BIDEN vs TRUMP? Rigged election. Whats your thoughts

There has to be a dataset that can used to be able to quantitatively compare. And while imperfect, this is the data that is reasonably relied upon and recognized. And there are some data that seems pretty clear cut like the S&P 500 return.

While you may have anecdotal data from talking to different folks, someone else could talk to the same number (but different) of people and learn the opposite. It’s all based on their personal experiences, as well their own perceptions and biases. Like Trump says, “It is what it is.”

I’m sure there were people who say they were far better of under Trump. And there are people who will say they were far better off under Obama…or Bush…or Clinton.

But that doesn’t mean that Trump’s record on the economy was “impeccable” or in his words, using absolutes like the “greatest”.

1 Like

I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Might I suggest you read a few books to know where we are in today’s society.

Madness of Crowds by Douglas Murray. (A must read)
12 Rules for Life Jordon Petersen
Ship of Fools by Tucker Carlson.
White Fragility by Robin DeAngelo. (A left wing diatribe )
What Liberal Media by Eric Alterman
Silent Invasion by Clive Hamilton (Scary)

And there are several others but that’s a good start.

Blackduck

1 Like

I guess most people could not be bothered watching this show but I think Tucker Carlson sums up what should be happening to deliver a fair election. But more to the point highlights just how dishonest the media polling companies and the big tech oligarchs are in allowing the average person to view and read all the facts to help them decide who they should vote for.

If you say you have an open unbiased mind watch.

Cheers

Blackduck

1 Like

#youcantfixabrokensystemthroughthebrokensystem …that is an oxymoron

It’s crazy to me how each side is just doubling, tripling down on their beliefs. But has yalls lives really changed immensely because of who the president was? People losing friendships, ending relationships over this… is it worth it? :woman_shrugging:

1 Like

Looks like the Attorney General has cleared the way for the Justice Department to investigate any allegations of irregularities that have any substance. I’m going to wait for their decision.

1 Like

One of my favourites sites to show that Pinocchio’s nose just gets longer as time moves on by.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

1 Like

And another. Check out the energy and gold tabs further down the page too
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html

1 Like

Unfortunately, the animated clock doesn’t mean what most people thinks it does.

The U.S. national debt is nothing more than a savings account at the Fed.

When the U.S government sells bonds, funds are simply moved from the Fed’s checking account (used to purchase bonds) into the Fed’s savings account (called Treasury securities).

As bonds mature, the “debt” is paid as the Fed shifts the dollar balances from the savings account at the Fed (Treasury securities) back into the checking account (reserve account).

This means that the so-called “National Debt Clock” is just the sum total of all the outstanding bonds that the Dept. of Treasury has issued.

A more accurate name for the “National Debt Clock” would be the “National World Dollar Savings Account”.

All it does is keep a record of the total amount of that’s invested in savings as opposed to checking at the Fed.

What is referred to as the “national debt” is actually the national savings. It’s cash invested in Treasury securities (bills, notes, bonds), not loans to the government.

If there is a USD government deficit, it equals the total net increase in the holdings USD financial assets of the rest of us: households and businesses, residents and foreigners. This is what’s called the “non government” sector.

For example, if the government deficit was $3 trillion last year, it means the net increase in savings for everyone else combined was exactly $3 trillion.

It’s an accounting identity. The CBO would confirm this is how it works.

Since the Fed is the sole issuer of the U.S. dollar, this means that the Fed never (technically) needs to borrow. They can create more dollars at any time. Congress must authorize the spending though.

Of course, the risk is inflation where if goods are services are scarce and money is abundant, that money chases the goods/services and tends to drive up prices.

But the U.S. government can’t go “bankrupt” or “run out of money” to pay for stuff.

There is a common misconception that the government must acquire money through taxes or borrowing in order to spend.

You may hear a politician say:

“The government, has to either tax or borrow to get funds to spend, just like any household has to figure out how get the money it needs to spend.”

But that’s false. Government spending is NOT operationally constrained in any way by taxing or borrowing.

That’s how Americans were able to get their direct deposits of $1200 from the $2.2 trillion CARES Act stimulus bill without the need to raise taxes to pay for it.

Historically, the U.S. government is usually in a state of deficit spending (regardless of political parties).

Higher “deficit” spending coincides with better times for the private economy since it puts more money in the hands of consumers and businesses and stimulates the economy.

Reducing the deficit actually causes economic contraction. For example, when Clinton ran surpluses, a recession followed.

Politicians either 1) don’t know this which means they aren’t aware of how actual monetary operations work or 2) do know this but pretend to not know and create political theater and use it to their advantage.

2 Likes

Is this Tucker basically telling Trump to get on with it and concede?

The video is not working.

1 Like

No he is not saying that but he is saying that if there is fraud that should be investigated as that is the only way to satisfy all concerned that the election was a fair and proper election.

If this accusation of voter fraud is not investigated then it will only erode the confidence of the general public in the election process.

The unbiased mind comment was in reference to those punters that will not watch Tucker Carlson purely because he is a conservative political commentator.

You have those that will only watch Fox and you will have people that will only watch MSNBC and CNN and PBS News and the rest of the left wing media outlets.

As far as the video not playing it worked when I uploaded it. But if you go to youtube and type Tucker Carlson tonight 11/09/20 youtube you should be able to watch the video.

Cheers

Blackduck.

1 Like

@Blackduck

It’s very hard for anyone to confront their own biases - and for anyone with a strong dose of Trump Derangement Syndrome it’s even harder.

I purposely read press that is directly opposite to my views - usually the Guardian - it’s very painful reading. However take away the anti Trump anti Brexit bias some of it is pretty damn good.

As traders we all need to check if our own thesis is wrong - that goes for politics too.

As for Fox, they have just had a ratings collapse and are now deemed part of the lamestream media from the previous Trump base, having called out State wins for Biden before they should

Many pro Trumpers are now moving over to Newsmax.

For Trump haters - you can now watch Fox, there are only really two pro Trumpers there Hannity and Carlson who are even starting to be viewed with suspicion

1 Like

I undersatnd what you are saying but I am an avid watcher of Fox and there are still many that support Trump. Jesse Watters Diana Perino Greg Gutfield on the Five at Five are still supporting Trump. As is Mark Levin and so is Laura Ingraham.

I also watch CNN and MSNBC especially googs like Morning Joe and Rachael Maddow on MSNBC and Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo on CNN. Both are as bias as they come.

At least Tucker calls a spade a spade.

So No one can accuse me of being bias. I firmly believe that you have to know both sides of the story.

I have just finished reading a book call White Fragility by Robin DeAngelo. A left wing diatribe about whiteness white supremacy and racism. It was fascinating to read and think that some people believe the garbage that this woman writes.

Cheers

Blackduck

2 Likes

Hi TradingPanda,
Thank you for the macro-economics lesson. And the Fed is owned by?

I think they literally had their best ratings week last week, the week of the election. Watched by more Americans than any other news program.

As for anybody wavering their support for Trump, .why must a supporter support everything of said individual to be considered a true supporter? Unending support, even in the face of documented lies or even just differences of opinion, why can’t you call the President out on his crap, or share your disagreement with him,
but still support him? Were we expecting Fox News to call every state for Trump, regardless of the actual outcome? That’s what so interesting to me of Trump’s base and support in general. He literally can not do wrong. And as soon as anyone speaks out about anything regarding him or his policies, they are turned on. That expectation of loyalty, regardless of reality, is just… unbelievable.

There’s a lot of debate on this matter stemming from the people present on Jekyll Island in 1910.

It’s been written about in books such as The Creature from Jekyll Island, America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve,, Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World, just to name a few.

There are even charts online that map out the shareholders.

But I’ll just quote straight from the horse’s mouth:

The Federal Reserve System is not “owned” by anyone. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act to serve as the nation’s central bank. The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress.

Some observers mistakenly consider the Federal Reserve to be a private entity because the Reserve Banks are organized similarly to private corporations. For instance, each of the 12 Reserve Banks operates within its own particular geographic area, or District, of the United States, and each is separately incorporated and has its own board of directors.

Commercial banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System hold stock in their District’s Reserve Bank. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company.

The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. In fact, the Reserve Banks are required by law to transfer net earnings to the U.S. Treasury, after providing for all necessary expenses of the Reserve Banks, legally required dividend payments, and maintaining a limited balance in a surplus fund. [Source]

And:

The Federal Reserve Banks are not a part of the federal government, but they exist because of an act of Congress. Their purpose is to serve the public.

So is the Fed private or public?

The answer is both. While the Board of Governors is an independent government agency, the Federal Reserve Banks are set up like private corporations. Member banks hold stock in the Federal Reserve Banks and earn dividends.

Holding this stock does not carry with it the control and financial interest given to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. The stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans. Member banks also appoint six of the nine members of each Bank’s board of directors. [Source]

So who are these shareholders?

Depends on the district bank.

For example, the largest shareowners of the New York Fed are the following five Wall Street banks:

  1. JPMorgan Chase
  2. Citigroup
  3. Goldman Sachs
  4. Morgan Stanley
  5. Bank of New York Mellon

Those five banks represent two-thirds of the eight Global Systemically Important Banks (G-SIBs) in the United States.

The other three G-SIBs are Bank of America, a shareowner in the Richmond Fed; Wells Fargo, a shareowner of the San Francisco Fed; and State Street, a shareowner in the Boston Fed.

Theories abound that the Fed is owned (therefore controlled) by the Rothschilds and other members of the “international banking elite.”

I’ll leave it to the reader to do their own homework and make their own conclusions.

It’s not unbelievable, this is the “human way”.

Humans live in a world of thoughts. We accept some thoughts as true. We rejects others a false.

But the thoughts we perceive as true are sometimes false, unsound, or misleading. And the thoughts we perceive as false and trivial are sometimes true and significant.

The mind doesn’t naturally grasp the truth. We don’t naturally see things are they are.

We don’t automatically sense what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.

Our thoughts are often based on our agendas, interests, and values.

We typically see things as we want to. We twist reality to fit our preconceived ideas. Distorting reality is common in human life.

Each of us views the world through multiple lenses, often shifting them to fit our changing feelings.

In reality, much of our perspective is unconscious and has been influenced by multiple forces: social, political, economic, psychological, and religious influences, among others.

Social norms, political and religious ideologies, psychological impulses, all play a role, often unconscious, in human thinking.

It is simply not natural for us to appreciate the point of view of others nor recognize the limitations in our own point of view. We have to work at it.

1 Like

I believe you are being very presumptuous with you comments in this post. It is quiet insulting to assume that all people have no ability to critically look at a situation and come to a logical conclusion regardless of their political religious or social view.

There are always two sides to any argument and there are those who have the ability to use critical thinking in order to establish what is fact and what is fiction.

One question Panda, Do you categorise yourself as one of those persons who “Twist reality to fit your preconceived ideas”??

Cheers

Blackduck

@forexforexforex

Actually I’m not disagreeing with you.

If anything it makes Fox (IMO) more reliable - covering in both sides - it’s not me I was referring to its many of the Trump base.

Im a centrist at heart not prone to conspiracy - but even I can see whats going on.

Finally yeah Trump aint perfect, some of his stuff about the economy he spouts isn’t correct, but Biden and Kamala and the bolshivieks for me are much more concerning

Oh I’m not being presumptuous. Humans are irrational. This has been studied and continues to be studied in the fields of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Well-known studies from Thaler, Kahneman, Tversky, Paul, etc.

I didn’t say people lack the ability to think critically. What I was saying is that a person’s natural inclination is to see things how s/he wants.

Apologies if you’re insulted but unfortunately, but humans are imperfect.

Plus, I’m not personally attacking you (or anyone). This is an intellectual discourse. No need to take things personally. :kissing_heart:

The presumption that there are only two sides of any argument, rather than multiple sides (the possibility of more than two) should be questioned.

Luckily, I’m a panda. But hypothetically speaking, if I were a person, yes, I would say that I’m susceptible to falling into that trap. The difference is that I am aware of, and recognize the risks, and work on avoiding, or at least, minimizing it.

To not admit to such a possibility prevents one from overcoming egocentric thinking.

3 Likes