Trump and Corbyn; brothers in unelectability?

Posted by: Bruce Woodhouse on 04 May 2016

So we have two parties whose membership have risen up and defied the 'conventional' choices and selected two leaders that appear to wider opinion to be unelectable. Corbyn had a huge groundswell of support in the party membership, but minimal amongst his parliamentary colleagues. Trump is an outsider largely loathed by the party establishment elected in defiance by party members. There are differences of course-Trump spent millions on advertising and has an ego the size of the moon, and Corbyn looks like a retired geography teacher with a bus pass but you get my point

So are these victories for the people, the previously voiceless and unrepresented radicals, or suicide notes for their representative parties?

Will both parties be picking through the ashes of election disasters in coming years and wondering where it went wrong? Or will we have President Trump meeting brother Corbyn at Chequers for a relaxing weeknd in a few years time? Now that is an image with which to conjour....

Bruce

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by Don Atkinson

Doom and gloom.

Trump, Clinton, Cameron, Corbyn, Boris, Brexit, Scottish Independence..........

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by Chris Dolan

Jeremy Hunt

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by MDS

'U-turn' Nicky Morgan

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by DrMark

Here is that article, written by a guy who used to consult on economic matters with the CIA, as well as work in Big Banking. Just an opinion, but the MSM will never even look at this, both because of control/complicity and ignorance. It is just an opinion, but from someone who understands the system having worked in it for his entire career, and it makes a good bit of sense inasmuch as it benefits the selfish bastards who always seem to win when they rig the system and create a mess; the politicians and banksters, and leaves the "proletariat" (that's us) screwed.

Robert Triffin was a Belgian economist who lived from 1911–1993. He was regarded as one of the leading authorities on gold, currencies and the international monetary system during his career. He made many notable contributions to international economics, but his most famous was the articulation of what became known as “Triffin’s dilemma.”

The paradox of Triffin’s dilemma was pointed out in the early 1960s, yet its implications are just now coming into full view. Far from a relic of the past, Triffin’s dilemma is the key to understanding the future of the international monetary system.

Triffin’s dilemma arose from the Bretton Woods system established in 1944. Under that system, the dollar was pegged to gold at $35.00 per ounce. Other major currencies were pegged to the dollar at fixed exchange rates. The architects of the system knew that these other exchange rates might have to be devalued from time to time, mostly because of trade deficits, but the devaluation process was designed to be slow and cumbersome.

A country that wanted to devalue (for example, the U.K. in 1967) first had to consult with the International Monetary Fund, IMF. The IMF would typically recommend structural changes, to fiscal policy, tax policy and other areas designed to cure the trade deficit.

The IMF also stood ready to offer bridge loans of hard currency to help the deficit-hit country withstand temporary stresses while the structural changes were implemented. Only if the structural changes failed and the trade deficits were persistent would the IMF allow devaluation.

That was the process for countries other than the U.S. As far as the U.S. was concerned, the link between gold and the dollar was fixed for all time and could never be changed. The dollar/gold link was the anchor of the entire system.

This fixed link between the dollar and gold made the dollar the most prized reserve currency in the world. That was the hidden agenda of Bretton Woods. With the dollar as the main reserve currency, U.K. pounds sterling, a competing reserve currency, would eventually fall by the wayside.

The U.K. relied on Imperial Preference among its trading partners in the British Commonwealth to gain trade surpluses, and also relied on the willingness of those Commonwealth partners to hold sterling in their reserves. The Bank of England assumed Commonwealth members would not ask to convert the sterling to gold. Imperial Preference came under attack by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT, which was also part of Bretton Woods. (Today, GATT is known as the World Trade Organization, WTO.)

Bretton Woods was a one-two combination punch designed by the U.S. to destroy the British empire. GATT undermined Imperial Preference. The dollar-gold link undermined sterling. It worked. The U.K.’s trade deficits persisted, and the Commonwealth partners demanded their gold. Eventually, the pound sterling was devalued, and the empire dissolved. It was replaced by a new age of U.S. empire and King Dollar.

There was only one problem, and Robert Triffin pointed this out. If the dollar was the lead reserve currency, then the entire world needed dollars to finance world trade. In order to supply these dollars, the U.S. had to run trade deficits.

The U.S. sold a lot of goods abroad, but Americans quickly developed an appetite for Japanese electronics, German cars, French vacations and other foreign goods and services. Today, China has replaced Japan as the main source of exports to the U.S.; still, Americans have not lost their appetite for imports financed by printing dollars.

So the U.S. ran trade deficits, the world got dollars and global trade flourished. But if you run deficits long enough, you go broke. That was Triffin’s dilemma. Any system based on dollars would eventually cause the dollar to collapse because there would either be too many dollars or not enough gold at fixed prices to keep the game going. This paradox between dollar deficits and dollar confidence was unsustainable.

This system did break down in the 1970s. The solution then was to abolish the dollar-gold peg in 1971, and demonetize gold in 1974. But there was a third leg of the stool invented in 1969 — the IMF’s Special Drawing Right, SDR.

The SDR was a new kind of world money printed by the IMF. The idea was that it could be used as a reserve currency side by side with the dollar. This meant that if the U.S. cured its trade deficit, and supplied fewer dollars to the world, any shortfall in reserves could be made up by printing SDRs.

In fact, SDRs were printed and handed out repeatedly during the dollar crisis from 1969–1980. But then a new King Dollar age was started by Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan, with some help from Henry Kissinger, the king of Saudi Arabia and private bankers like my old boss Walter Wriston at Citibank.

Under the new King Dollar system, U.S. interest rates would be high enough to make the dollar an attractive reserve asset even without gold backing. Remember those 20% interest rates of the early 1980s?

Henry Kissinger also persuaded Saudi Arabia to keep pricing oil in dollars. This “petrodollar deal” meant that countries that wanted oil needed dollars to pay for it whether they liked the dollar or not.

The Arabs deposited the dollars they received in Citibank, Chase and the other big banks of the day. The bankers, led by Wriston at Citibank and David Rockefeller at Chase, then loaned the money to Asia, South America and Africa.

From there, the dollars were used to buy U.S. exports like aircraft, heavy equipment and agricultural produce. Suddenly, the game started up again, this time without gold. This new Age of King Dollar lasted from 1980–2010.

Still, it was all based on confidence in the dollar. Triffin’s dilemma never went away; it was just in the background waiting to re-emerge while the world binged on new dollar creation and forgot about gold. The U.S. ran persistent large trade deficits during this entire 30-year period as Triffin predicted. The world gorged on dollar reserves with China leading the way in the 1990s and early 2000s.

The new game ended in 2010 with the start of a currency war in the aftermath of the Panic of 2008. Trading partners are again jockeying for position as they did in the early 1970s. A new systemic collapse is waiting in the wings.

The weak dollar of 2011 was designed to stimulate U.S. growth and keep the world from sinking into a new depression. It worked in the short run, but then the tables are turned. The dollar strengthened again, while the euro and yen weakened. That gave Japan and Europe some relief, but it came at the expense of the U.S., where growth had slowed down again. The dollar-yuan peg with China also contributed to a slowdown in China.

Now the tables are turning again after global elites reached the secret “Shanghai Accord” in February. The plan was to weaken the yuan without having China officially devalue its currency. Surprise devaluations by Beijing rocked global markets last August and this January. To avoid that outcome, it was decided the dollar had to be weakened. That lets China maintain its dollar peg while also creating a cheaper yuan to boost its economy.

The world’s monetary authorities decided the U.S. and China can devalue relative to Europe and Japan. But that just moves the global weakness back to them.

Is there no way to escape the room? Is there no way out of Triffin’s dilemma?

A new gold standard might be one way to solve the problem, but it would require a gold price of $10,000 per ounce in order to be nondeflationary. No central banker in the world wants that, because it limits their ability to print money and be central economic planners.

Is there an alternative to gold? There is one other way out. That’s our old friend, the SDR. The brilliance of the SDR solution is that it solves Triffin’s dilemma.

Recall the paradox is that the reserve currency issuer has to run trade deficits, but if you run deficits long enough, you go broke. But SDRs are issued by the IMF. The IMF is not a country and does not have a trade deficit. In theory, the IMF can print SDRs forever and never go broke. The SDRs just go round and round among the IMF members in a closed circuit.

Individuals won’t have SDRs. Only countries will have them in their reserves. These countries have no desire to break the new SDR system, because they’re all in it together. The U.S. is no longer the boss. Instead, you have the “Five Families” consisting of China, Japan, the U.S., Europe and Russia operating through the IMF.

The only losers are the citizens of the IMF member countries — people like you and I — who will suffer local currency inflation. I’m preparing with gold and hard assets, but most people will be caught unaware, like the Greeks who lined up at empty ATMs last August.

This SDR system is so little understood that people won’t know where the inflation is coming from. Elected officials will blame the IMF, but the IMF is unaccountable. That’s the beauty of SDRs — Triffin’s dilemma is solved, debt problems are inflated away and no one is accountable.

That’s the global elite plan in a nutshell.

We never take our eye off the IMF and its plans to expand the use of SDRs. The IMF included the Chinese yuan in the SDR basket late last year to make sure the Chinese are “on the bus” when the endgame begins. That’s an important step in the SDR process.

This story has longer to run, but the endgame is already in sight.

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by MDS

An interesting article, Dr Mark, but the conclusion 'debt problems are inflated away and no-one is accountable' doesn't seem to be happening. Inflation in developed economies seems to have been next to zero for years with no prospect of it picking up in the near to medium term.

Mike

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by ken c

very interesting article Dr Mark. need to read it again to make sure i have understood it.

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 07 May 2016 by DrMark

Regarding inflation: that is partly his point - they have achieved a situation that is so out of balance that the QE in regular currencies hasn't produced the inflation they want/need. (For the USA, deflation brings them ever closer to default. Inflating debt away is their only hope, because they can never afford to pay it. And the 'It's OK because we owe it to ourselves" canard is just that; "ourselves" includes retirees counting on Social Security.)Including off budget liabilities, according to the US government's own numbers we now owe about $60 TRILLION dollars - the numbers are so staggering one cannot truly comprehend them.

Debt must either be paid, refinanced, or defaulted - those are the only possibilities. The first 2 are no longer possible, and @ss-clowns like Trump and Hillary aren't going to do anything but make it worse...she'll kill more people than he will, at least that's where it stands for now. The neocons are very persuasive, so they may get The Donald to come around to their way of thinking, and then he can wage endless war and endanger the European continent and Middle East. (After all, the dumb-ass doesn't even have a real position, so he is a clean slate on which they can write.)

Even negative interest rates haven't worked. Interest rates have been artificially low (as opposed to being set by market forces) for so long all it has accomplished is a horrible mis-allocation of capital, and there will be a huge wave of corporate defaults, which is when things will start to get away from them. (Everyone focuses on the stock market, but the bond market is where it's at, and it is much larger than the stock markets.)

Almost every Western government is bankrupt in the true sense of that term. And who we elect changes none of this, since nothing changes irrespective of who wins the reality show popularity contest. (Which is all it really is anyway.)

Another typical misunderstanding is that inflation is merely defined as a rise in consumer prices. I think inflation has existed in staple items (like food) and the numbers have largely been held down by what is happening in the oil markets. (That and government chicanery with how the numbers are ciphered.) But inflation has a lot more to do with the money supply, and at present most of that freshly "printed" money has landed with the corporations and banks...the only "trickle down" for someone like me is I have a job whereas without the free and low cost of borrowed money, I might not. But now that the punch bowl is empty, I think we will see some real interesting earnings (or lack thereof) - there will be some triggering event; a crucial bank failure, a terrorist event, or something that will serve as the spark to ignite the whole mess.

Cracks are already starting to show in the high yield bond market, with more to come, and I fear a lot of people are going to lose their jobs in the next few years. (As I like to say about my company's highly overpaid (he's in the 9 figure club) CEO; "He's not going to go without Chateaubriand just so a bunch of commoners can feed their families.") The scenario outlined above in the article will be how they save their own asses, while sacrificing ours. Don't worry, inflation will come...in our currencies, while the SDRs bail out the elites.

Savers are getting destroyed by a lack of yield, and many pensions are predicated on having a certain level of return of around 6%, which is not obtainable without taking on a great deal of risk. Ireland recently issues a 100 year bond paying like 2%. Why would anyone want that kind of return over that length of time from a nation that almost went bankrupt not that long ago? It's insane, and when it starts unraveling, it could be ugly.

Hence the need for the SDRs as outlined in the article - it will allow them to default without defaulting, and I think a LOT of people are going to be very surprised and then cry out to the very people who shat upon them to save them. It's not a certainty, but it sounds more likely than anything else - these guys save their own asses, and they don't care about ours.

Posted on: 08 May 2016 by Don Atkinson

On a more positive note.................

.....what are the solutions ?

Dr Mark, you go first................

Posted on: 08 May 2016 by DrMark

Of course the solutions are complex, and it depends on what you mean by a "solution" - is it the ultimate solution for all mankind, or a solution as to how to deal with the inevitable? But there have been many books written, and more that could be.

Since something along the lines of what the article will almost inevitably happen, I think the financial solution on an individual basis is to own hard assets that will be worth something in any currency. This could come in the form of precious metals, real estate (particularly productive farm land - people will always need food), or other real property that will always retain value, lie a business that produces something people want. (Or Naim amplifiers? Eureka, we're all rich!)

One must keep in mind that a currency is simply a really fluid measuring stick by which we measure value; when we say something is worth "X dollars" or "Y Euros" we tend to assign a value in our mind based on that familiar measuring system. It really has nothing to do with what that item is "worth". The history and function of currency is a long and fairly interesting topic.

Of course the ultimate solution is, in my opinion, unattainable. However, a start would be to let these financial institutions & companies fail - Lehman Brothers and GM should both be gone. (Prediction: within 5 years GM will be bankrupt again...you heard it here first.) There would be some intense pain for some people, but it allows the system to cleanse itself of the garbage. People love to rail against "the evils of capitalism" - how the hell would we know if capitalism is evil? We haven't seen it in so long who would know? The current connected crony capitalism system has nothing to do with free markets and fair pricing. But when the concept of TBTF exists, then why wouldn't these institutions gamble all they want - they know if they lose they will get bailed out with taxpayer money and no one will go to jail. Jacob Lew is the US Treasury Secretary, and he was the CEO of Citigroup, which was one of the worst perpetrators of the 2008 crisis. He should probably be in jail, not on Capitol Hill.

Capitalism is supposed to reward efficiency and results, but instead crony capitalism rewards deceit and risk taking with other peoples' money in conjunction with being politically connected. Start throwing these bastards in jail. And I don't mean these white collar country club prisons either. And let us not forget, it was under Ms Clinton's husband's administration that Glass-Steagall was repealed, setting the stage for a lot of this mess. (And she is on record saying she would NOT reinstate it. Of course not...her patrons at Goldman Sachs wouldn't like that now, would they?)

In the US we are very fond of pointing out corruption in other countries, Nigeria is corrupt, Russia is corrupt. Myanmar is corrupt. But not us...we're the USA - out excrement doesn't even smell bad. Well, I guess when you get to define corruption as "other than what we do" then you will come out looking not corrupt. Look at all the garbage the man who was going to run "the most transparent administration ever" has hidden - most recently these 11,000 documents from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Look at the record on what has happened to whistle blowers in recent years...that was why Snowden went the route he did, because he saw what happened to others who tried to alert the government to lies and corruption.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Christ, even the Who could figure it out.

The other solution can be found in this quote by Mr Obama from last week in the Washington Post: “America should write the rules. America should call the shots. Other countries should play by the rules that America and our partners set, and not the other way around,” - talk about hubris and arrogance. No group of people is so altruistic or moral that they should call the shots for the entire planet. (Especially not when one considers it is almost inevitably the worst people who rise through the system to become "leaders'. And given the US' track record over the past 20 years - really longer if you want to be honest about it.) We need a multi-polar world, not a uni-polar one. It is this arrogance and hubris that leads the USA to spend more on military than the next 9 countries combined, and to be at war killing people almost non-stop. Let's call it what it is - the USA, acting on behalf of the Deep State, is trying to take over and control the entire planet.

As far as I am concerned, most of the Bush and much of the Obama Administrations (including Hillary) should be on trial for war crimes. But as with the banksters, if there is no penalty for bad behavior (and actually instead great reward) why would they change? They have gotten away with it.

If our vassal states in Europe would tell the USA to step down I think would also help - it should be, we will work WITH you, but not FOR you. Oh and by the way, take you troops and go home - but thanks for the free military bases. But it seems many of the same power brokers are behind the scenes on both continents. I think the EU and NATO are largely means to extend US influence. Ditto the IMF, in conjunction with the Fed, the ECB, etc. This latter group has created much of the mess about which the article was written, and will oversee the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind when it all goes down. All they want is everything.

Of course, mankind has warred since recorded history, ever since Sargon conquered the Sumerians, and even before. I don't think it is a stretch of the truth to say that had nuclear weapons been around 5.000 years ago that pretty much none of us would be here now. And one thing that NEVER changes is human nature. We are always finding a reason to war against each other...and the truth is that probably 98% of the population doesn't want it, but it's the small percentage who runs things, that is almost inevitably the worst kind of people, who make the decisions.

People are fond of voting for "the lesser of two evils" - well that would still be a vote for evil, wouldn't it? I personally view voting for president as an immoral act. I am very afraid of Hillary, and personally dislike her - I think she is a person without any form of conscience or ethical compass at all. But vote for Trump? I couldn't live with myself. I have no issue with anyone pointing out how horrible one candidate is; almost inevitably it rings true. But I do have a problem with them supporting an equally bad alternative - and that sword cuts both ways. And I think the only way "they" will get the message that their sh*t isn't selling is for voter turnout to dip really low. Because it is not a choice, it is merely the illusion of a choice. And anyone who would really upset the status quo and enact meaningful change would likely meet with an unfortunate accident.

And I have to get down to job hunting - more layoffs coming where I work.

Posted on: 08 May 2016 by DrMark

Errata - AIG not Lehmen - Lehman did go down, and AIG and others would have followed - sorry.

Posted on: 08 May 2016 by MDS

Dr Mark - I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts, though they don't cheer me up much . But returning to the theme of Don's original post, I'd be interested in your take on the US administration's view on Brexit. I think it arguable that the EU, as a political institution, acts as something of a strong moderator on any one member state's government e.g. if that government is acting selfishly or extremely. And the current EU represents an economic bloc equal to the USA. From what you've said above about US administrations of both parties and the big financial institutions wanting the rest of the world to follow US rules, I find it a bit surprising that Obama has said so clearly that he thinks the UK should stay in the EU. Surely if what you say about the underlying motivation of US administration is true, its interests would be better served by the UK leaving because the EU would undoubtedly be weaker economically and politically without the UK, as would the UK on its own, so both the (smaller) EU and the UK would be more susceptible to tow the USA line?

Mike

Posted on: 09 May 2016 by DrMark

I think the USA prefers one block to control or influence. And when I say the USA, I mean inasmuch as the USA, being the most powerful military and economic nation, is the "iron fist" of the major economic interests in Western society - and it doesn't mean a "conspiracy theory", although some element of that may exist, but rather the shared profit-making interests - including (unfortunately) the US military-industrial complex. I don't think there is so much a conspiracy as there is an agenda.

So Obama's statements on his visit to the UK seem in my mind to perfectly toe the line. Your question assumes that Brussels acts independently of the US - I think that is only true as far as individual egos may go, but there are no DeGaulles or Chiracs any more who will openly defy US "orders."

I admit that i have never fully looked into the history of the UK in the EU and still getting to keep their own currency. I believe even now Denmark is not on the Euro(?)

The EU as currently set up, appears to strongly favor the larger countries, especially Germany, France, and the UK (and to a lesser extent Italy and Spain) and smaller countries really don't have much say. It is at best a quasi-democratic institution, that seems to operate above the voting interests of many of its citizens. I think as an economic block, it is a good idea, but that currency seems to me to favor Germany a lot (for example, if there was still a lira, how many Italians could afford to buy a BMW) and Germany is a de facto US occupied country. If a small country doesn't agree with EU dictates, that is just tough sh*t. Bigger countries seem to enjoy far more influence.

I have a friend here from Lithuania, and they just recently took on the Euro, and her retired mother's purchasing power was crushed after the currency changeover...so now Brussels has a lot more control over those people than they did before. And according to her, her mother was far better prepared to withstand it - many people will have to reduce their standard of living - I have heard this happened in other nations as well, where on adoption of the Euro prices on many essential items doubled or tripled literally overnight. The individual economies seem to me to be too disparate in many cases ot share a currency.

But to your original question, I think trying to ally with/control one block is the desire, as opposed to "herding cats" with 28 nations.

Posted on: 09 May 2016 by BigH47

Jeez I'm glad there is less in front of me (years I mean) than behind. Not sure I should even tell the kids what they are in for.

I was hopeing that Capitalism would self destruct, maybe the critical numbers of owners to the rest will soon shed some light on the situation.

Dr Mark you must have people queing up to sit next to you on trains and planes.

Posted on: 09 May 2016 by DrMark

As my 87 year old father says, "I'm old enough that I will likely miss it, but I worry for my grandchildren."

Of course, whenever a society self destructs as had happened repeatedly throughout history, it creates many opportunities as well. The one wild card this go round is nuclear weapons, and the connectedness of everything making the world a much smaller place (for both good and bad reasons/possible results).

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Romi

Chris Dolan posted:
I think that you ae underestimating Jeremy Corbyn - I have warmed to him but you need to ignore the rubbish in the majority of the press.
Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, but Boris Johnson got elected so we should be very scared

They might have some similar traits when giving political speeches, but Boris Johnson is certainly no buffoon; however he likes people like you to think he is which suits him fine (let them underestimate me).

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Huge

Chris Dolan posted:
...
Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, ...

Trump is most definitely not imbecilic - he actually has an IQ that's well above average; however he also exhibits many psychopathic traits.
(N.B. I'm not saying that he is a psychopath, I'm not clinically qualified to give a diagnosis, I'm just saying that he chooses to exhibit many of the behavioural traits of a psychopath).

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Hook

Huge posted:
Chris Dolan posted:
...
Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, ...
Trump is most definitely not imbecilic - he actually has an IQ that's well above average; however he also exhibits many psychopathic traits.
(N.B. I'm not saying that he is a psychopath, I'm not clinically qualified to give a diagnosis, I'm just saying that he chooses to exhibit many of the behavioural traits of a psychopath).

IMO, Drumpf is a classic example of NPD (as described on the Mayo Clinic web site):

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

Hence his uncontrollable need to engage in late night Twitter wars.

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Wugged Woy

Bruce Woodhouse posted:
Corbyn looks like a retired geography teacher with a bus pass ......

Late reading this thread, but I nearly wet myself there, Bruce What a little gem ! And so eerily true.......... eek

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Wugged Woy

dayjay posted:
Chris Dolan posted:
I think that you ae underestimating Jeremy Corbyn - I have warmed to him but you need to ignore the rubbish in the majority of the press.
Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, but Boris Johnson got elected so we should be very scared
As a life long labour supporter and former activist I have to say that this is the least likely opposition to win an election since Michael Foot and I really can't bring myself to vote for them at the moment. With such a weak Tory government we will lose the chance to oust them with Corbyn in charge

As a life-long labour supporter and former party member (when I lived in the UK), I agree with you 100 per cent, dayjay. The similarities to Michael Foot are scary. eek

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Huge

Hook posted:
Huge posted:
Chris Dolan posted:
...
Trump of the other hand is an imbecilic neanderthal - a complete (but monied) buffoon, ...
Trump is most definitely not imbecilic - he actually has an IQ that's well above average; however he also exhibits many psychopathic traits.
(N.B. I'm not saying that he is a psychopath, I'm not clinically qualified to give a diagnosis, I'm just saying that he chooses to exhibit many of the behavioural traits of a psychopath).
IMO, Drumpf is a classic example of NPD (as described on the Mayo Clinic web site):
"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."
Hence his uncontrollable need to engage in late night Twitter wars.

Hi Hook,

I agree with all that, but I also sense a lack of integrity and more significantly an almost complete lack of any conscience, so to me this is more suggestive of ASPD. However both fit well, and neither are desirable in someone with access to a nuclear arsenal!

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Marou

Of course no one would expect political enlightenment on a hifi forum but really too much chin stroking here. The number of political figures who have significantly influenced the course of history is vanishingly small and neither Trump nor Corbyn looks likely to reverse that trend. Dr Mark's prolixity looks more like someone trying and failing to support a doom-laden view of current affairs than a broad and generous analysis. Like most people, I think, I'm a goldilocks kind of guy - things are never as bad as the Dr Marks of this world would have us believe nor as perfect as the Corbynistas assure us they could be. Whatever disaster awaits no one will have predicted it but many will claim to have.

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by Romi

I saw Trump give part of his speech to his supporters on a TV documentary. It was so basic, full of rhetoric and eager to put the witch hunt blame on another group - in that speech the Mexicans got the blame. His method remind me so much of the old footage's of Hitler speeches where the blame was put on the Jews. Both appealed to the basic instinct of mankind - a bit like rallying a lynch mob. The only difference was Hitler was far more expressive, he used to build up to a climax and then shake his hands to demonstrate his point.

Posted on: 23 May 2016 by DrMark

Marou posted:
Of course no one would expect political enlightenment on a hifi forum but really too much chin stroking here. The number of political figures who have significantly influenced the course of history is vanishingly small and neither Trump nor Corbyn looks likely to reverse that trend. Dr Mark's prolixity looks more like someone trying and failing to support a doom-laden view of current affairs than a broad and generous analysis. Like most people, I think, I'm a goldilocks kind of guy - things are never as bad as the Dr Marks of this world would have us believe nor as perfect as the Corbynistas assure us they could be. Whatever disaster awaits no one will have predicted it but many will claim to have.

Sorry Marou, but any reasonably thorough analysis of the economic situation (not the tripe on the evening news) would lead one to realize the the central bankers are losing control of the game. Banks in Europe and the USA are woefully under-capitalized (and in Italy and Portugal they are practically on life support) and the bond market is having real trouble. Defaults a-plenty coming soon.

When George Soros takes a huge position in gold (sold 37% of his stock holdings and moved it into gold issues...after deriding it for many years) as well as the heavy buying by many central banks, it is not a sign of a healthy economy. If these guys are scared, that's not a good harbinger.

Was that brief enough for you?