~ Archive for Uncategorized ~

Bumble dating app on guns and marrying for the cash


“Bumble CEO, on Banning Gun Photos” (TIME):

We were founded with safety at the helm of everything we do…

this is a matter of safety

We want women … to feel safe and feel secure

I received personal emails from so many women just saying, “Thank you, I feel safer.”

This confused one of my gun nut friends: “Don’t the women want to see men with gun photos so they know who is scary and whom to avoid dating?” The CEO deals with this in the article, but doesn’t explain her logic:

But to be candid with you, we did have some women reach out and ask: “Well how do I know that someone is a gun owner now?” And once we walked them through our logic, they actually really understood and appreciated where we were coming from. Being able to ask what someone’s beliefs are is not as hard as the consequences of someone casually showing a gun, which might send the wrong message to someone who might go and misuse a gun.

Readers: What do you think? Will women actually be “safer” on Bumble if they never see pictures that include guns, but just find out about an arsenal when they’re on their date’s sofa, feel a lump between the cushions, and pull out a pistol? (This actually happened to me, though I wasn’t dating the gun enthusiastic!)

[Separately, in downtown Seattle the company put up a massive billboard reading “Be the CEO your parents always wanted you to marry. (then find someone you actually like)”

Assuming that the “someone you actually like” is lower income than the female CEO, this is questionable marital advice under Washington family law. The aging high-income female CEO is exposed to the full force of the gender-neutral alimony statute in the event that the husband that she actually liked decides that he would prefer to have sex with 25-year-olds. Her savings from the marriage and earnings going forward will fund his escapades with younger mates. (see Massachusetts Prenuptial Agreements for how one of these scenarios played out)]

New York Times says Ireland is way better than the U.S.


Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Be grateful that you aren’t coming to our house for my experiment in making corned beef and cabbage.

Let’s consider “How the Irish Could Still Save Civilization” (nytimes):

… how did Ireland’s prime minister, Leo Varadkar, the gay son of a Hindu father of Indian descent, merit time from a president who has stirred up a thousand little hatreds from the darkest corners of America?

no one in power has betrayed the Irish-American story more than President Trump.

the prime minister of a tiny nation tried to nudge the mighty United States back to the moral high ground.

We’re stuck with Trump, the most un-American of presidents, who never misses a chance to stoke xenophobic fears. In trying to erase our history, his administration recently removed the phrase “America’s promise as a nation of immigrants” from the federal agency dealing with immigrants.

Should we adopt enlightened Irish policies, then? We want to recapture the moral high ground, right? (definitely don’t want to challenge the assumption that we did formerly occupy the “moral high ground”; there is no need to justify an assertion that, prior to Trump, we were superior to almost all other nations!)

The NYT would suggest that we adopt the all-in Irish corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent (about half of the new federal+state rates in the U.S.)?

And we would eliminate the right to citizenship for kids born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens? (“over the period 2003 to 2005, Ireland’s citizenship laws were fundamentally changed to eliminate an Irish-born child’s automatic right to citizenship when the parents are not Irish nationals.”; migrationpolicy.org) There would be no more anchor babies!

We would reject 90 percent of asylum-seekers? (“Asylum seekers are now believed to be avoiding Ireland since anti-immigration measures began to be introduced in the wake of the 2002 influx of 12,000 asylum seekers, the highest annual number of immigrants in the State’s history.”; source)

The reader comments are interesting. Pretty much everyone seems to assume that Ireland can teach the U.S. how to be friendly to immigrants. One deplorable got through with “times change. The boat is filling up. At what point do we stop taking on new passengers and risk capsizing? In roughly the last 75 years, the world population (and America’s) has increased nearly 3 times.”

When a quick Google search reveals that Ireland has much more restrictive immigration and citizenship policies than the U.S. (as well as a much higher GDP per capita! Imagine how rich they could be if they took American Democrats’ advice to expand low-skill immigration!), how does a scolding op-ed like this get past the editors of the NYT? How do the readers, all of whom have access to Google, also fail to notice that Irish policies would shut down most of the folks currently getting U.S. citizenship?

Schools help the closeted Second Amendment supporters find each other


IM exchange mostly with a friend with kids in our local middle school, which officially sponsored the anti-gun walkout (see Did your local school officially sponsor a walk-out from school today?). We’ll call his kids Kevin and Kristine (other kids’ names changed as well):

me: [after he posted the school’s statistics on the walkout, roughly 50%] I’m surprised that they didn’t all walk out, considering that it is pretty nice weather. Why would anyone want to stay in the classroom?

other friend: Walking out means you want to ban guns.

friend: I was afraid that if I suggested to my kids to stay they’d be viewed as outsiders. [Kevin] told me that he keeps his views to himself because liberals’ children get belligerent if you disagree with them on this issue. One kid even told him so once. That his mother doesn’t want him to hang out with [Kevin] anymore because of his parents’ political views.

other friend: Your kids walked out?

friend: I don’t know, they are not back yet.

friend: So my kids are back. They didn’t walk out. [Kevin] and [Marsha] (Trump girl) were the only ones who stayed behind in their class. In [Kristine]’s class about half the class stayed. She said “all known republicans or outed republicans”. [the town has only about 2 percent admitted adult Republicans and perhaps 15 percent Republican voters]

other friend: They are outed now.

friend: [Aiden] walked out and said to [Kevin] “i am just going out so i don’t have to be in class”.

other friend: News media coverage is misleading. Imagine if the headline said “School walkout breaks on party lines.”

friend: [Kristine] said that all METCO [state-run program to sort students by skin color and then take some of them off parents’ hands for essentially all waking hours; see Low-effort parenting in Massachusetts via METCO] kids walked out. One black kid stayed behind.

me: [Kristine] will grow up to be like Amy Wax (see “Penn Law professor who said black students are ‘rarely’ in top half of class loses teaching duties”, not to be confused with virtuous articles pointing out inferior academic performance by race (e.g., nytimes, January 31, 2018: “In School Together, but Not Learning at the Same Rate”))

friend: probably

friend: @Philip the Stepford Wife’s daughter didn’t walk out. Closeted Republicans among us. The son of the CEO of *** (acquired by ***) didn’t walk out either.

friend: You should have been here. It was absolutely fascinating to hear how all these kids were coming out to one another. [Kristine] told me her friend who sat in the classroom with her said “don’t tell anybody, my grandfather has a gun”. [Kristine]: ” don’t tell anybody, my dad has quite a few”. girl: “don’t tell anybody, i shot an AR-15 rifle. please keep it secret or i will have no friends here.”

friend: the Chinese kid [Wallace] who lives down the street – moved in from China a few years back also didn’t walk out. His point of view was different – “it’s a waste of time, won’t change anything.” Neutral response – reminds me of Beijing’s foreign policy and my days with Chinese mafia in business school.

friend: [Kevin] said “Dad, you know some of them marched to the center of Happy Valley and back with protest signs. I said, guys why are you doing it here where 95% of people are Democrats. You are trying to convince your own kind of things they already believe in? Fly to Texas and do it there.”

me: Your whole street is going Chinese. [the friend’s next-door neighbor is occupied by a family that moved from Taiwan a few years ago; and, for the record, in case anyone wants to accuse me of anti-Chinese sentiment… some of my best friends are extremely rich Chinese-Americans.]

other friend: Who said “Your whole street is going Chinese … there goes the neighborhood”? No One.

friend: [Kristine] told me some more. She asked the girl “are you a democrat or republican?” Answer: “well, i think on the political spectrum i am near democrat…” [Kristine] said “well, i am a republican”. The girl then immediately went “oh god, yes, i am too, i just didn’t want to say it. it’s so nice to know there’s one of your own kind around!”

Here’s a question… Suppose that a group of children wanted to walk out to protest restrictions on their perceived Second Amendment rights. Perhaps they could cite some folks who were victims of violent crime because they hadn’t been able to purchase and/or carry a gun to protect themselves (so it would also be a remembrance for victims of violence). Would the school sponsor or allow that? If not, how can the purportedly apolitical school support an anti-gun walkout?


Inequality among American colleges and the continued failure of the online revolution


“U.S. Colleges Are Separating Into Winners and Losers” (WSJ) is an interesting article on an industry where the U.S. spends more than any other country (some data):

Concord University in West Virginia and Clemson University in South Carolina were both founded shortly after the Civil War. During the 20th century, each grew rapidly. Now, the two public universities that sit just 300 miles apart face very different circumstances.

Clemson, a large research university, enrolled its largest-ever freshman class in 2017 and in December broke ground on an $87 million building for the college of business.

Concord, a midsize liberal-arts school, has seen its freshman enrollment fall 19% in five years. It has burned through all $12 million in its reserves and can’t afford to tear down two mostly empty dormitories.

Clemson—ranked 188 in the Journal list—is on the successful side of the fault line in the higher-education sector. Concord, ranked 1051, isn’t.

Clemson’s success is tied to its embrace of the labor market, said Chuck Knepfle, associate vice president of enrollment management. The school has several corporate partners and has tied curriculum to their needs.

“Our students get jobs, we put successful people out there and that is well known,” Mr. Knepfle said.

So Clemson grads are making the big bucks? Enough to justify spending four years out of the workforce and paying four years of tuition?

At Clemson University, the Journal found, graduates on average earn $50,000 a year 10 years after entering college and the default rate on student loans is 3%; the average Concord graduate earned $32,000 and the default rate is 15%.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that an HVAC technician earned a median wage of $46,000 per year in 2016. So the HVAC tech who fixes a cooling problem at Clemson and works a few overtime weekends per year will earn more than a Clemson grad and can start his or her career at age 19.

South Carolina offers unlimited child support revenue (the law explained by a local litigator), so an 18-year-old who has sex with a dentist instead of going to Clemson will save more than $100,000 in costs and have a higher after-tax spending power than the average Clemson grad, as reported by the WSJ. The 18-year-old Charleston resident who makes a trip to Boston or Manhattan and has sex with an upper-income partner may earn even more under the Massachusetts or New York child support guidelines.

“California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree” (WSJ) suggests that many state and local government jobs, not requiring a college degree, will pay better than what a typical Clemson grad earns, at least early in his or her career, and these jobs come with a lot of protections against being fired (important in the #MeToo era where being denounced by a coworker can yield a ride on a greased slide to the front door).

On pure rational economic grounds, therefore, the U.S. college scam should have collapsed under its own weight a lot time ago. Americans would have done like the Chileans and said “Most of these degree programs are not a good return on private or public investment.” But I wonder if colleges hand on for a reason. Back in the depths of a miserable Boston January we taught a three-day class at MIT. Students could have hopped on a plane to Florida, learned the core material by reading PDFs and watching YouTube videos, and still had time to lounge by the pool. Yet 65 people showed up on Day 1 and, more remarkably, nearly all returned for Days 2 and 3. Even for people with superb reading and self-study skills, there was something about being together in a classroom that was motivating.

Readers: Is it time to say that, though it seems we aren’t very good at delivering higher education, as with health care, we’re going to have to keep doing it more or less the same way and at the same cost indefinitely?

Press coverage versus in-courtroom story on the Yale rape case


It is rare that we get a chance to compare the hysterical media coverage of a trial with the direct experience of someone who was there. Texaco and the $10 Billion Jury is an awesome book by a juror in the Texaco-Pennzoil case (media said that the large award was due to the jury comprising idiots; the juror explained that it was due to an unfortunate strategic decision by Texaco not to present an alternative damages theory and to the jury following the judge’s instructions carefully). Usually, however, unless we want to go down to the courthouse ourselves and pull all of the files we are left with a mostly-clueless reporter’s understanding of what happened.

The lawyer who defended a former Yale student being prosecuted for rape (see Does Saifullah Khan go back to Yale now?) has written an interesting blog post explaining what he did and why.



Why don’t airline computer systems text everyone who hasn’t boarded?


Thoughts while at an airport gate listening to PA announcements… The computer knows who has checked in. The computer knows who has gone through the gate. Why not subtract the latter set from the former and send out text messages, especially to those who checked bags, asking people to come to the gate? Should work better than a PA, no?

Either combine with video data from the gate so that you don’t spam people who are waiting in line. or have the process kicked off by the gate agent (if they can reach for the PA system, they can select an option on their computer to do this, right?).

Readers: What do you think? Most people can get text messages when they’re in an airport, right?

Why would our power plant control systems be on the Internet? If they aren’t, how did Russian hackers get in?


“Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says” (nytimes):

The Trump administration accused Russia on Thursday of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will.

Here’s my dumb question #22 for today: Why were any of these systems accessible via the Internet? Do the operators need to download porn and denounce Trump on Facebook to stay awake? What is the possible utility, so to speak, of a process control computer system being on the Internet? If the software is updated once every year, why not do that with a 5.25″ floppy or, if modernity is required, a USB drive?


Elizabeth Holmes unfairly punished for the Theranos debacle?


Elizabeth Holmes, the founder of Theranos, has been fined $500,000 by the S.E.C. and likely prevented from making a profit from her work at Theranos (nytimes).

I wonder if this is unfair. Was it a 19-year-old college dropout’s job to know that she didn’t have an edge over a small lake of chemistry Ph.D.s at Siemens? If I tell you “I am smarter than Gauss so give me $700 million,” whose fault is it if $700 million evaporates?

Commenters on the nytimes article are often outraged because, supposedly, peoples’ lives were put at risk by a few inaccurate test results. How can that be right? Where is the evidence that any medical procedure was ever performed as a result of a test number coming back from Theranos? (And, while we’re at it, let’s see if we can find useful medical procedures that have been done in response to test results in general!)

There is one funny comment: “The lesson here: If you’re gonna steal, steal big!” (from NDanger, Napa Valley, CA)

Readers: What do you think? She pissed away a huge amount of money because she and her Silicon Valley pals overestimated their collective intelligence and value to humanity. Is that a crime?

[Note that a standard financing structure for Theranos, in which cash investors get preferred shares with liquidation preferences, would have already done most of what the S.E.C. has tried to do. If the company had sold for less than the total invested, all proceeds would go to the preferred shareholders (the cash investors), not to founders and employees holding common shares.]



How smart has America’s smartest investor been?


University of Berkshire Hathaway: 30 Years of Lessons Learned from Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger at the Annual Shareholders Meeting (Pecaut and Wren 2017) is interesting for students of probability. We celebrate Warren Buffett as America’s smartest investor. But how much of that is survivorship bias? In November 2008 it looked as though Berkshire Hathaway might default on its debt (see “Betting Against Buffett” (Forbes): “Spreads on insurance against a debt default by Warren Buffett’s triple-A-rated Berkshire Hathaway are trading about on par with that of the embattled General Electric and worse than Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.”)

If the company was risky enough to nearly go broke in 2008, but didn’t, of course it should have done pretty well since then.

The authors, themselves money managers, start with some history:

Berkshire Hathaway was originally a New England textile company. It was a deeply discounted stock, with a book value of $19. Its net working capital was over $11 a share. Buffett bought shares at around $7–$8 per share. Buffett was buying shares at a discount to net cash and near-cash items. The decline of the textile industry was underway. Berkshire Hathaway was consolidating and selling assets. Then, with the cash, it was buying in its stock—which was intelligent because the stock was so cheap. In 1963, Berkshire did a massive buy-in of almost a third of its shares. The owners of Berkshire Hathaway saw Buffett’s position and didn’t want him in their little fiefdom. They called Buffett, offering to pay him $11.50 a share. He agreed. He’d make about a 40% profit in a short period. When the letter came for the offer, however, it was less than the agreed-on amount—but only by pennies. Nevertheless, their dishonesty upset Buffett. They were trying to chisel him out of 12.5 cents per share. So Buffett went the other way and started buying increasingly more shares of Berkshire until he took control. He then booted out the guy who had tried to chisel him out. In 1964, Warren Buffett took control of that small New England textile firm, and it became his new base for making investments. At the time, the move made no sense. Buffett had bought a business in decline that he didn’t know how to run. He later joked that he should have taken the money. That would have been the smarter thing to do. As it turned out, this textile company was an ideal vehicle for making investments. With Berkshire Hathaway’s stock, Buffett had a publicly traded corporation with captive capital. The benefits of this corporate structure for managing money are significant.

In 1967, Buffett bought an insurance company, National Indemnity. Insurance has been a core operation at Berkshire Hathaway ever since. He loves the insurance business. With its float characteristics, it creates a powerful platform for compounding wealth.

Insurance companies collect premiums, of which a significant portion goes into reserves to pay future claims. This reserve (the “float”) earns money for Berkshire, leveraging the company’s return on capital. If you can operate in a way where that float is generated at a low cost and you can grow it over time, you have built a wealth-compounding machine. As Munger once put it, “Basically, we’re a hedgehog that knows one big thing. If you generate float at 3% per annum and buy businesses that earn 13% per annum with the proceeds of that float, we have figured out that’s a pretty good position to be in.”

For every $1 of equity at Berkshire, over time there has been roughly another 50 cents or so in float. By investing $1.50 for every $1 of capital over the years, Berkshire has leveraged its returns. A significant portion of Berkshire’s long-term outperformance can be attributed to Buffett and Munger’s ability to execute on this brilliant insight. That’s not something you or I can go out and do.

So maybe you could have gotten some of Berkshire Hathaway’s performance, especially after the firm had gotten big, simply by leveraging the S&P 500? A 10-year chart shows that BRK.A and the S&P 500 have performed almost identically (i.e., you wouldn’t even need leverage to match BRK.A with the S&P 500). Actually the S&P 500 has paid dividends over the years, not reflected (I don’t think) in the pure index price. So the slightly better performance of Berkshire Hathaway (no dividend) would disappear if you factored in the dividends that the S&P 500 has paid.

Over a 20-year period, BRK.A looks a lot better, with a return of nearly 500% versus 170%. But a leveraged S&P 500 would also have done much better than the straight S&P 500. Maybe the argument is that using insurance float instead of borrowed money is a less risky way to use leverage?

As I did, Buffett lived through the traumatic inflation of the Jimmy Carter years. The authors record Buffett warning investors at every meeting that, due to the U.S. government’s deficit spending, significant inflation was just around the corner.

[1986] Buffett says it’s a political phenomena, not an economic one. As long as politicians lack self-restraint, they will print a lot of money at some point. Though it is probably two years or more down the road, Buffett sees “substantial inflation” and “rates we’ve never seen before.”

[1987] Like John Templeton, Buffett believes significant inflation is inevitable due to our government’s quick-fix attitude. “The availability of a printing press as a short-term band aid is very tempting . . . Inflation is a narcotic.”

[1993] While amazed at how low inflation has stayed, Buffett said that, at some point, inflation will return. “It’s just in remission.” Munger agreed, noting in his characteristically upbeat way that “the failure rate of all great civilizations is 100%.”

[2004] With perhaps the most significant statement of the meeting, Buffett asserted that inflation is heating up in the U.S. This explains Berkshire’s shift from bonds to cash.

[2006] Buffett noted that the CPI (Consumer Price Index) is not a particularly good measure of inflation. First, “core” inflation excludes food and energy. “Not much is more core!” Buffett exclaimed. Second, since CPI uses a rent equivalent factor for living costs, it hasn’t captured the rising cost of housing. In sum, the CPI understates inflation. Munger noted that inflation is where you look. [i.e., when your predictions don’t come true, declare measurement failure!]

[2009] Buffett guaranteed that the dollar will buy less over time, and that is happening with all other currencies as well. All major nations are electing to run major deficits in the face of the economic crisis. Buffett was emphatic: “You can bet on inflation.”

At nearly every meeting Buffett talks about how it is nearly impossible to lose by investing in Coca Cola due to its valuable brand.  From the 1999 meeting:

Dismissing concerns about Coca-Cola’s prospects with the strength of the dollar, Buffett said what really matters is share of market and share of mind. Coca-Cola’s market share is marvelous, and its share of mind is overwhelmingly favorable with a ubiquity of good feeling. The keys to analyzing Coca-Cola’s economic progress are l) unit cases sold (more is better), and 2) number of shares outstanding (the fewer the better). While it’s true case growth slowed over the last four quarters, Buffett believes that is temporary and unimportant to a 10-year projection. (Munger interjected that 10–15 year projections can tune out a lot of noise.) Buffett concluded that it’s hard to think of a better business in the world. There may be companies that could grow faster, but none as solid.

What’s happened since 1999? Maybe Buffett was right… Coke is up 32 percent. But on the other hand, the S&P 500 is up 105 percent (double your money in only 20 years). See this comparison chart.

Buffett and Munger predicted the Collapse of 2008:

Buffett continued that when things go bad, all kinds of things correlate that you wouldn’t think of. Buffett said this is deadly. If you are not aware of these correlations, you have an unrecognized concentration of risk. When telecom debt collapsed, for example, people found that all of it was correlated.7 Munger warned that derivatives have the same sort of danger and that the accounting for them exacerbates the problem.8

Buffett added that, while participants claim derivatives help spread risk, he believes that they have actually intensified risk since a few large players do much of the business.10 Buffett cautioned that the counter-party risk in the system has been little examined despite the warnings of past mishaps. Munger stated that he would be amazed if he lives another five years and doesn’t see a significant blow up.

Buffett warned that when there is trouble, everything correlates. Thus, in managing catastrophic losses, one must think through the ripple effects. California, for example, has had 25 6.0 earthquakes in the last 100 years. Such a quake in a populated area would have enormous consequences. At Berkshire, not only would it hit the insurance operations, but it would correlate with the businesses of See’s Candy, GEICO, Wells Fargo and other Berkshire subsidiaries.

As with many Wall Street prophets, however, he was apparently able to predict the collapse but not the date. The above quotes are from the 2003 and 2005 meetings.

From the 2007 meeting:

As one example of what can happen under forced sales, Buffett reviewed October 19, 1987: The infamous Black Monday when the Dow Jones Average dropped 23% in a single day. It was driven by portfolio insurance, which was a joke. It was a bunch of stop/loss orders, but done automatically, and the concept was heavily marketed. People paid a lot of money for people to teach them how to put in a stop/loss order. When a lot of institutions do this, the effect is like pouring gas on a fire. They created a doomsday machine that kept selling and selling. You can have the same thing today because you have fund operators with billions of dollars—in aggregate, trillions of dollars—who will all respond to the same stimulus. It’s a crowded trade, but they don’t know it. And it’s not formal. They will sell for the same reasons. Someday, you will get a very chaotic situation.

Buffett shared that when he and Charlie were at Salomon, they talked about five or six sigma events, but that doesn’t mean anything when you’re talking about real markets and human behavior. Look at what happened in 1998 and in 2002. You’ll see it when people try to beat the markets day by day.

We have expressed great concerns about the subprime mortgage meltdown. However, Buffett does not see that this will be “a huge anchor on the economy.” Especially if unemployment and interest rates do not go up, Buffett believes it unlikely this factor alone will trigger anything major in the general economy.  … Buffett concluded that it will be at least a couple of years before real estate recovers. The people who were counting on flipping the homes are going to get flipped, but in a different way.

From the May 3, 2008 meeting (four months before the Collapse):

Buffett opined that “a chief risk officer is an employee that makes you feel good while you do dumb things.”

He talked about CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), which were aggregations of tranches of thousands of different mortgage claims. They were so complicated that there could be 15,000 pages to read to understand all the mortgages and tranches involved. As if that wasn’t complicated enough, there are also CDOs squared, which might be a security that comprises 50 CDOs. At 15,000 pages per CDO, one would have to read some 750,000 pages to understand one CDO squared.

When asked about CDS (credit default swaps), a $60 trillion national market, Buffett felt the CDS market was not a big risk to tumble into chaos.

At the first meeting after the collapse, May 2, 2009, Buffett talked up Wells Fargo. How has it done? Up about 170 percent… against the S&P 500, which is up more than 220 percent (chart).

So… there are a lot of great stories in this book, certainly better than the story “Back in 1990 I bought the S&P 500 with 2:1 leverage. But it looks as though Buffett had a couple of decades of tremendous success and then a couple of decades of S&P-style returns. It is unclear that what he did can be replicated, even by Buffett himself.

Readers: What do you think? It isn’t far to demand that Buffett be right about everything, but is it possible that the reverence in which he is held is largely due to early-stage luck, leverage in a generally rising market, and survivorship bias?

More: read University of Berkshire Hathaway: 30 Years of Lessons Learned from Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger at the Annual Shareholders Meeting


Democrat victory in Pennsylvania shows that Americans like a planned economy but did not like Hillary?


Pravda tells us that a righteous Democrat has won an election in a Pennsylvania district that Hillary Clinton lost by 20 points. Can we infer from this that voters were rejecting Hillary (spouse of former leader, recipient of $billions in foreign cash via her family-controlled foundation) rather than rejecting the Democrats’ promise of a planned economy (fair wages for all races and gender IDs determined by a central bureaucracy, fair (means-tested) prices for housing, food, and health care, experts allocating appropriate levels of resources to the health care industry, etc.)? Therefore if the Democrats simply nominate someone in 2020 who didn’t get rich via involvement in politics and who didn’t succeed in politics through marriage or family connections, Trump is in serious trouble? And if Trump is in serious trouble will it be time to go short the U.S. markets?

Log in