trump Archives - Page 3 of 4 - Bankers Anonymous

December 1, 2016December 7, 2016

Trump Part II – Rise of Authoritarians

This is part 2 of probably 6 posts on Trump, of which the first one is here. These are not predictions of the future per se, but just a recording of what I worry might happen, and why I can’t sleep at night.

A slow unfolding

It takes a long time, sometimes years, for the authoritarian to tip the system in his favor, to undermine enough counterbalancing institutions that he can no longer be opposed.

A leader willing to do whatever it takes to keep and increase power can – over time – chip away at resistance. After a few years, there might be very little left standing in his way.

Chavez

I remember well the day after the election of Chavez in Venezuela in 1998, as I worked on Goldman’s Latin American bond desk. We hardly knew Chavez’ name and background, but our economist who covered the Andean countries warned us that this would certainly be a catastrophic regime for Venezuela. He was right, although it took some time to play out that way.

First Chavez had to replace governors and mayors with loyalists. He needed to delegitimize the opposition parties and the opposition newspapers. He needed to overturn the system.

Like many authoritarians, Chavez initially sought the legitimacy of constitutionality. He called a constitutional convention in 1999, and had it 95 percent packed with Chevez loyalists. These conventioneers in turn set about abolishing the existing legislature and courts.

A new single house of Congress replaced the old Congress, and handed legislative authority over to Chavez. The Presidential terms was extended to six years, with the chance for reelection, which of course Chavez got.

The Supreme Tribunal of Justice – established at the constitutional convention of 1999 – has recently been rated the most corrupt court in the world by Transparency International.

As fragile as Venezuela’s political system had been at the time of Chavez’ election, it started with important political checks in the form of two parties that had alternated power for decades, a free press, and strong banks. Dismantling them took time, consistent pressure, and some populist violence. Fomenting a constant state of semi-war against Colombia, plus the perceived threat of the United States, helped consolidate Chavez’ power.

Putin

Putin’s rise from semi-obscure Yeltsin-appointee to seeming lifetime Tsar of Russia was not pre-ordained. Many steps along the way helped him eliminate rivals and seize complete power over the Russian state.

Putin has only slowly dismantled an independent domestic press through intimidation, “tax investigations,” violence, and the murder of journalists. He coopted business oligarchs with whom he could do a deal, and jailed or exiled those who would not cooperate. Regional Governors are hand-picked by the President in Russia.

All along, Putin has been careful to cloak his actions in constitutional forms. The legislative Duma is dominated by Putin’s party – along with some acquiescent minority parties like Communists – with the veneer of regular elections to signal legitimacy.

Putin rise is a sort of blended electoral victory and seizure of power in the face of corruption and chaos. He became acting president following the resignation of the ailing Boris Yeltsin, and then won election in 2000 by a 53% to 30% margin. Putin, like Chavez before him, has insisted on holding regular elections and even respecting the letter of the law regarding Presidential term limits, even while few believe he ever took his hands off the levers of power during Dmitri Medvedev’s Presidential inter-regnum, 2008 to 2012.

Putin’s accession and consolidation of power was greatly aided in September 1999, however, by a series of apartment building bombs blamed on Chechen rebels but believed by many to be the result of a ‘false flag’ operation by Russian security forces, known as the FSB.

Putin’s rise may be the most relevant example to watch with Trump. Dangerous authoritarians may arrive via the ballot and constitutional legitimacy, only to set to work to undermine that same constitutional structure. I think that’s what I’m most worried about with Trump.

The first few months

Gaius_Marius — Gaius Marius: The Beginning of the End for Rome

History does not afford us counterfactuals with which to test the following claim, but it seems the first few months and the first two years in particular are when brave patriots have to stand up and take risks in the face of encroaching authoritarianism.

If the authoritarian finds little resistance to eroding institutional checks on his power, the regime can move much more quickly. I am worried about where the checks and balances on Trump’s power will come from in his first few months in office.

I’m desperately reading Plutarch’s Fall of The Roman Republic right now, looking for signs of the end of our republic. Plutarch describes Senators bowing before the Roman strongman Gaius Marius[1], who demanded a humiliating oath. One of Marius earliest mentors Metallus remains an honorable Senator to the end, saying:

“It is certainly sordid to do the wrong thing, and anyone can do the right thing when there is no danger attached; what distinguishes the good man from others is that when danger is involved he still does right.”

Where is the principled institutional opposition to Trump? Are there enough good men and women?

I assume the Democratic opposition – such as it is in 2016 and 2017 – will try its best. I expect newspapers and legitimate news organizations will continue to claim that the rise of Trump is “Not Normal” in terms of the threat to constitutional government in the United States.

Hitler_New_York_Times — NYTimes on Hitler, in 1922: He probably doesn’t literally mean that Anti-Semitism, does he?

What will the courts do? Will a Republican Congress stand up to him? How will governors and mayors respond? Will good people in the FBI, the military, the police, and the NSA do what’s right, rather than what he may ask them to do? All of these people and institutions will be tested.

Please see related posts on Trump:

Trump Part I – Fever Dreams

Trump Part III – The Uses of A Security Crisis

Trump Part IV – The Uses of an Economic Crisis

Trump Part V – The Constitutional Crisis

Trump VI – Principled Republican Leadership

Also, previously:

Trump as Candidate – Sovereign Debt Genius

Clinton and Trump as Candidates – Economic Policies Compared

[1] Marius was born 57 years before Caesar and ruled Rome approximately 50 years before him. His authoritarian descent into murderous rule – followed by similar strongmen like Sulla – is one of the precipitating events leading to the fall of the Roman Republic and the conversion of the Republic to an Empire under the Caesars.

Post read (397) times.

November 30, 2016December 7, 2016

Trump Part I – Fever Dreams

I haven’t slept well since the Presidential election.

The Trump presidency – an unlikely nightmare until the night of November 8^th – suddenly became reality.

Taking Trump Seriously

A week before the election, Trump’s biggest Silicon Valley supporter (PayPal founder, early Facebook investor, and Gawker Destroyer) Peter Thiel offered us all some insight.[1]

“…[T]he media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously but it always takes him literally. I think a lot of the voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally.”

He was right about the media – and probably many Clinton supporters – that Trump as a candidate often seemed fundamentally un-serious. We are now beyond the realm of what voters thought, and into the new world of Trump as President. We have to take him both seriously, and literally.

And that’s what keeps me up at night. His literal words are a nightmare.

Fever-dream of the future

What follows here are not predictions – as people who predict the future generally don’t know what they’re talking about (or they have something to sell.) I have nothing to sell. So these are not predictions, but rather fever-dreams of a possible future.

I need to write this down because I want – if any of the worst comes true – to be able to record that we knew this was possible, even from the beginning.

If Trump turns out to be the authoritarian that I fear he is, I at least want the (sad, pitiful) solace of being able to say “we saw the signs from the very start. We knew what could happen.” I think it’s safe to say his supporters and voters do not fear an authoritarian Trump regime in the same way I do. I hope for all our sakes, I am wrong and they are right.

It’s also safe to say many of Trump’s opponents do not fear Trump in quite the same way I do. By that I mean as a middle-class straight white male I don’t have precisely the same personal fears of Trump’s Presidency as do others. Although I’d like to think I’m “woke” enough to heed Neimoller’s warning about what will happen when they finally do come for me.[2]

My own fears about Trump tend to focus on an institutional crisis – his clear threats to constitutional democracy.

I find myself looking back at the rise of earlier demagogues and authoritarians, looking for lessons and signposts.

The authoritarian’s rise

The rise of demagogues and authoritarians does not pertain specifically to a story of the Left or Right. We need to study and understand the Hitler narrative, but also Hugo Chavez, and Vladimir Putin. These stories can teach us the patterns, and we need to study and watch these patterns closely.

First, dictatorship often comes through the ballot box. It did for Hitler, who led a minority Nazi party invited into power and legitimacy by arch-conservative plutocrats who decided it was better to have him inside the tent[3], where they could better control and benefit from his worst impulses.[4]

It did for Chavez, who legitimately won the Presidency of Venezuela in 1998 via an election.

A few people since the election have linked to a passage from philosopher Richard Riorty’s 1998 Achieving Our Country with a vision of a strongman coming to power in the United States. I’m afraid it’s too scarily accurate. It captures what’s happened, so far.

From Riorty’s book:

“…Members of labor unions and unorganized unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking, to prevent jobs from being exported…that suburban white collar workers are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for – someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and post-modernist professors will no longer be calling the shots.

A scenario like that of Sinclair Lewis’ novel It Can’t Happen Here may then be played out. For once such a strongman takes office, nobody can predict what will happen. In 1932, most of the predictions made about what would happen if Hindenburg named Hitler chancellor were wildly over-optimistic.

One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words “nigger” and “kike” will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly-educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet. But such a renewal of sadism will not alter the effects of selfishness. For after my imagined strongman takes charge, he will quickly make his peace with the international super-rich, just as Hitler made his with the German industrialists.

… He will be a disaster for the country and the world. People will wonder why there was so little resistance to his evitable rise. Where, they will ask, was the American Left? Why was it only rightists like Buchanan who spoke to the workers about the consequences of globalization? Why could not the Left channel the mounting rage of the newly dispossessed?”

All I can say is: Riorty, in 1998, was accurate!

Please see further Trump posts:

Trump Part II – The Rise of Elected Authoritarians

Trump Part III – The Use of a Security Crises

Trump Part IV – The Use of an Economic Crisis

Trump Part IV – The Constitutional Crisis

Trump Part VI – Principled Republican Leadership

And related Posts:

Trump as Candidate – Sovereign Debt Genius

Candidates Trump and Clinton – Economic Policy

[1] It appears that Thiel probably lifted and amplified the phrase from a headline and article by Selena Zito in the Atlantic that appeared in September 2016.

[2] The German Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller’s warning of course reminds us that although I will not be picked up first, I and everyone else has a duty to speak out about authoritarian round-ups:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

[3] Pissing outward, etc etc

[4] Trump was not particularly embraced by his country’s plutocrats before the election. Technology and finance titans from Soros to Silicon Valley executives on the (presumed) left opposed his campaign, while many of the plutocrats on the right (including the politically-active Koch brothers) similarly declined to support him prior to the election. Famously, no CEOs of Fortune 100 companies backed Trump publicly, while 11 CEOs backed Clinton. Some of that lack of CEO support may be explained by the fact that Clinton was ahead in the polls, and therefore a safer bet, all the way until election day. But still, Trump certainly wasn’t “handed the throne” by a group of high-profile business elites.

Post read (1204) times.

November 19, 2016November 19, 2016

College Finance – A Response

Editor’s Note: The History Teacher sent his eldest daughter off to a private four-year college this Fall, so read my posts on college finance with particular interest, and decided to respond. As you can read, his views on their choices are also influenced by the recent election.

Dear Michael:

These thoughts were prompted by your recent blog post on College Finance Prep. I have been thinking about it ever since, because I did not take your mother’s advice for my daughter. It was a hard decision, as her advice is usually the kind I (as a former teacher and advisor) would give to parents and students: save your money, go to a Community College, then a public college.

Indeed, that is exactly what I did and it turned out just fine. However, recent studies of the impact of globalization and technology on future employment trends have given me cause for concern about the benefits of an education similar to mine. To be honest, I don’t think I would be particularly employable in this new environment. I had always hoped that my daughters would be prepared, but a video on Artificial Intelligence and an article on college education caused me to change my mind about how best ready my daughters for the future. The video predicts the growing importance of Artificial Intelligence and explains how we are close to having AIs do many of the jobs that professionals do today in journalism, law, and medicine. Those with typical college degrees, like mine, would not be employable or particularly valued in such an AI dominated world.

The second is a newspaper report on a study of critical thinking and university education that found:

“Forty-five percent of students made no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college, according to the study. After four years, 36 percent showed no significant gains in these so-called “higher order” thinking skills.”

I vividly recall an HR executive at a tech company, lamenting to me the lack of critical thinking ability of many of her recent hires – from the local public university – who only knew how to solve problems by going through check lists. If the solution was not on the list, they could not solve the problem.

Without developing critical thinking skills, I fear that my daughter would lead an unreflective and unfulfilling life. In addition, she would not be able to compete with AIs and she would fall through the social and economic cracks of the AI-dominated future. Thus, after much consideration with my wife, we decided to sacrifice a great deal to financially support our daughter through a very expensive, private liberal arts college.

We had three reasons for doing so and one of them already seems to be paying off in her freshman year. The most important is the quality of the teaching she is receiving. She is taking interesting classes (not your usual Introductory courses), working really hard, and stretching her knowledge, her critical thinking skills and exercising her creativity. There is a great deal of interaction with the professors and other students as the classes are small. I am most pleased that she is developing skills of social and human collaboration. She is learning and maturing considerably. This compares favorably to her former high school classmates who are in freshman classes of 500 or more at a nearby public university.

The second is her ability to make useful connections with her professors (who can recommend her to grad schools) and her upwardly mobile classmates (who might help her in the future with employment). We shall have to wait and see if this has any long term benefit.

Finally, there exists a cachet of being at a top ranked college which might help her with both grad school applications and with employment. Am I wrong here? From your personal experience, has your Harvard education helped you in this regard?[1] I think it is probably the least important reason, but it is still a factor.

I do not mean to argue that all public institutions do not provide critical thinking skills or that only private liberal arts institutions do, but that students need to select their college choices with this in mind. Thus, if they can find a public university with an honors program and/or whose classes emphasize reading and writing critical essays and research papers, they should take up the opportunity and challenge. According to Dr. Aram: “Students who took courses heavy on both reading (more than 40 pages a week) and writing (more than 20 pages in a semester) showed higher rates of learning.” This should be a minimum standard for an expensive private university. The key is for students and parents to be informed consumers.

Editor: And now, some further thoughts from The History Teacher, prompted by the election results:

I am writing this sitting in front of my computer still stunned at the election results and listening to Gregorian Chants (they suit the raining weather and my mood). Indeed, I woke up this morning dreaming about a war with Iran.

I feel like one of the “good Germans” who were Social Democrats or Volks Partie and voted against but then could only just watch in horror. Well, as Marx wrote about Napoleon III, to paraphrase, everything in history happens twice, the first time it is a tragedy, the second it is a farce. I tried to escape by reading PG Wodehouse and delving into the past (those sensible Plantagenets.)

I feel too drained to have any emotion at this stage. This feeling is family wide, except for the dog: Mary and my daughters are very depressed. We are all in mourning. Anna cried and Cecilia[2] said that she and her friends at Middlebury are walking around with vacant expressions on their faces. I have stopped watching the TV and reading the papers for the nonce: just too masochistic.

Forced to my own resources, I am trying to make sense of it all. To me, it boils down to education or the lack thereof (surprise, me being a teacher). Trump supporters with their racism, misogyny, and grievances are the product of a refusal to recognize reality (France constructing the Maginot Line—remember?) and a lack of critical thinking skills. They have learned how to memorize and use check lists to solve problems, but not to analyze. As a consequence, the modern economy with its emphasis on technology, globalization, and the absolute requirement of the ability to work with diverse teams are leaving them behind. Trump might as well try to stop the tide as to stop this process.

It is going to get worse as Artificial Intelligence becomes more and more utilized. The latter will threaten the livelihoods of the college educated, particularly those who did not develop critical thinking skills.

[1] Banker’s Response: I didn’t enjoy Harvard at all but I’ll admit it’s been totally useful as a door-opening brand.

[2] We made up these names to maintain the fun of anonymity!

Please see related posts:

529 Accounts are for Grandparents

College Finance Prep

Want to See Something Really Scary? College Tuition

Post read (158) times.

November 9, 2016November 9, 2016

Legal Realism – Or – What I am Most Worried About Today

My favorite financial blogger is Matt Levine on Bloomberg. My favorite course in college was called Legal Realism.

The mashup of these two personal favorites this morning – to explain my deepest fears about the election results – are worth reading.

Take it away, Matt:

Hmm.

The summer before I started law school, 15 years ago, I read a little book by Karl Llewellyn called “The Bramble Bush.” It’s basically a “Law School for Dummies” type thing from 1930, full of somewhat outdated advice on how to ace your classes and impress your professors. But Llewellyn was a leading thinker of the school of thought known as “legal realism,” and “The Bramble Bush” is also a major statement of that philosophy. In a famous passage, Llewellyn wrote:

“This doing of something about disputes, this doing of it reasonably, is the business of the law. And the people who have the doing of it in charge, whether they be judges or sheriffs or clerks or jailers or lawyers, are officials of the law. What these officials do about disputes is, to my mind, the law itself.”

He went on:

“And rules, in all of this, are important to you so far as they help you see or predict what judges will do or so far as they help you to get judges to do something. That is their importance. That is all their importance, except as pretty playthings.”

And then I went to law school. And I took the first-year course in Constitutional Law, and I learned about the fundamental principles that rule the United States. And I learned — or at least was given the general impression — that, while the country has not always lived up to those principles, in the long run, the Constitution has served as a wise guide and constraint on the power of our rulers, and the foundation of our system of government.

But in the back of my mind I thought about Llewellyn. I thought about the fact that those principles can’t automatically enact themselves, that they only work if the human actors in the system choose to follow them and to demand that others follow them. They persist because the people constrained by them believe themselves to be constrained by them. The Constitution, separation of powers, religious liberty, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, equality of all citizens: There is a complacent sense in America that these things are independent self-operative checks on power. But they aren’t. They are checks on power only as far as they command the collective loyalty of those in power; they require a governing class that cares about law and government and American tradition, rather than personal power and revenge. Their magic is fragile, and can disappear if people who don’t believe in it gain power.

Anyway this is a financial newsletter, so I’ll tell you that S&P 500 futures were limit down at minus 5 percent overnight, before paring losses. The Fed probably won’t hike in December now. Foreign markets have had a wild ride. Treasury yields plunged, I guess an indication that default is not too imminent. Bitcoin rallied. The Mexican peso is … best not to look. Maybe everything will be fine!

Things are not ok.

Post read (849) times.

November 9, 2016

Trump Wins. Markets Panic. Why?

Stock markets worldwide will drop significantly tomorrow, and throughout the rest of the week, as US and global investors recalibrate their expectations of the United States due to the little-anticipated Donald Trump victory in today’s Presidential election.

Stock Market

From an individual investor perspective, I suddenly have deep regrets about two pieces of 100% rock-solid advice I’ve given out about personal investing in the stock market. The first is that there’s no particular advantage to owning ETFs over mutual funds, since nobody should really need to trade their personal stock holdings in the middle of the day. ETFs allow you to trade at any time when markets are open, whereas mutual fund investors can only trade based on the day’s closing price. But I’ve never believed any individual investor should be in a such a hurry to sell that a mid-day trade is better than an end-of-day trade.

With the victory of Donald Trump, I’m really sad that I have to wait until the end of tomorrow to sell stocks, rather than mid-day.

Implicit in this comment is my second deep regret. My advice has always been the Winston Churchillian rock-solid “Never, never, never never sell.”

But of course now I want to. It will take all my will-power to do nothing, as I watch stock market values plunge tomorrow.

******

In a seemingly unrelated vein, (but is it?) my favorite Tracy Chapman song “Why” goes like this:

“Why do the babies starve when there’s enough food to feed the world?

Why are the missiles called Peacekeepers, when they’re aimed to kill?

Why is a woman still not safe, when she’s in her home?

Love is Hate. War is Peace. No is Yes. We’re all free.”

No Gridlock

It’s both a cliche and a truism that Wall Street prefers gridlock in Washington. Gridlock is predictable. Gridlock is stable. It prevents wild swings in policy. A divided Executive and Legislative branch tempers drastic or rapid change in regulations.

With a newly elected and strongly Republican House and Senate, and Donald Trump appearing to have a “mandate” for his bat-shit crazy ideas, whims, and personal vendettas, who is going to be the check and balance on the worst ideas from that side of the aisle? Like Trump’s fiscal spending plan, for example, estimated by a bipartisan budget group to add $5 Trillion to the federal deficit? Like Trump’s continual threats to unilaterally alter trade agreements or punish our most important trading partners like Mexico and China?

******

Tracy Chapman continues singing in my head:

“But somebody’s gonna have to answer

The time is coming soon

When the blind remove their blinders

And the speechless speak the truth.”

******

US Treasurys

US Treasury bonds typically live in what the kids on the show Stranger Things would call The Upside Down. Meaning, if stocks go down, bonds go up. When stocks go up, bonds can go either sideways or down. And that’s what’s happening with a Trump victory tonight. A huge bond rally is happening right now, overnight, as I type this at midnight on Election night.

But also, this rally in US Treasury is a totally bonkers reaction to a Trump victory, since Trump actually threatened to renegotiate US sovereign debts, if need be. No responsible financial or political US leader has ever made that threat. We’ve never defaulted, or threatened to default. Alexander Hamilton’s lasting contribution¹ to our country’s strength is our rock solid credit, ever since 1789. Threatening US Treasury default is the kind of Third-World bush-league bullshit disruption that bond people don’t appreciate, and which I wrote last summer would have unknowable but possibly catastrophic consequences for our country, which actually is heavily indebted but treated like a safe bet in world markets. Until now.

Back to you, Tracy:

“But somebody’s gonna have to answer

The time is coming soon

Amidst all these questions and contradictions

There’re some who seek the truth.

Love is Hate

War is Peace

No is Yes

We’re all Free.”

Why?

Post read (562) times.

Outside of inspiring Ron Chernow and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s book and show, respectively ↩

October 25, 2016

Pretending Economic Policy Matters

This Presidential election is absolutely not about economic policy.

To pretend that you’re choosing your presidential candidate in the 2016 election based on economic policy – after this campaign season – is as absurd as claiming you used to purchase Playboy for the articles.

Even so, let’s pretend for a moment that this election was about economic issues. Where do the two major candidates stand?

Trade

First, Trump. Trump introduced himself to the Presidential race in June 2015 by threatening to impose a 35% tax on manufacturing from Mexico. He frequently claims that he would unilaterally renegotiate better trade deals with China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Although the Republican Party historically has a clearer track record than the Democratic Party of supporting increased international trade, Trump appears somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders when it comes to trade liberalization. I have the strong impression that he not only does not support international trade, but he also does not really understand how trade agreements work. Trade wars make almost everyone poorer.

Clinton claims to support increased trade, but has chosen to oppose the already-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), because it might not create jobs, at good wages, while protecting national security. See, again, that’s not how international trade treaties work. Nobody gets a guaranteed job, at a guaranteed “good wage” from a negotiated trade treaty. Some people over time, in fact, lose their jobs or get a worse wage, while other people – like consumers and many business owners – benefit from trade. I think she knows this. Trump appears uninformed, while Clinton appears the opposite of straightforward.

Wall Street

Trump’s stance vis-à-vis Wall Street remains unclear to me. I mean, he’s promised to lower top corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 15 percent, as well as top personal income tax rates to 33 percent, from the current 39.6 percent. That is presumably welcomed in the canyon-lands of lower Manhattan, or wherever executives expect a substantial payday.

In addition, his approach to encouraging economic growth is to roll back or lower government regulations, which might also be welcomed in some parts of Wall Street.

On the other hand, can we be certain he won’t just round up top executives like Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan and Lloyd Blankfein from Goldman Sachs and have them fight – gladiator-style while wearing giant sumo suits – in the middle of Times Square? The winner gets his Wall Street firm automatically nationalized and re-branded “Trump Money,” while the losing executive is drawn-and-quartered by the Budweiser Clydesdales from the 9/11 ad, on live television. Are we sure that won’t happen? Consider the ratings potential! Other than that, I think he’d be fine for Wall Street.

Clinton’s approach, by contrast, appears more predictable. She posits that “Wall Street must work for Main Street,” risky firms must be monitored more closely, and that senior executives must be held responsible for firm losses, each of which might make Wall Street wary of her presidency.

On the other hand, you and I both know what those paid speeches were for. I personally would have no problem getting paid $1.8 million to give 8 boring speeches to Wall Street firms. In fact, I’m just checking my calendar now…Hang on, let’s see, yup, I’m wide open for the next few weeks, so Lloyd, send me a Snap.

Taxes

Speaking of taxes, Trump would repeal the Death Tax, otherwise known as the estate tax, and otherwise known as my favorite tax.

Clinton proposes increasing estate taxes by reverting back to their 2009 level, and increasing taxes on some of the largest estates. I prefer Clinton’s approach, naturally.

Both Clinton and Trump have stated support for eliminating the carried-interest tax break enjoyed by private equity and hedge fund owners, for which I applaud them both. Neither will do it because #campaigncontributions but still, it’s a great thought.

As a side note on taxes: I have zero problem with Trump’s tax return showing nearly a billion dollars in business losses in 1995, which might have relieved him of paying income taxes for the following 15 years or so. I’m sorry to say, Virginia, that the income tax game is a bit rigged in favor of the wealthy. We shouldn’t expect people to pay taxes they don’t legally owe. Trump’s tax-free status is probably entirely legal based on our current tax code, so don’t get mad at him for that.

Energy Policy

Trump proposes a grab-bag of energy-policy liberalization approaches. On his website he announces plans to “rescind all job-destroying Obama executive actions. Mr. Trump will reduce and eliminate all barriers to responsible energy production,” which includes encouraging coal production, and additional oil and gas drilling, in particular on federal lands. It seem plausible to me that this anti-regulation approach would lower the cost of energy for most people and businesses, and thereby provide economic stimulus to the economy.

Clinton has a more mixed approach, which we can intuit from the fact that her official campaign “energy policy” presentation is really expressed in terms of environmental policy, climate change, and an economic safety net for displaced coal workers. As Secretary of State she promoted the “Global Shale Gas Initiative” (read: she promoted fracking), although she has subsequently called for “smart regulations” of the industry in her book Hard Choices. We should probably expect higher energy costs as a result of her administration.

Also, maybe our coastal cities won’t be underwater in twenty years? It’s a trade-off.

Love the gridlock

We have had imperfect candidates for a long time. Often we even elect them to the highest office. So far at least, the inertia of our constitutional system has kept our electoral mistakes manageable. We’ve had a good political run surviving 228 years of imperfect leaders. I’m going to adopt the optimistic view that we’ll survive this next President, and hopefully the next 228 years as well.

The “Washington gridlock” we all claim to hate may be our best insurance against candidates we don’t like. The system, by design, stymies the Executive branch, and that’s a good thing. I’m frightened by this election, but I’m trying to take the long view. I will certainly vote.

Finally, I mentioned Playboy above because economic policy means absolutely nothing this time around.

The centerfold of this campaign has been all about sexual harassment, locker-room talk, “stamina,” testosterone levels, former President Bill Clinton’s womanizing, fat-shaming, and tiny fingers. I suspect we will all vote according to where we stand on these important issues, not the economy.

A version of this post ran in the San Antonio Express News and The Houston Chronicle.

Please see related posts:

Trump – Sovereign Debt Genius

Death and Taxes

Carried Interest Loophole

The Primary Candidates

Post read (218) times.