BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

helene_t, on 2016-November-07, 05:26, said:

Good to see that the entrepreneurial spirit lives!

Next time you get upset at Kaitlin, remember that she is helping poor teenagers in Macedonia to make a living!

cherdano, on 2016-November-07, 09:04, said:

Outsourcing good American jobs!

Winstonm, on 2016-November-06, 23:28, said:

What are his proposals, though? Is HRC supposed to be against law and order? And just by the way, would getting guns out of the hands of criminals help?

Vampyr, on 2016-November-07, 10:01, said:

I was speaking of the political climate, where virtually all policemen think Hillary is anti-second amendment. There are some police who think stop and frisk is proper - I can understand why they would support Trump - that doesn't mean I agree with them.

Prediction: Kaitlyn will not defend her statement on Soros, instead without comment switch to the next silly right-wing-rumor story as if nothing happened.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 19:06, said:

Richard has already pointed out that you are spouting right wing delusions as fact, without apparently any interest in knowing the underlying truth. May I suggest that you google George Soros British Pound.

Now, reality is often more nuanced than anything you will have read on breitbart or heard on talk radio or wherever else you get your 'ideas' from, so maybe a quick summary may help. Everything I write can be verified, tho probably not on your favourite sites.

The UK joined a monetary scheme (the Exchange Rate Mechanism) whereby it was determined to keep its currency at a particular ratio to the German Mark. However, inflation in the UK was far, far higher than in Germany, while at the same time interest rates were low. The only way the UK could stay in this exchange rate arrangement was by buying billions of pounds worth of its own currency, to artificially create demand in the market place, and thus keep the pound higher than it ought to be.

Soros was one of those who understood what was going on. He bet that the UK government would eventually realize that continuing to spend billions of pounds to keep the pound artificially high was absurd and, more important politically, doomed to failure. The only way out was to exit the exchange rate agreement, to allow the pound to be traded freely. Given the economic realities of the German and British economies at the time, the pound would lose value as soon as it was freely traded, without the UK government's support...which was the spending of unsustainable amounts of money. The decision to do so was kept secret until it was done, in order to minimize speculation.
However, the writing was on the wall provided that one had the ability to read the situation, as few did.

Soros had the resources to take a very large short position on the UK pound, betting, literally, that the UK government would come to its senses, albeit only after acting irrationally for some time.

He won the bet and attained instant fame.

Now, imagine you are a UK politician, in the government, and you are having to deal with the fallout from having wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and to have to top it off by devaluing the pound, admitting, in effect, that you have been wasting money. Wouldn't it be nice to find some 'sleazy' billionaire to blame? And given the fiscal illiteracy of most of the tabloid press and the citizenry, and the virtual non-existence of any detailed, nuanced media presentations, is it any surprise that Soros was blamed for the devaluation?

Soros had nothing to do with the devaluation. He happened to guess, correctly, that it was going to happen, and he showed remarkable fortitude in being willing to bet just about all he had at his disposal accordingly. He saw that it was about to rain, and he placed rain barrels out to catch the rain water. He would have looked silly, and lost a lot of money, had the sky remained blue and the rain had not fallen. But his placing the rain barrels didn't cause the rain to fall.

In essence, he acted exactly as would any capitalist. He took a big risk, with his own money and credibility, and with his investor's money. And he won, because he could see into the reality better than almost anyone else.

The only reasons he is not an icon of the right is that he happens to support liberal causes. Were he spending his money the same way as the Koch brothers, then he'd be a hero to you and your ilk. I assume, in saying that, that you, not being a racist, are not an anti-Semite either (unlike, it seems, much of the audience for the Trump campaign. Given that Trump has a Jewish son-in-law, I don't think Trump is anti-Semitic but it is pretty obvious that his campaign is pandering to those who are).

Kaitlyn, I don't think you are batshit crazy. I happen to think that you see yourself just as you describe yourself, but that you have been cloistered, intellectually, in a right-wing bublle chamber, and that you have lost the ability to think critically. Hence the professor story, and your friends' reaction to the Obama meme, and now your unthinking, and uninformed, view of Soros. And of course your belief that the first step to a socialist dictatorship is the implementation of nationalized health care (which is really funny, in a very sad way). It can be humbling and very difficult to admit that almost everything you believe, politically, is simply not real....just not true at all....and maybe you can't step back from your beleifs enough to even begin to admit it.

The person you described yourself as being should be able to do this. The person I think you are, based on what you have posted....I doubt that that person could do it at all. I guess we will see.

helene_t, on 2016-November-07, 05:26, said:

Samantha Bee actually interviewed a couple of these professional trolls on her show last week. http://www.ew.com/ar...-russian-trolls

mikeh, on 2016-November-07, 10:34, said:

While I certainly don't want to support Kaitlyn's extreme position, the above is also a bit of a simplification. Large investments can have an effect on the market, because they influence other investors, and the movement of the market influences politicians. There's lots of complicated feedback cycles in economics (which is why even economic geniuses miss the mark frequently).

So it's kind of like seeding the clouds, then putting out the rain barrels.

barmar, on 2016-November-07, 10:45, said:

Any effect on the market by a single investor or group of investors is temporary; ultimately, markets are expressions of supply and demand.

Winstonm, on 2016-November-07, 11:05, said:

Ultimately, markets are not as rational as traditional economic theory assumed. They're expressions of many different things, including consumer psychology.

the thing about markets is that markets may create jobs, companies or an entire industry but markets can also destroy jobs, companies and at rare moments an industry. It is this destruction that many demand government step in and stop or slow down.


A current example of this debate is steel. China has decided it will bear the cost to help out their steel industry to some extant. The result for consumers of steel here in the USA is more choice and lower costs. The result for producers of steel is fewer jobs and profits. In turn companies and unions demand that the government step to fight unfair markets!

-------------------------


A big debate today is over internet pricing. For example should "internet pipes" be allowed to tier price. An example might be Netflix, demand users of Netflix to pay more than nonusers. Should the market be allowed to set prices or should the government place limits and set policy in the matter?

barmar, on 2016-November-07, 10:45, said:

I take your point, which is why I described what I wrote as a quick summary and suggested looking online. FWIW, I think your analogy is even less apt than mine. Soros' bet, tho large by any individual standard, was a fraction of what the UK government had been pissing away trying to stay in the ERM, and it was that misguided, and doomed, course of action that led to the decision to abandon the ERM. It is arguable that the downward pressure on the pound, created by shorting in the market, played a role in the timing of the departure, but there is no way that the shorting created or even contributed to the underlying macro-economic factors that made entry into the ERM a mistake, compounded by an unwillingness to admit to error. The UK was leaving the ERM with or without the shorting.

At most, Soros saw the rainclouds and put out the barrels and then seeded the rain clouds to make it rain an hour earlier than it would have had he done nothing.

Kaitlyn thinks that the sky was pure blue until the nefarious, sleazy billionaire intervened. Why? Because that fits the international financial conspiracy meme promoted by Trump, by anti-semites, and by right wing loons. And because she is too intellectually lazy to think for herself.

Winstonm, on 2016-November-07, 11:05, said:

Wouldn't Bear Stearns still be around if things happened in a different order?

mikeh, on 2016-November-07, 10:34, said:

That's pretty funny. I used to park in a building that allowed double parking. The spaces were marked by expected time of departure and it was considered hyper uncool to keep people waiting. But there was this guy George, who I liked and admired, who was consistently 5 minutes late for a couple of weeks. 5 minutes every now and then is fine. He would apologize every time and then one day I said, George, don't worry about it. You're a very busy guy and you probably can't help it. He was never late again. Of course, he was also open minded and had a conscience and was even amused if embarrassed to be called on his sh*t in such a direct way.

mikeh, on 2016-November-07, 10:34, said:

What you appear to be asking me to do is to assume that everything I think politically is incorrect and blindly buy into the other side. You're really not saying that, you're saying to think for myself, but it appears that if I reach any conclusions other than the ones you have reached, some of you (maybe not you personally) are going to say that I am still falling for bullsh*t propaganda.

First, you ask me to step back for a minute. OK, let's do that. What I see is this:

Every time I try to make a political point, I am asked to back up what I am saying with sources. I present sources, and am told that only racist hateful people would ever use such sources. It doesn't matter what sources I choose, between here and BGG I have used hundreds of different sources and each and every time I am told that the source I have chosen is right wing nutjob propaganda. Frankly, I do not specifically subscribe to any sources. I haven't listened to Rush in several months, and only have a ear half-cocked when my sweetie has Hannity on. The way I get my sources is that I know I have read something in the past, but I need a source to verify it because I am asked to. I google the thing I'm looking for, and present the top hit. Sometimes if the top hit is Breitbart or Jihad Watch or one of the several tht I know is going to get me flamed for quoting it, I'll go to a source that I have not been previously flamed for quoting. I do not look for the right wing conspiracy sites, I just look for something and relate where I found it.

Now you have to understand why I am not willing to just give in and say you are all right and everything I believe is total nutjob supplied bullsh*t. For on the one hand, I have all of you telling me that all my sources are nonsense-based and everything I believe is wrong, and on the other hand, I have several well educated, apparently well informed friends telling me that everything you are telling me is wrong. When I go to a political meetup which is clearly right-leaning, everything I currently believe is reinforced and each and every one of the members will say "The left will try to call you a homophobic racist, stupid, nutjob, and crazy to make you disbelieve the truth. Do not buy into it." And they are right, that is exactly what is happening.

So why are you right and they wrong? They will present as much evidence as all of you. There are many tables lined with literature free for the taking. All of it backs them up and makes your point of view seem uninformed. Of course, each and every one of you will say that every bit of the literature, much of which is backed up by real life examples showing why the points they are making are correct, is just nut job propaganda.

I will agree that most of you are quite intelligent people and successful at what you do. However, the people at these meetings and my conservative friends are also quite intelligent and successful people too. Many of them are successful politically after having been successful in another career. Perhaps the truth is somewhere between what they are saying and what you are saying, but you are trying to convince me that you have the truth and they have nothing, while they are trying to convince me that they have the truth and you have nothing. So tell me, intellectually, why should I believe you and not them?

EDIT TO ADD: As I just finished this post, I went to Facebook and saw the following "breaking news."


BREAKING: Federal Agents Just Confirmed Hillary Killed Vince Foster After Their Affair
I did not even look at the story. I looked at the value of the S&P index which is up over 2%. That was all I needed to know to know that this "breaking news" was bullsh*t. And TBH, I would have done the same thing months ago long before any of you told me to question my sources.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-07, 12:51, said:

I posted a set of specific reasons why the Soros meme that you posted was incorrect...

It would seem relatively easy to check the veracity of these statements

hrothgar, on 2016-November-07, 13:18, said:

I am certain that if I ask the intelligent successful people at my conservative meeting, they will provide me with information showing that Soros is trying to take the country down, or has successfully taken other countries down, and it will be equally relatively easy to check the veracity of their statements.

To me, it seems pointless for me to try to prove either side of the argument to the other side; for as you won't believe any of the articles they present me with, they won't like your sources either.

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-07, 13:30, said:

Go back and look at the arguments that I presented.

Which of these do you think is unreasonable?
Which of these do you think has logical flaws?

Lets choose the simplest of the arguments that I advanced

1. The meme that you are citing existed at least seven or eight years ago, LONG before Clinton was running for office.
2. Since 2009, the stock market has increased close to five fold
3. If Soros really had massive leveraged short positions, he would have been killed by margin calls

None of this requires going to any of those terrible terrible biased sources like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.
All of this can be verified by a quick google search and the public record

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-07, 12:26, said:

FYI

Bear Stearns, I simplify but basically they had to borrow every morning 50 billion bucks to open their door and pay it back the next morning. At some point panic or contagion set in and banks, etc did not trust them to pay the money back and would not lend them the money to open their door in the morning. Over the next few months the panic or contagion spread to the whole industry and the "model" of doing business failed. There is debate on what the cause of the panic was. My take is a sever recession starting at the end of 2007 led to other causes which led to the panic. Economists argue or are not sure what causes a recession.


------------------------


As for your Soros point, what do you mean take the country down, do you mean destroy it? Soros wants to destroy the USA? That is a darn serious thing to post or even suggest. Do you have any evidence that leads you to to conclude that? Any evidence that persuades you?

" am certain that if I ask the intelligent successful people at my conservative meeting, they will provide me with information showing that Soros is trying to take the country down, or has successfully taken other countries down, and it will be equally relatively easy to check the veracity of their statements.

To me, it seems pointless for me to try to prove either side of the argument to the other side; for as you won't believe any of the articles they present me with, they won't like your sources either. "