0C-w2FzYg8#CommentSection.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...for-joe-biden/

No one wants to invoke the 25th amend because Harris is even more brain dead than Joe LMAO.

He picked her as a firewall for this very reason LOL.

Barry Joe and Harris aka dumb dumber and dumbest LOL.

[Tiny 12]

I'll add that this "bothsider" pejorative gets plenty of misuse. Attempts to examine many variables or to find truth wherever it may be found is a matter of integrity, and depending on your field, a professional responsibility. Calling out the bias and fallacies of partisans isn't always "bothsiderism. " In fact calling it such often serves as an ad hominem that short circuits legitimate discussion.

I don't know what the deal is with "bothsiderism" here. I'm not sure what it means, but suspect it's a derogatory term used for people who aren't tribal. You've got to join up with the Trump tribe or the Sanders tribe, and heaven forbid you think for yourself. Is that how it works? If so, God help us. I fear that's what's happening to America.

[Tiny 12]

Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward.

If you get a chance, Tiny, check this out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c.

This guy Peter Zeihan gives out information I have not seen elsewhere. He makes a compelling case for why Texas is going to be the best place for world growth in the coming decades. In my mind, the USA enters a recession and the rest of the world a depression in the next year.

Why? Well, some people really thought you can just shut down world production for two years, print a bunch of money, and everything is going to be fine. Yeesh. The economic effects of the pandemic have just been delayed.

And if you read what Eih wrote, you will see the pandemic was Trump's fault too.

Hi Elvis, I've blown way too much time this afternoon replying to Tooms, so haven't had time to take a look at the video yet.

One comment about the rest of your post. I'm privileged to know the smartest son of a bit**h, at least as far as economics is concerned, who posts on hooker boards. He used to go by Captain Midnight. He points out that the U.S. money supply, M1 and M2, have been flat since February. And commodity prices have been coming down. As such, he thinks high inflation may not last as long as many think. He still thinks we're in for a recession though. This makes sense to me for the USA. But I'm not so sure about other countries. If you look at M1 and M2 for most other countries, in their local currencies, they're still increasing at a rapid clip. And commodity prices haven't really fallen. If you live in Europe, you're looking at crazy prices for electricity and home heating. Why the difference between what's happening in the USA and other countries? Well a lot of it's the strength of the dollar. We in the USA are blessed to have the predominant reserve and trading currency.

Kudos for going short! You're right about interest rates and the stock market, but most people, including me, didn't take advantage of what we all knew was coming.

[PVMonger]

I once heard a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus mistake 4,996 living American voters for corpses:

Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four.
Claim was part of push to overturn election but officials confirm four cases, all involving family members submitting votes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-dead-people

And, yeah, he was not using a teleprompter. It was 100% on him.

And I saw Donnie the Dumbass say that injecting disinfectant would cure COVID. I heard him say that shoving a lightbulb up your ass would cure it too. I heard him say that he'd make Mexico pay for the wall he was going to build. I heard him say thousands of stupid things.

Somehow, though, the Moron Brigade and the rest of MAGAt-nation gives him a pass on those things. And they wonder why I call him Donnie the Dumbass?

[Tiny 12]

I see you're scratching and clawing at every detail you can dig up to demonstrate that those Great Repub Recessions and Massive Job Losses over the past 100 years or so really weren't all the Repubs' fault or, oh look, that 25th crank of the meat grinder out of thousands in the sausage factory of legislation by a Repub and not a Dem produce a few jobs too and all that typical pro Repub Bothsiderism stuff....Here's the deal: Repubs are at war with this government by, for and of the people. Have been for many decades.

I don't much care what happened 100 years ago, during FDR's time or whenever.

My reasons for favoring Republicans are two fold:

1. I believe more Republicans than Democrats favor smaller federal government. And clearly, IMO, smaller government is correlated with greater prosperity. When you leave more money in the pockets of the people and businesses, instead of channeling it off as directed by politicians in Washington D.C. to a massive federal bureaucracy, we're better off. Government doesn't grow the economy, the private sector does.

2. Republicans are less likely to levy extortionate taxes on me.

So how do I justify "1"? Well, as follows.

This table shows GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...P) _per_capita

When you kick out small places and petrostates, including Norway, the wealthiest countries per capita in the world are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, and Hong Kong.

This table shows government expenditure and government revenue as a % of GDP, by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP

Sort this table by government revenue, in increasing order. Kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government revenue as a % of GDP are Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, the United States, and Switzerland.

You could also sort the same table by government expenditure as a % of GDP. But the ranking of the USA and other countries will be misleading because of the massive amounts dumped into economies for COVID stimulus in 2020. So, instead, look at the same table, with 2018 data, in the Wayback Machine. (Wikipedia never provided the 2019 data):

https://web.archive.org/web/20210224...centage_of_GDP

You'll need to copy and paste to Excel to Sort. Sort from smallest to largest by government expenditure. Again, kick out developing countries, small places and petrostates. The countries with the lowest government expenditure as a % of GDP are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States.

Do you see a pattern? The five wealthiest countries in the world, sans small places and petrostates, are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States and Hong Kong. And the developed countries, excluding small places and petrostates, with the smallest governments are Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the United States, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. So they're the same, except for Taiwan! And Taiwan is no slouch.

An interesting observation IMO, the United States has the most progressive taxation system in the OECD. And Hong Kong, if it were a country, would have one of the most regressive tax systems among developed countries. In other words, the level of taxation and government expenditure, i.e. the size of government, is what matters most, not the progressivity of the tax system.

The majority of the Democratic Party wants to grow government so it's comparable in size, in relation to the economy, to European social welfare states. I figure over the long term this would perhaps result in a 15% to 25% hit to GDP per capita. That is, a reduction to levels comparable to Germany or France. And that's huge.

The left's response to what I've thrown out would be, so what. The GDP per capita for those countries is pumped up by the billionaires. What does that do for the workingman? And I suspect they'd have basis to say that for Hong Kong, and to a lesser extent for Ireland. But in terms of "median equivalent adult income" for OECD countries, which represents median disposable income per person including all forms of income and taxes and transfer payments from government, the USA is number 2 and Switzerland is number 4. The number 1 country, Luxembourg, is a small place (600,000 population) and number 3, Norway, is a petrostate. Please recall the definition of median. Median means the 50th percentile -- half of Americans make more than the median income and half make less. Here's a link to median equivalent adult income by country, for the OECD:

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

Note that median equivalent adult income for Germany is 27% less than the USA, and it's 33% less for France! We in the USA are blessed to have small (relatively speaking) government.

[EihTooms]

You're going to find very few economists who would agree with you, that high interest rates, to control inflation, weren't what caused the 1981/1982 recession. Or that the Economic Recovery Act of 1981, passed by Democrats and Republicans and signed by Reagan, exacerbated the recession. I have been known to read CBO reports for fun, and invariably tax cuts are associated with higher GDP growth. The incremental growth in some instances may not be that significant, but cuts don't cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise. Furthermore, the 1981 act basically cut the maximum rate from 70% to 50%. The only people in favor of 70% maximum rates are Progressives and people like Saez and Zucman, who believe the revenue maximizing tax rate is about 75%. First of all, I believe that's bull shit, the maximizing rate is lower. And second I don't believe the chief end of man, or upper income earners, is to maximize government revenues, as I don't believe in slavery. And third, I believe the federal government, as opposed to my local and state governments, flushes a lot of the money I send it down the drain. And finally fourth, by eliminating loopholes and lowering the motivation to shelter income from extortionate taxation, the changes in tax policy during the Reagan administration may have increased the amount paid by upper income earners and even increased the progressivity of our tax system.

The tax cuts during the Bush and Reagan administration likewise may have increased the progressivity of the tax system. If you just look at tax rate tables, you'd say they did, as the % cut in rates for lower income levels was greater than for higher levels.

There's lots of blame to go around for the 2008/2009 recession, and our anemic recovery coming out of it, which resulted in higher deficits as a result of bailouts, stimulus spending and lower government revenues. Who do you blame? A lot of people and institutions -- politicians, regulators, mortgage companies, and investment banks among others. And perhaps most of all Americans who thought it was reasonable to buy $500,000 houses on $50,000 per year paychecks.

As to the NYT article, that's hilarious. The 1981 act was passed in August, and so by November, 1981, three months later, they hadn't ended the recession. No shit Sherlock (referring to the writer, not you.) Hell, the effect would have been limited to a reduction in a grand total of one quarterly estimated tax payment.

I didn't say Reagan's Supply-Side / Trickle-Down disproportionately high tax cuts for the top margins exacerbated his Great Recession, although I think a case can be made for that. I said they did what they always do as an economic stimulus; nothing. And they did nothing to prevent that recession from being one of the worst in history.

I agree with you that tax cuts are often associated with higher GDP. I'll go further to state that tax cuts are also often associated with jobs creation and paying down the debt and deficit. But only when Dem Presidents propose tax cuts and get their way. Not when Repub Presidents propose tax cuts and get their way.

Where Repubs love to cut taxes disproportionately high is on the top margins. That is their signature Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax policy move. Which does very little or nothing to produce the positive results you and I both cited above.

Where it leads to exacerbating economic downturns rather than averting them is the Repub generally has to cut taxes at a markedly lower percentage, if at all, for the middle and lower income earners in order to "pay for" those beloved disproportionately high tax cuts for "the wealthy. " That 70% to 50% cut you mentioned regarding the 1981 act.

I think you will find that the 1981 act you referred to did cut taxes disproportionately high on the top, as you already mentioned, but at a much smaller percentage on the middle and lower margins, if at all. So what you got was a huge tax cut for a relatively tiny number of people, many of whom barely noticed it in terms of food on their table and cars in their garage, and meager tax cuts, if any, on a relatively gigantic number of people.

And, as that NYT article pointed out, there seemed to be an expectation that those Supply-Side tax cuts alone would avert a recession or at least diminish it without having to combine it with pro-acrive Demand-Side stimulus. Those auto rebates that were ended.

BTW, on that point, the NYT article didn't make the case that anyone expected the 1981 act to end the Recession "three months later". It was about how businesses had lost faith in Reagan's tax cuts to prevent a Recession in the first place, literally at his signing of it. And they were right to have lost faith in that. Maybe by then they did a little more due diligence on that 1929 Repub Crash and Depression.

And remember, in November 1981 nobody knew for sure we were officially in a Recession by then. So the tax bill was simply about stimulating and growing the economy, not to "recover" us from a Recession exactly. What was known was there was little to no positive sentiment and anticipation about the economy at the signing of the act.

I love tax cuts. One of the main reasons I vote for Dems is because of their tax cuts. Repub tax cuts have proven not to be worth shit for the general economy. But Dem tax cuts greatly improve the lives of most Americans. It's all about where, when and how the tax cuts are applied. You know, details.

So why did Dems vote for Reagan's ultimately practically useless except for racking up huge debt and deficits Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax cuts in 1981? Three big reasons:

We had not yet seen that style of favorite Repub tax cuts demonstrate the disastrous pattern we are all familiar with now and learned more about from Reagan.

Dems believe in elections, Reagan ran on that nonsense, Reagan won, the electorate who voted for him should get what they wished for.

And most of all, Reagan had earlier that year taken a bullet from a nut with a gun trying to impress a lesbian actress. It would have been politically impossible to deny him his dream tax policy during his big comeback and recovery.

[EihTooms]

I totally agree, and that is why it is a cheap shot to call Powell, Trump's Powell. Of course, we are all familiar with Eih's constant refrain of Dems good, Republicans bad, and this is another example of it.

Eih stayed long the market even when the Fed was tightening rates. I went short, and the reason is the Fed said they were raising rates. If you watch CNBC, 75% of the discussion there is what is the Fed going to do. It is an economic law that if the Fed raises rates, the overall stock market will go down, and the Fed has been saying literally every week in the clearest language possible, they are raising rates. Hell, one Fed governor even said "good" after the stock market went down.

Eih and I got into about investing and he bragged about his wealth and how smart he was which I avoid like hell. The last thing I want to hear about is why you were right (or more likely lucky) in the past. I do not care that much about track records. Make your case for today. His case was Biden is president. When the Nasdaq was down 20%, he refused to say there was a bear market because the NASDAQ was not a real index; only the S&P 500 is. Of course, the S&P 500 is now in bear territory too.

Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward..

I have been generously giving you a pass on your lies about what I post lately, Elvis my boy.

Now I will generously give you some free advice; Stop lying about what I post just to make you feel better about your apparently pathetic life. Try living well instead. I guarantee that will make you a happier fellow.

You're welcome.

[EihTooms]

It just got a lot harder for the National Bureau of Economic Research to officially declare what is currently happening a "recession":

Jobless claims hit five-month low despite Fed's efforts to slow labor market

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/29/jobl...ndroidappshare

Initial filings for unemployment claims fell last week to their lowest level in five months last week.

The drop to 193,000 was below the estimate of 215,000.

A separate report showed inflation running hotter than previously reported in the second quarter.

A Bear Market decline, yes. Trump's Pandemic supply-chain destruction Inflation, yes. Putin's Dumbest War Ever oil and grain supply-chain destruction Inflation, yes.

But falling jobless claims, a Full Employment unemployment rate under 4% and monthly jobs creation in the hundreds of thousands do not typically spell "recession."

Powell probably should have led his board to increase the Fed Funds Rate to 5%+ months ago.

Yes, that would have thrown hand-wringing, crybaby Wall Street into a tizzy. But that's nothing new. Hand-wringing, crybaby Wall Street is always in a tizzy. Bad economic news, good economic news, no economic news, pending economic news, Wall Street is always in a hand-wringing, crybaby tizzy.

[EihTooms]

Biden proved today that without the teleprompter he is just plain stupid. When is the last time a president called out for a dead person to be acknowledged in the crowd. Brandon at his finest.

I once heard a twice Impeached defeated so-called potus mistake 4,996 living American voters for corpses:

Trump claims 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia but the real number is four.
Claim was part of push to overturn election but officials confirm four cases, all involving family members submitting votes

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...on-dead-people

And, yeah, he was not using a teleprompter. It was 100% on him.

[Elvis 2008]

One other thing, as I noted below, Obama originally nominated Powell. And the total number of Senate Democrats, including Bernie Sanders, voting against Powell's reappointment this year was six. Thirteen Republicans voted against Powell and one abstained. So exactly why is Powell Trump's man? And why would you give him all the credit or blame for Fed decisions, when there are 7 governors and 12 voting members of the Fed Open Market Committee? And the current bunch is usually mostly in agreement? Is John Roberts the only person on the Supreme Court who matters?

I totally agree, and that is why it is a cheap shot to call Powell, Trump's Powell. Of course, we are all familiar with Eih's constant refrain of Dems good, Republicans bad, and this is another example of it.

Eih stayed long the market even when the Fed was tightening rates. I went short, and the reason is the Fed said they were raising rates. If you watch CNBC, 75% of the discussion there is what is the Fed going to do. It is an economic law that if the Fed raises rates, the overall stock market will go down, and the Fed has been saying literally every week in the clearest language possible, they are raising rates. Hell, one Fed governor even said "good" after the stock market went down.

Eih and I got into about investing and he bragged about his wealth and how smart he was which I avoid like hell. The last thing I want to hear about is why you were right (or more likely lucky) in the past. I do not care that much about track records. Make your case for today. His case was Biden is president. When the Nasdaq was down 20%, he refused to say there was a bear market because the NASDAQ was not a real index; only the S&P 500 is. Of course, the S&P 500 is now in bear territory too.

Looking forward, I think there is still carnage in the market to follow. You do not see the full effect of interest rate hikes for 12 months. The IPO market is totally shut down, the yield curve is badly inverted, capital is drying up, and finally we are seeing some slowdown in demand, and that is going to get much, much worse. The dollar's strength is another huge headwind for the market going forward.

If you get a chance, Tiny, check this out, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA-jOLF2T4c.

This guy Peter Zeihan gives out information I have not seen elsewhere. He makes a compelling case for why Texas is going to be the best place for world growth in the coming decades. In my mind, the USA enters a recession and the rest of the world a depression in the next year.

Why? Well, some people really thought you can just shut down world production for two years, print a bunch of money, and everything is going to be fine. Yeesh. The economic effects of the pandemic have just been delayed.

And if you read what Eih wrote, you will see the pandemic was Trump's fault too.

[Paulie97]

In the words of the late great Steve Jobs, "Details matter. " Analysis of economic policy and history are more complicated than "Democrat good, Republican bad..

I'll add that this "bothsider" pejorative gets plenty of misuse. Attempts to examine many variables or to find truth wherever it may be found is a matter of integrity, and depending on your field, a professional responsibility. Calling out the bias and fallacies of partisans isn't always "bothsiderism. " In fact calling it such often serves as an ad hominem that short circuits legitimate discussion.