Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Good Point on Trump & Markets

A comment over at MR:

I am perplexed by the strength of the markets. I think Trump is a buffoon – but a very amusing buffoon with the right sort of political enemies. I would have thought that the markets would be more upset. After all, they bought and paid for Hillary. Surely they expected value for money?

It suggests that the Clintons weren’t selling influence. They were selling protection. People had to pay them or they would regret it later when Hillary was in power. So everyone is relieved that they are gone. For now.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Assad is Hitler. Putin is Hitler. Trump is Hitler. Iran is led by multiple Hitlers. Climate change deniers are Hitler. Did you hear about the Burmese Hitler? This Burmese monk gets the double whammy of being called the Buddhist Bin Laden in the headline and then compared to Hitler later in the article. This article is a brilliant peek into the mind of our elite as they frame things the way they want. Like an ocean wave wearing down the rockiest sea shore, it is a repeated trick that affords control simply because of repetition. Wirathu, the little Buddhist monk, is no Hitler.

http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/10/04/hitlers-everywhere/

Anonymous said...

The market-minded might say, "Well, let's wait a little longer and see what happens." The uncharitable might spot a wee bit of cognitive bias in this. I guess one test will be whether, at the first downturn, coordinated narratives that it's actually all Obama's/proxies' fault start to bubble up. That's been mentioned as a possibility here for a while, so CBS gets a pass, mostly, but if it starts making it onto Facebook pages ("Oh, Soros and the Fed are meeting at midnight in the Washington Monument to take down Trump, the MSM is in on the con") I'll suspect something's up....

Anonymous said...

(Or to put it another way: the human mind is fantastically well-suited to discerning narratives that both do and do not exist).

Anonymous said...

http://www.creditbubblestocks.com/2017/02/secrets-of-temple-how-federal-reserve.html

Anonymous said...

If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism and superior to it.

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/

1L said...

FDR ultimately beat the Supreme Court by being president for longer than a majority of them had any life in them. Over the course of his four terms in office, he appointed seven justices, and unlike some of the crappy appointments by recent Republican presidents, every single one of FDR’s appointees agreed with him on the issue that was important back then, the power of the federal government to create economic regulations.

https://lionoftheblogosphere.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/how-fdr-beat-the-courts/

1L said...

Lawfare:

One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. Cf. Brown v. Buhman, 947 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Utah 2013), appeal pending, No. 14- 4117 (CA10). Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” ante, at 13, why would there be any less dignity in the bond be- tween three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry?


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Anonymous said...

What is the next term in the series: farm, factory, office…? There isn’t one. The evolution of work has come to an end point, and the human race knows this in its bones. Actually in its reproductive organs: the farmer of 1800 had six or seven kids, the factory worker of 1900 three or four, the cube jockey of 2000 one or two. The superfluous humans of 2100, if there are any, will hold at zero. What would be the point of doing otherwise?