[Winstonm]

An informal poll for re-naming the president. The choices are:

A. McFredo
B. Caucasius Caesar
C. Boris Batschitjakov

[jjbrr]

I'm partial to Mango Mussolini or Dorito Mussolini

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2018-February-07, 12:10, said:

An informal poll for re-naming the president. The choices are:

A. McFredo
B. Caucasius Caesar
C. Boris Batschitjakov

I'm old fashioned

“short-fingered vulgarian"

[Winstonm]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-07, 12:51, said:

I'm partial to Mango Mussolini or Dorito Mussolini

Or the name popularized by the character Leslie Winkle on The Big Bang: Dumbass!

[cherdano]

Posted without comment:
https://twitter.com/...253168968622086

[y66]

From It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like the Gilded Age by Justin Fox at Bloomberg:

Quote

In an impromptu speech to a crowd that gathered outside the White House on George Washington's birthday in 1866, President Andrew Johnson rambled on for more than an hour, referred to himself 210 times (a rate of about three times per minute), and said Republican lawmakers Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens were at least as treasonous as the leaders of the just-defeated Confederacy.

A few days earlier, when a delegation of black leaders led by Frederick Douglass came to visit, Johnson had told them that poor whites, not blacks, had been the real victims of slavery in the South. After Douglass left, Johnson launched into an off-color, racist tirade about him to an aide.

Does any of this sound at least an eensy-weensy bit reminiscent of some recent presidential statements?

The political turmoil of the past couple of years has sent people grasping for all sorts of historical parallels. I've seen references to 1930s Germany, 1960s China, 2000s Russia -- and of course, as always, ancient Rome. But if historical analogies are your thing, you can't do better right now than to spend some time learning about the U.S. from the end of the Civil War to the late 1890s.

Johnson's Donald Trump-like logorrhea was the least of it, really. The era that followed Johnson's departure from office in 1869, widely known as the Gilded Age, was a time of exploding economic inequality, stagnant living standards, growing concern about monopolies, devastating financial crises, multiple "wave" elections in which control of Congress suddenly shifted, two presidential elections in which the popular-vote winner came up short in the Electoral College, brazen political corruption, frequent pronouncements that the American republic was doomed, and seemingly unending turmoil over race and national identity.

That all sounds familiar! And even if you think it can be silly to fixate on historical parallels, the late 1800s seem worth knowing more about simply because so many of the great conflicts from then live on in altered but recognizable form today.

So it's pretty great timing that, along with that No. 1 bestselling Ron Chernow biography of Ulysses S. Grant, whose presidency ushered in the Gilded Age, there's also a gigantic new history of the entire era, "The Republic for Which It Stands: The United States During Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, 1865-1896," by Richard White. It's where the above anecdotes about Andrew Johnson come from, along with another 871 pages of richly detailed history.

The book, which came out in September, is the latest installment in the Oxford History of the United States, now more than half a century in the making. The most famous book in the series, James M. McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era," had the advantage of a ready-made narrative trajectory. Authors of the volumes that aren't dominated by such an epochal event face a tougher challenge, which they're not allowed to get around by adopting a thematic focus. Charles Sellers of the University of California at Berkeley tried that for his history of the period from 1815 to 1846 and had his book rejected for the series. Oxford University Press still published it as "The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846," but Daniel Walker Howe of the University of California at Los Angeles was commissioned to write a do-over, "What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848," which won the Pulitzer Prize for history in 2008.

White, a Stanford University historian who has previously written about the settling of the West and the transcontinental railroads, plays by the rules in "The Republic for Which It Stands," and at times that can be tough going. But he is such a wise, entertaining and often flat-out funny guide that a reader is rewarded again and again and again for sticking with him.

My single favorite moment in the book comes courtesy of William Dean Howells, the 19th-century novelist and Atlantic Monthly editor of whose letters White makes frequent and excellent use. The scene is the Hiram, Ohio, home of U.S. Representative and future President James A. Garfield, in 1870 or thereabouts:

Quote

It was evening, and Howells started telling Garfield a story about the New England poets -- then already elderly -- whom he published in the Atlantic. Garfield stopped him, ran out into his yard, and hallooed the neighbors sitting on their porches: “He’s telling about Holmes, and Longfellow, and Lowell, and Whittier.” The neighbors came and listened to Howells while the whippoorwills flew and sang in the evening air.

That lovely image of a calmer, gentler, more erudite time isn't allowed to linger for long, though. The Gilded Age -- the name comes from a not-very-good 1873 novel by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner -- was an era of great ugliness and wrenching change. In recent decades, it has been celebrated for its technological breakthroughs and business triumphs, which eventually did lead to great economic progress, but as White shows, it often didn't feel like progress to the people living through it.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-February-08, 07:54, said:

From It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like the Gilded Age by Justin Fox at Bloomberg:

As it happens, last night I saw the last part of the PBS production The Gilded Age. It will be repeated and I am looking forward to seeing it all. My knowledge of history is embarrassingly bad but time and again I find that at least some others know even less. Based on what I saw, I recommend this two hour program for those like me who know a little but not much. I was vaguely aware of J. P. Morgan's role in the financial crisis of the 1890s, I learned a little more, no doubt there is more to learn. Apparently Grover Cleveland and the Congress were pretty much stymied, Morgan took the train down to D.C., Cleveland refused to see him, Morgan waited until Cleveland would see him, Morgan convinced Cleveland that the economy was facing complete collapse and he and other very wealthy people were the only ones who could prevent this. I got the impression that modern historians agree with Morgan's assessment.

The inequality in wealth was enormous, economic growth following the success of Morgan's intervention was enormous. You cannot watch this without seeing comparisons with today. But don'r overdo it. History is relevant, but every time and case is different and just because we survived that era, and later prospered, does not mean we will again. We have to look at what we can see and make our best bets.

Analogies: I watched the Super Bowl. Everyone involved deserves great credit. But clearly a few inches here and there would have changed the result. On a less dramatic stage, I was in 6D the other day with a 4-4 diamond fit and a 6-2 spade fit. 6S was hopeless since I had Ax opposite Kxxxxx and we were missing the diamond A. Otoh, 6D is cold as long as spades and diamonds are both 3-2. They were, but I don't really recommend playing that hand in 6D. (The probability that both suits split 3-2 is 0.47 or so.)

Anyway, history is relevant, especially if we approach it with an open mind. We have to look closely at whether we were brilliant or lucky.

I liked my history classes in school, but that was a while back and a lot of it was focused on demonstrating how great we are. We were told to skip the chapter in the book that explained how we grabbed Texas from Mexico. Note to teachers: Telling a 15 year old not to read something is a really good way to get him to read every word.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2018-February-08, 08:44, said:

The inequality in wealth was enormous, economic growth following the success of Morgan's intervention was enormous. You cannot watch this without seeing comparisons with today. But don'r overdo it. History is relevant, but every time and case is different and just because we survived that era, and later prospered, does not mean we will again. We have to look at what we can see and make our best bets.

I haven't seen this show, but I've seen and read others comparing then and now.

Yes, we've had robber barons for many years, and the wealth gap between the Morgans/Fords and their workers was enormous. But the difference was that as their companies were growing, the workers were sharing in it. Henry Ford knew that he made more money when more people could afford to buy his cars, so he made sure that he paid wages enough that they could live well and buy his products (and those of others like him). Reducing poverty is good for business. And recognizing the value of workers also led to innovations like company-provided health insurance.

What's happened more recently is that businessmen discovered that another way to make lots of money is to sell the same number of products but reduce costs. Automation has made this feasible: replace workers with robots. Now only the people at the top are sharing in the growth, the little guys are getting squeezed out.

There are a few billionaires who still get it, like Warren Buffett. But he's pretty old, I wonder how much longer he'll be around.

[Al_U_Card]

cherdano, on 2018-February-07, 16:32, said:

Posted without comment:
https://twitter.com/...253168968622086

And here I thought that when the market went down, it was all those rich folk selling "high", taking their profits and making out like bandits (bankdits? ) ? That would be the great "good" news I suppose...

[ldrews]

Approval ratings:

https://www.sgtrepor...-his-presidency

[y66]

From the cover story at The Economist this week:

Quote

VOLATILITY is back. A long spell of calm, in which America’s stockmarket rose steadily without a big sell-off, ended abruptly this week. The catalyst was a report released on February 2nd showing that wage growth in America had accelerated. The S&P 500 fell by a bit that day, and by a lot on the next trading day. The Vix, an index that reflects how changeable investors expect equity markets to be, spiked from a sleepy 14 at the start of the month to an alarmed 37. In other parts of the world nerves frayed.

Markets later regained some of their composure (see article). But more adrenalin-fuelled sessions lie ahead. That is because a transition is under way in which buoyant global growth causes inflation to replace stagnation as investors’ biggest fear. And that long-awaited shift is being complicated by an extraordinary gamble in the world’s biggest economy. Thanks to the recently enacted tax cuts, America is adding a hefty fiscal boost to juice up an expansion that is already mature. Public borrowing is set to double to $1 trillion, or 5% of GDP, in the next fiscal year. What is more, the team that is steering this experiment, both in the White House and the Federal Reserve, is the most inexperienced in recent memory. Whether the outcome is boom or bust, it is going to be a wild ride.

Volatility is back feels like the biggest understatement on this thread. Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg, many investors in the world’s biggest bond market are smiling and sending this message ‘We want to own Treasuries, and we’re not afraid.’

[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2018-February-08, 11:28, said:

Approval ratings:

https://www.sgtrepor...-his-presidency

But obviously it's much worse when you take a composite of polls and not just a single one.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-08, 13:11, said:

But obviously it's much worse when you take a composite of polls and not just a single one.

But starting to climb as the public experiences more jobs, higher wages, reduced taxes, higher optimism/confidence.

[Winstonm]

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Can you believe this?

Quote

CBS News reported Thursday that Nunes’ latest project appears to be the construction of a literal wall to separate Republican and Democratic staff members within the committee’s designated secure areas. The wall, which is expected to be built this spring, would be a physical manifestation of the increasingly partisan fights within the committee. Other Republicans seem to be flat-out mortified by Nunes’ shovel-ready infrastructure plan

I wonder if McFredo can get Mexico to pay for it?

[jjbrr]

ldrews, on 2018-February-08, 13:47, said:

But starting to climb as the public experiences more jobs, higher wages, reduced taxes, higher optimism/confidence.

ok lil buddy. that's cute. run along now.

[kenberg]

When the stock market is surging nobody wants to listen to a wet blanket.

My day to day life does not depend on the djia. I usually don't know its level within 1000 points, or whether it has gone up or down in the previous week. Some swings get my attention.

I would like to see good decisions fostering long term economic health.

Let's face facts. The guy in the WH made a lot of money screwing suckers. Get in, say anything, make a buck, get out. He has now taken his act to the presidency. Long term, this is not good.

I get along with conservatives. I am more conservative than many who post here. But I don't like having a scam artist as president. Basically, that's the whole story with me.

Economists worry, but the guy in the street thinks "The market is going up, who cares what the eggheads say?". Now might be a time to think a bit about that.

Nobody has to totally surrender all of their social views, I am simply suggesting they give some thought to the character of the person who has been elected.

[ldrews]

jjbrr, on 2018-February-08, 14:45, said:

ok lil buddy. that's cute. run along now.

Thanks I will. I have to go celebrate "winning" some more, and get ready for 7 more years of the same. I hope you are enjoying your day too.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2018-February-08, 16:37, said:

When the stock market is surging nobody wants to listen to a wet blanket.

My day to day life does not depend on the djia. I usually don't know its level within 1000 points, or whether it has gone up or down in the previous week. Some swings get my attention.

I would like to see good decisions fostering long term economic health.

Let's face facts. The guy in the WH made a lot of money screwing suckers. Get in, say anything, make a buck, get out. He has now taken his act to the presidency. Long term, this is not good.

I get along with conservatives. I am more conservative than many who post here. But I don't like having a scam artist as president. Basically, that's the whole story with me.

Economists worry, but the guy in the street thinks "The market is going up, who cares what the eggheads say?". Now might be a time to think a bit about that.

Nobody has to totally surrender all of their social views, I am simply suggesting they give some thought to the character of the person who has been elected.

Do you mean his character or his personality? Based on his presidential actions so far his character seems pretty good. His personality, on the other hand, is a bit abrasive to the establishment and the media. I understand that on a person to person basis he is somewhat charming. His family and ex-wives speak highly of him for what that is worth. I wonder, would our family and ex-wives speak highly of us?

[kenberg]

On second thought, I think I will let what I said speak for itself

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2018-February-08, 19:38, said:

On second thought, I think I will let what I said speak for itself

Ah, OK, you don't want to distinguish between character and personality. I would have liked a conversation on the nuances, but so be it.