DT is such a genius: to control Russia, he’s simply asking the two most populous countries of the world to commit economic suicide so that he can subsequently wage war on them, unfettered by preoccupations with the ‘gas station’ of a country (Russia).
When you born on a golden chamber -pot with a platinium spoon in your big mouth, surrounded by obsequious minions and then you lived an existence of extremely wealthy potentate, surrounded by ass-kisser, whores and smart flattering profiteers, when during 78 years, all you said were right and genius, your numerous mistakes and faults were quickly erased or forgiven or endorsed by servile collaborators, how do you want to think and act differently than Trump does. He's learning the harsh truth, the harsh way.
If you're after a real understanding of Trump, I don't think this is a good starting point. Rather than a silver spoon childhood, his insecurities derive from the experience of his father being a "second rate" (Brooklyn - especially Coney Island) real estate developer. Real developers did work on Manhattan island, and that's what Donald aspired to.
New York City is heavily Jewish (1.5 million between the five burroughs), and at the time Trump made his money in real estate, it was dominated by the Italian and Jewish mobs. Before he got into television and was still fairly young, he made a lot of money in an environment that depended on working well with both the mob underworld of NYC (who controlled the Teamsters and other construction unions) and the Jews of NYC who were/are extremely competitive and cutthroat.
No mob boss kissed Trump's ass, and yet he excelled working with them. If you look at the women in Trump's life - especially the mistresses / call girls - they tend to be successful, intelligent, and beautiful. He doesn't take the easy way out with sycophantic prostitutes who have little alternative, and are attracted to the glitter of gold. Look into Stormy Daniels - the call girl he faced criminal charges over for payments to her to keep quiet - she's the kind of woman who picks her lovers and easily says "no" to billionaires. She's not a flatterer; Trump apparently enjoys that challenge.
I despise Trump in a lot of ways. But people tend to form popular opinions of politicians that almost never seem to match up with who those people really are, like seeing the younger Bush as being a stupid man (he wasn't and isn't). It doesn't help in understanding the world.
If Trump had simply taken the initial money he borrowed from his father in 1974, invested that in an S&P 500 index fund and reinvested the proceeds, he'd would be richer than he is today.
In other words, Trump is a below average businessman, relative to the S&P.
I've heard that before and found it trite. No one in 1974 would borrow money to invest in the stock market - that would have been seen as utterly reckless. In the 70s and 80s, Americans still mostly made their money by making things. The path to climbing the social ladder was still mostly by building a company that did that. Trump followed a well-trodden path in borrowing money and using his father's experience and connections to build a real estate development company.
The whole idea of index funds was still a novelty even in the 90s. During most of Trump's business career, there were two essential paths to investing in the market: holding a few lots off street, usually in utilities or major industrials (for middle America) or (if you were wealthy) placing your money with a Wall Street broker, and trusting their judgment and giving them authority to place trades on your behalf. If you heard a hot tip somewhere, you could call them up - and it was a loser as often as not.
I remember the retail revolution in investing that Charles Schwab started. That's when index funds gained speed. I used up / down movements over a set % in Merrill Lynch as a buy / sell signal in my retail Schwab portfolio - it was still an effective signal in the 90s, because those brokers controlled most of the market. Lynch was the best capitalized brokerage house, and the insiders knew where the market was moving.
In other words, Trump had above average returns relative to most of the class of people who tried building and managing wealth in his cohort. The winners invested in financialization; no one thought back then that the winning ticket was companies that simply moved money around and developed complex contracts against it. The losers were those who invested in "rust bucket" companies, which everyone thought were the source of a country's wealth.
"No one in 1974 would borrow money to invest in the stock market - that would have been seen as utterly reckless"
That is so totally not true, which is why the Federal Reserve has regulated purchases of securities on margin since the 1934s. In fact, margin purchases of stocks were a major contributor to the stock market bubble of the 1920s, you know, back when "Americans still mostly made their money by making things." Funny you mention that - the last time the FRB touched Reg T was 1974.
The fact that index funds were not a commercial product in no way defeats the point - Trump's returns were less than the average return on the stock market.
Buying on margin is a very different thing than borrowing money you have to pay back to someone. If your underlying assets plummet in value on a margin account, you're going to get called; your investment might get wiped out, but you're not going to be left standing with debt to repay. But I'm mentioning what is true for the people and culture I moved in. I think for example in the 1920s, borrowing money to take to the market might have been seen as a "sure thing" and very socially accepted.
Hindsight is 20/20 on winning and losing picks. If he had invested his Apprentice royalties in Bitcoin, he'd be the richest man on Earth right now.
It was the fifteenth anniversary of the "world's most expensive pizza" a month ago. Laszlo Hanyecz (a software engineer) ordered two Papa John's pizzas in Florida for delivery, and convinced the franchise owner to take Bitcoin for them. Those 10,000 Bitcoins are worth over a billion dollars today. Hanyecz isn't kicking himself; he had more BTC in his wallet than that and that he held onto.
Ho yes sure. In France we have (tens of?)millions dumb cheerleaders of all the American fairy tales.
Exemple: the amazing film "American Snipper" that describe a serial killer of women and kids by cleverly disguising him in hero, made a big hit. Much more than in USA and without the polemic we seen in USA. Incredible. While in France it would be absolutely impossible, ridiculous and scandalous to make a film about, for exemple, l'adjudant-chef( staff sergent) Lambert, who, in Algeria war would have killed 160 "terrorists"with a sniper rifle. Such a film could spark a civil war or more probably a huge burst of laughter. Such a film could only be a parody. But no, it's American, it's Clint( one of the most beloved American in France) and that works, even the french (pseudo) intellectuals become dumb cheerleaders. That works.
No fear from me on that count (seeming ruder than you intend). Your English is good, and I appreciate that it's not just output from your native French in Google Translate.
It's not ignorance (at least not in any different sense than any other Anglo would have). It's not even hubris. It's power moves, coupled with an indefatigable sense of invincibility that nearly every white American carries. Hunter S. Thompson is one of the most prescient observers of American culture, and what was true when he wrote a half century ago is even more true now:
"There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . . And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . ."
Trump cannot imagine losing, any more than any other American can. There's a movie called Office Space that in my opinion illustrates the divide between how Americans and the rest of the world (especially Eastern Europeans) think about failure:
If you can understand that clip - just how thoroughly an American could perceive getting hit by a car, nearly dying, potentially being crippled or paralyzed as being the "greatest thing that ever happened to me" (because of the financial payout and a society that supports you in every way, with handicapped transport, etc.) - you'll understand how Trump is completely incapable (as an American) of perceiving the risk of failure.
I think the American sense of invincibility is an artifact of Hollywood and major media propaganda that's continued ever since the age of radio and the first "talkies" movies.
I grew up in the U.S., and moved to Russia during the Obama years as a result of marriage. One thing I've found interesting in difference is physical fights. My experience with the topic in the U.S. was a handful of fist fights I saw in high school, a few in bars over the years, and a few other odd incidents. Here I've seen a few - usually involving alcohol and inebriated guys.
In Russia, assault is no-fault: it doesn't matter who threw the first punch, both parties are equally liable. In the U.S., figuring out "who started it" always seemed like the central theme - and if one party was clearly liable for instigating it, the other party got off lightly punished or scot-free.
In the U.S., my observation with fights (and the Hollywood / TV representation of them) is that they are about inflicting damage on the other person. Even after one party goes to the ground, there's still kicking and trying to cause permanent damage if possible. I see that a lot with the ghetto Black fights on Carnival Cruises and things like that - there's no end to the fight until one party is unconscious or the victorious party is physically pulled off and out.
That never happens in Russia. As soon as one party goes to the ground, the fight is over. And as soon as there's any indication of authorities responding - police sirens or someone spotting police - everyone scatters. Fights are a lot less severe and less intense here, and also far less common.
When any negotiation session appear stop be deadlocked there needs to be a sincere reflection based on empathy where each party places their considerations into "the shoes" of the other party in a genuine attempt to understand the motives and position that both parties are facing.
It seems to me that Trump is incapable of accepting that Putin's primary position goes back prior to 2014, not February 24, 2022 when the SMO was activated. Trump needs to have a history lesson, and not one that was crafted by war hawks in Washington.
This is why what Elon Musk is doing - forming a third "America Party" - is so smart. That party has no chance of ever winning an election. But enough of Trump's base is pissed at him now that, although they'd never vote Democrat, they'll vote for Elon's alternative just to express displeasure (or stay home and not vote).
Elon can finance candidates against every vulnerable Republican legislator (Representatives and Senators) - and guarantee that Trump has a repeat of his first term, where Democrats took control of Congress and spent the entire time trying to impeach him. He can offer Trump a deal; do what your party base wants (and probably a few items that Elon wants and that are unpopular with the party base), and I won't run a candidate in this competitive race where it will make a difference. Elon can either intentionally tilt at windmills, and run candidates in races that don't matter; or guarantee Trump a failure in the second half of his term in office.
The particular things Trump's base are really, really unhappy with him over:
- Massive expansion in defense spending (+25%), which will never go away. Even worse, there's a history in U.S. politics of defense spending and social spending being about the same amount - so the next Democrat will massively expand social spending (since no one can cut defense spending in the U.S. system).
- Expanding the deficit budget as a whole significantly. Significant tax cuts for the top 1% that are permanent, trivial tax cuts for the working class that go away in a few years (just like during Trump's first term).
- Continuing the cover-up over Epstein. The real issue with it that none of his base can really say out loud (at least those with a platform) and that Tucker Carlson just did - everyone believes Epstein was an Israeli spy, and everyone who cares about the issue (a good percentage of Trump's supporters) believe Trump is covering it up for Israel. And they're most likely correct.
- Bombing Iran - another war for Israel that probably blows up and drags the U.S. into another forever war. This is the issue with Epstein; if Trump's an Israeli-firster on that, probably he is on everything else Israel wants, too.
The things Elon really wants that Trump's base opposes:
- Expanding legal immigration through a program called "H1B" visas, which lets in mostly Indian professional workers
Please allow me to play devil's advocate. I voted for Trump not because I knew he was competent, but rather that a donkey is better than a whore as the POTUS. Imagine being a geopolitically naive POTUS who now understands that even on his second attempt, he cannot control the deep state. He is the cowboy on a rough bull on the brink of falling every moment before he even became the POTUS. His faction has no control over the Congress; the neocons and AIPAC do. Actually, I doubt that he has much power to pick his cabinet. Given all that, were you the POTUS, what would you do?
It is like rafting in a violent stream without paddles. One will try to avoid the most deadly obstacle and try to steer the raft toward somewhere less deadly, but still deadly. When he has some chance, he will try to do something about the US domestic business. If he cannot avoid the "bone-crushing sanctions" (do not underestimate the power of Little Girl), he tries to control the extent of the tariff. If he cannot stop the weapon flow, he sends 10 patriot missiles to Ukraine. I would say Putin "gives up on him" not because Putin sees DT as hostile, but rather that Putin sees DT as unable to deal with the US deep state. DT is quite competent, but not competent enough to deal with the deep swamp. Many people had hoped that would happen, but I did not. He stayed on the back of the bull for about 120 days. I think that is pretty good. If you see a better bull-rider, please let me know.
Instead of blaming DT for his geopolitical blunders (too many to write in one book), maybe the US audience here should switch some firepower to the US domestic enemies. Maybe, if we can make the bull get exhausted faster, like bleeding a little, the next cowboy would have a better chance.
I think that the Beast, the techno structure that rule USA is now too powerful and too wild to be mounted.
Imagine, 65 years before, Ike alerted US people of the deadly danger of Military Industrial Complex for democracy and USA.
62 years before, a young president who wanted to stop escalation in Vietnam and stop the systemic banks power were assassinated.
53 years before, another president who painted the DeepState as a wild beast , resigned after a politico-mediatic manipulation.
20 years before, a vice-president abolished US democracy thanks to a very doubtful and monstrous "terrorist" attack on which there is no consensus .
15 years before, Snowden risked his honour and his live to alert American people , with proofs, of the dictatorship in the making in USA. Stubbornly dumb people called him "traitor".
Imagine the limitless power of this blob, without head to crush. It's a crazy train and each wagon is a locomotive. As crazy and powerful that Catholic Church in the 15th century or sovietic DeepState in the 80's.
If the beast is not domesticated( and I don't know who or what could do it, forget Trump) , it will break USA.
I'm walking in your shoes. It says something profound about the U.S. that there is such a shallow pool of talent at the top levels of the political class. No one with any real substance wants to be involved in it as an elected official.
I'm Gen X. Nixon was the best President of my lifetime. Every President since Tricky Dick (who was out of office before I was out of kindergarten) has been progressively worse, except maybe the placeholder Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan flooded the country with illegal immigrants forever, and really believed his movie roles as a WWII soldier were just as heroic as being a combat veteran of that war. He ran the country through consultation with an astrologist, and was dominated by the CIA-connected members of his Cabinet. Just steadily downhill, every single new President of my lifetime...
I'm expecting the trend to continue with a twist; Trump's #47 term will not only be worse than Biden's #46, but also worse than Trump's own #45 term.
He does nothing good for the US by not slaying the beast. He's 80 yo, and lived his life and life involves risks to yourself and your family. No guts, no glory. He's either going down a gutless moron, or a hero. It's a choice.
The guy is an incompetent loser, a bully, an economic illiterate and a third-rate Brooklyn hooligan, totally uncouth, in the image of the retrograde rednecks, chauvinists & KuKluxKlanners who elected him.
Making America a Shithole Country of the likes he so disdains. A beacon of nepotism, corruption & injustice.
Funny, everyone commenting here has something negative to say about Trump. What I don’t see is any other ideas on how to end this war. Just others jubilantly celebrating his efforts at trying to turn around a country that has been run into the ground by the deep state left wing radicals who somehow switched positions with the war hawks that republicans used to be in the 70’s & 80’s. You all revel with him failing which means you either aren’t an American or you’ve no patriotic sense whatsoever. If anyone had any economic sense you’d realize what he’s doing by weakening the dollar it makes US goods cheaper around the globe and by instilling tariffs he makes said products equal or in some cases less than the products made in other countries. Trump being the crypto president is also enabling stablecoins to buy a shit ton of bonds since other countries are dumping them this creates a new market for them and demand is high. He’s also killing banks and the Fed and the EU but since most here are that short sighted they can’t see the long game being played and most likely aren’t vested monetarily in it. So, keep up with the wise cracks as I’m sure everyone of you would do a much better job and I’ll keep counting the profits from my Bitcoin and other crypto assets I’ve owned for penny’s and watch you all keep laughing over things you obviously have no clue about.
Trump has been unbelievably patient with Putin. Many in the US and Europe would argue too patient. He has constantly taken Putin's side. He berated and humiliated Zelensky publicly. And what has Putin done in return for Trump? N O T H I N G! So ya, Trump is not "imagining" that Putin played him, he WAS played, that's a fact, just look at the past 6 months. An 8 year old can see that. Putin took and took, and offered nothing serious in return, and now Trump is getting angry, and who can blame him. To more than half the world, he's seen as Putin's puppet, and he just accepted it. At some point, he had to snap, and Putin should have known that
The US played itself. They created this mess together with the Europeans and don't know how to get out. That Putin somehow played Trump is delusional, because the Russian point of view has been public since day one. If you cannot work with the Russian demands, then Russia will have to work it out on the battlefield. It's that simple.
so let me see if I have this right. If countries don't do what Russia demands they do, Russia has the right to go to war. Yes, I imagine this is the world Putin dreams of. I know for a fact it's the world Hitler dreamed of.
But back to reality now, Russia is a signatory of UN charter article 2 paragraph 4 which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. So no, what's simple is that Russia has no right to be doing what they are doing to Ukraine
Your answer shoes that you don't understand the conflict. Please read a little bit more. Fact is, Russia went in to protect the Russian population in the Donbass. But neither MSM.nor you care about that. The conflict could have been easily avoided if someone had asked what the people in Donbass wanted.
Qnd please leave Hitler out of this. It's just embarrassing.
You do understand that thanks to Russia's war, the Donbass region has been turned into a war zone. It will be years, possibly decades, before it's in livable shape again. Much of the Russian population there has been displaced, their lives upended, many of them killed by Russia's own army.
And even if somehow in your worldview, being killed by Russian artillery is a good thing, it's still irrelevant cause according to the UN charter, of which Russia is a signatory, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to invade a sovereign country. And don't try to make the juvenile argument that Ukraine isn't sovereign. The UN clearly states that Ukraine is sovereign, and Russia is bound to that.
So on every level, your argument is does not hold water.
Technically they invaded their own territory. The Donbass voted to be part of Russia because Kiev bombed them since 2014. Poroshenko even bragged about how the children in the Donbass will grow up in basements. I have seen the videos and I have family in Ukraine too. What do you think would happen once Ukraine technically forbid the Russian language and bombed people that were still part of Ukraine? Let me ask this, What would Quebec have done if Canada forbid the French language? They would be seek independence from Canada in no time. War is war and you can talk for years about whether it's wrong or right. It is always wrong in my opinion, but if we ignore the history and circumstances that have lead to it, then we will never understand the conflict and we will not be able to solve it. And that's the problem with the West. Nobody in the West ever asked what the people Donbass wanted. Historically it's Russian land, inhabited by ethnic Russians. If the West was so concerned about peace they would have allowed the Donbass to vote on its own future, but all the West has been talking about is the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. What nonsense, if you think about it. You can't keep something together that doesn't want to be together anymore. So, believe whatever you want, every person has their right to believe in whatever they want. The people in Donbass though, made their choice and the Duma accepted their plead to become part of Russia, even people who weren't on Putin's side voted for it. (Funnily enough, people who were against Putin but still voted in favor if it, were sanctioned by the West because of it). Bizzar.
That 2014 vote was in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, and was littered with questionable antics.
And even if we take a break from legalities and just discuss the "will of the people", imagine if people could just randomly declare referendums. First of all, China looses Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong. France will have multiple breakaway provinces, England splits in half. Germany will splinter into a half dozen territories. California becomes it's own country. The rest of America splits in half. Brazil, Argentina, practically every country in the MENA region splinters. Where does it end?
I'm sorry, but any region can declare a referendum, then every region of every country on the planet will be conducting them. No Country wants to surrender their land, no matter how minuscule or if that segment of the population doesn't want to belong to that country.
If I were Pres Putin, I'd be very cautious about making any change to commit or consume more resources to finish Ukraine off in 50 days. As Iran clearly showed, US and Trump is not a friend and cannot be trusted.
If it were me, I'd cycle out my elite troops, replace them with rookies, and reserve the experienced troops for rapid deployment elsewhere. And I'd be ready for false attacks too.
Sorry to say this so bluntly but Western leaders are either dumb or/and desperate.
Main point being, Russia pays for its war in Rubles. Theoretically and practically they can print the money and fight Ukraine, because they don't have to important their weapons.
Also, cut Russia's oil and gas exports off, what will happen with Europe? Europe can't even full up their gas storage properly right now because gas prices are still so high... and then the West wants to cut off Russian exports? What a joke.
I have an instinctive distrust of Trump. What I see is all of the prep work being done for a major world conflagration. HBI (poster from B's board and Simplicius's Substack) says he doesn't see any indication of it behind the drapes, but I can feel it in my bones - like a high pressure front moving in before the storm.
There are only two ways to end massive debt: massive devaluation or war.
And never ever the oligarchy would let any politician able to devaluate approach the power.
Remain war.
However.
However, USA and allies absolutely can't afford a big war against pair.
And absolutely no means to win it.
You say that white US citizen are sure they are invincible? If it's true, this dream ( nightmare for others)could cost their nation and even probably the fate of humanity.
I notice that the ruble has climbed by about 1% against western currencies since Trump's announcement. In any case, China can't afford to let Russia lose, so it will act at minimum in ways that ensure that the west doesn't win. Unfortunately, it looks as if all parties (apart from actual Ukrainians) have an interest in the conflict grinding on for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, none of the parties have an interest in escalating – although a missile attack on Moscow that resulted in mass casualties could quickly change this.
"Majorly" is colloquial language and sounds low class and like broken speech to a native English speaker. It's grammatically correct in terms of word formation - you can generally add "-ly" to the end of any noun to form an adverb (which works like an adjective in speech). But just because you can, doesn't mean you should; the correct adverb is "extremely".
Major as used here isn't a noun, it's an adjective. A major objective means a big objective. A minor mistake is a small mistake. Both major and minor are comparative forms from Latin (major is from the magnus/major/maximus triad = big/bigger/biggest).
Of course, a Major can also be a military rank (noun), and a Minor someone below 18 (noun), but this is not what was meant.
The point with majorly is that it is simply uncommon usage in written language so sounds clumsy. Also, you don't normally adverbalize comparative forms. Or have you heard of "betterly"?
What does this add to the conversation? Do you have any sincere belief that Trump has shaky hands? Poor eyesight? Twitter is full of moronic comments. I hope Korybko's comment thread doesn't end up turning into a new X.
Well, in fairness, I shouldn't have punched your direction. You're far from the only poster in this article's comment thread with no more to add than more incessant "orange man bad" - no interesting insight, nothing to learn from reading it, just a visceral expression of bile. I suspect that sort of content now ranks higher than cat pics and porno as a % of internet traffic in total.
I apologize for the comment. My reason for posting it is that (in general) I constantly see posts everywhere - in Substacks I read, stuff on X, etc. - that's a simple emotional "I hate Trump, and I want to shout it to the world!". Ok, got it.
I don't learn anything from it. It doesn't add to the conversation. I wish people would stop - yelling your feelings an extra thousand times isn't going to have any affect on me except to annoy me. But it seems like feelings are all that matters in the west. For my own part, I appreciate some interesting insight. Or at least entertaining prose, like perhaps if you wrote your original comment like this:
> The Chump will soon find out that threading a needle with bloated toddler hands, the shakes of a cheap carnival ride, and the eyesight of a half-blind mole is about as doable as teaching a goldfish to juggle.
That at least has some double-entendre in meaning with Trump's origin in cheap carnival rides (his father Fred built condos that blocked the view to the ocean and the rides in Luna Park on the boardwalk for homeowners in Coney Island).
DT is such a genius: to control Russia, he’s simply asking the two most populous countries of the world to commit economic suicide so that he can subsequently wage war on them, unfettered by preoccupations with the ‘gas station’ of a country (Russia).
Nauseating ignorance.
When you born on a golden chamber -pot with a platinium spoon in your big mouth, surrounded by obsequious minions and then you lived an existence of extremely wealthy potentate, surrounded by ass-kisser, whores and smart flattering profiteers, when during 78 years, all you said were right and genius, your numerous mistakes and faults were quickly erased or forgiven or endorsed by servile collaborators, how do you want to think and act differently than Trump does. He's learning the harsh truth, the harsh way.
And it will be much more harsher.
If you're after a real understanding of Trump, I don't think this is a good starting point. Rather than a silver spoon childhood, his insecurities derive from the experience of his father being a "second rate" (Brooklyn - especially Coney Island) real estate developer. Real developers did work on Manhattan island, and that's what Donald aspired to.
New York City is heavily Jewish (1.5 million between the five burroughs), and at the time Trump made his money in real estate, it was dominated by the Italian and Jewish mobs. Before he got into television and was still fairly young, he made a lot of money in an environment that depended on working well with both the mob underworld of NYC (who controlled the Teamsters and other construction unions) and the Jews of NYC who were/are extremely competitive and cutthroat.
No mob boss kissed Trump's ass, and yet he excelled working with them. If you look at the women in Trump's life - especially the mistresses / call girls - they tend to be successful, intelligent, and beautiful. He doesn't take the easy way out with sycophantic prostitutes who have little alternative, and are attracted to the glitter of gold. Look into Stormy Daniels - the call girl he faced criminal charges over for payments to her to keep quiet - she's the kind of woman who picks her lovers and easily says "no" to billionaires. She's not a flatterer; Trump apparently enjoys that challenge.
I despise Trump in a lot of ways. But people tend to form popular opinions of politicians that almost never seem to match up with who those people really are, like seeing the younger Bush as being a stupid man (he wasn't and isn't). It doesn't help in understanding the world.
If Trump had simply taken the initial money he borrowed from his father in 1974, invested that in an S&P 500 index fund and reinvested the proceeds, he'd would be richer than he is today.
In other words, Trump is a below average businessman, relative to the S&P.
I've heard that before and found it trite. No one in 1974 would borrow money to invest in the stock market - that would have been seen as utterly reckless. In the 70s and 80s, Americans still mostly made their money by making things. The path to climbing the social ladder was still mostly by building a company that did that. Trump followed a well-trodden path in borrowing money and using his father's experience and connections to build a real estate development company.
The whole idea of index funds was still a novelty even in the 90s. During most of Trump's business career, there were two essential paths to investing in the market: holding a few lots off street, usually in utilities or major industrials (for middle America) or (if you were wealthy) placing your money with a Wall Street broker, and trusting their judgment and giving them authority to place trades on your behalf. If you heard a hot tip somewhere, you could call them up - and it was a loser as often as not.
I remember the retail revolution in investing that Charles Schwab started. That's when index funds gained speed. I used up / down movements over a set % in Merrill Lynch as a buy / sell signal in my retail Schwab portfolio - it was still an effective signal in the 90s, because those brokers controlled most of the market. Lynch was the best capitalized brokerage house, and the insiders knew where the market was moving.
In other words, Trump had above average returns relative to most of the class of people who tried building and managing wealth in his cohort. The winners invested in financialization; no one thought back then that the winning ticket was companies that simply moved money around and developed complex contracts against it. The losers were those who invested in "rust bucket" companies, which everyone thought were the source of a country's wealth.
For starters:
"No one in 1974 would borrow money to invest in the stock market - that would have been seen as utterly reckless"
That is so totally not true, which is why the Federal Reserve has regulated purchases of securities on margin since the 1934s. In fact, margin purchases of stocks were a major contributor to the stock market bubble of the 1920s, you know, back when "Americans still mostly made their money by making things." Funny you mention that - the last time the FRB touched Reg T was 1974.
The fact that index funds were not a commercial product in no way defeats the point - Trump's returns were less than the average return on the stock market.
Buying on margin is a very different thing than borrowing money you have to pay back to someone. If your underlying assets plummet in value on a margin account, you're going to get called; your investment might get wiped out, but you're not going to be left standing with debt to repay. But I'm mentioning what is true for the people and culture I moved in. I think for example in the 1920s, borrowing money to take to the market might have been seen as a "sure thing" and very socially accepted.
Hindsight is 20/20 on winning and losing picks. If he had invested his Apprentice royalties in Bitcoin, he'd be the richest man on Earth right now.
It was the fifteenth anniversary of the "world's most expensive pizza" a month ago. Laszlo Hanyecz (a software engineer) ordered two Papa John's pizzas in Florida for delivery, and convinced the franchise owner to take Bitcoin for them. Those 10,000 Bitcoins are worth over a billion dollars today. Hanyecz isn't kicking himself; he had more BTC in his wallet than that and that he held onto.
Well, you US guys are truly experts in legends creation.
You are natural born liars, cheaters, trickers , bullshiters and I never believe a world of the wonderfull stories of American celebrities.
There is the legend. And there is the true.
For decades now, Americans definitely leaves the harsh land of reality for those of narratives and self complacency.
Even if we take all that as granted - so what? It works.
Ho yes sure. In France we have (tens of?)millions dumb cheerleaders of all the American fairy tales.
Exemple: the amazing film "American Snipper" that describe a serial killer of women and kids by cleverly disguising him in hero, made a big hit. Much more than in USA and without the polemic we seen in USA. Incredible. While in France it would be absolutely impossible, ridiculous and scandalous to make a film about, for exemple, l'adjudant-chef( staff sergent) Lambert, who, in Algeria war would have killed 160 "terrorists"with a sniper rifle. Such a film could spark a civil war or more probably a huge burst of laughter. Such a film could only be a parody. But no, it's American, it's Clint( one of the most beloved American in France) and that works, even the french (pseudo) intellectuals become dumb cheerleaders. That works.
Hollywood drives American culture, so that fits.
Box offices in Bombay, Istanbul, Mexico & Cairo are increasingly more successful. Just wait until China comes online full tilt.
Hollywood: coming soon to a theater near you - the Rust Belt of the audiovisual world.
I'm not a good English speaker then my words can seem ruder than I think
Don't worry about offending me.
No fear from me on that count (seeming ruder than you intend). Your English is good, and I appreciate that it's not just output from your native French in Google Translate.
W imitates perfectly. What talent!
It's not ignorance (at least not in any different sense than any other Anglo would have). It's not even hubris. It's power moves, coupled with an indefatigable sense of invincibility that nearly every white American carries. Hunter S. Thompson is one of the most prescient observers of American culture, and what was true when he wrote a half century ago is even more true now:
"There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning. . . . And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . ."
Trump cannot imagine losing, any more than any other American can. There's a movie called Office Space that in my opinion illustrates the divide between how Americans and the rest of the world (especially Eastern Europeans) think about failure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WARfyYsb3dw
If you can understand that clip - just how thoroughly an American could perceive getting hit by a car, nearly dying, potentially being crippled or paralyzed as being the "greatest thing that ever happened to me" (because of the financial payout and a society that supports you in every way, with handicapped transport, etc.) - you'll understand how Trump is completely incapable (as an American) of perceiving the risk of failure.
Whether they can deal with it or not is irrelevant.
Fact is, the USA has lost.
I think the American sense of invincibility is an artifact of Hollywood and major media propaganda that's continued ever since the age of radio and the first "talkies" movies.
I grew up in the U.S., and moved to Russia during the Obama years as a result of marriage. One thing I've found interesting in difference is physical fights. My experience with the topic in the U.S. was a handful of fist fights I saw in high school, a few in bars over the years, and a few other odd incidents. Here I've seen a few - usually involving alcohol and inebriated guys.
In Russia, assault is no-fault: it doesn't matter who threw the first punch, both parties are equally liable. In the U.S., figuring out "who started it" always seemed like the central theme - and if one party was clearly liable for instigating it, the other party got off lightly punished or scot-free.
In the U.S., my observation with fights (and the Hollywood / TV representation of them) is that they are about inflicting damage on the other person. Even after one party goes to the ground, there's still kicking and trying to cause permanent damage if possible. I see that a lot with the ghetto Black fights on Carnival Cruises and things like that - there's no end to the fight until one party is unconscious or the victorious party is physically pulled off and out.
That never happens in Russia. As soon as one party goes to the ground, the fight is over. And as soon as there's any indication of authorities responding - police sirens or someone spotting police - everyone scatters. Fights are a lot less severe and less intense here, and also far less common.
When any negotiation session appear stop be deadlocked there needs to be a sincere reflection based on empathy where each party places their considerations into "the shoes" of the other party in a genuine attempt to understand the motives and position that both parties are facing.
It seems to me that Trump is incapable of accepting that Putin's primary position goes back prior to 2014, not February 24, 2022 when the SMO was activated. Trump needs to have a history lesson, and not one that was crafted by war hawks in Washington.
He does not care.
It seems that Trump as a huge biggest problem to deal with than Ukrain: Epstein about-face.
Big rebellion in MAGA.
Loosing this faction, perhaps he's trying to seduce the neocons while trying to keep a chance with Poutine.
Both will fail. He'll finish alone, hated by some, despised by others.
What a mess.
This is why what Elon Musk is doing - forming a third "America Party" - is so smart. That party has no chance of ever winning an election. But enough of Trump's base is pissed at him now that, although they'd never vote Democrat, they'll vote for Elon's alternative just to express displeasure (or stay home and not vote).
Elon can finance candidates against every vulnerable Republican legislator (Representatives and Senators) - and guarantee that Trump has a repeat of his first term, where Democrats took control of Congress and spent the entire time trying to impeach him. He can offer Trump a deal; do what your party base wants (and probably a few items that Elon wants and that are unpopular with the party base), and I won't run a candidate in this competitive race where it will make a difference. Elon can either intentionally tilt at windmills, and run candidates in races that don't matter; or guarantee Trump a failure in the second half of his term in office.
The particular things Trump's base are really, really unhappy with him over:
- Massive expansion in defense spending (+25%), which will never go away. Even worse, there's a history in U.S. politics of defense spending and social spending being about the same amount - so the next Democrat will massively expand social spending (since no one can cut defense spending in the U.S. system).
- Expanding the deficit budget as a whole significantly. Significant tax cuts for the top 1% that are permanent, trivial tax cuts for the working class that go away in a few years (just like during Trump's first term).
- Continuing the cover-up over Epstein. The real issue with it that none of his base can really say out loud (at least those with a platform) and that Tucker Carlson just did - everyone believes Epstein was an Israeli spy, and everyone who cares about the issue (a good percentage of Trump's supporters) believe Trump is covering it up for Israel. And they're most likely correct.
- Bombing Iran - another war for Israel that probably blows up and drags the U.S. into another forever war. This is the issue with Epstein; if Trump's an Israeli-firster on that, probably he is on everything else Israel wants, too.
The things Elon really wants that Trump's base opposes:
- Expanding legal immigration through a program called "H1B" visas, which lets in mostly Indian professional workers
- Keeping the electric vehicle tax cuts
Trump's cult, the hard core, will just deny and make excuses.
Please allow me to play devil's advocate. I voted for Trump not because I knew he was competent, but rather that a donkey is better than a whore as the POTUS. Imagine being a geopolitically naive POTUS who now understands that even on his second attempt, he cannot control the deep state. He is the cowboy on a rough bull on the brink of falling every moment before he even became the POTUS. His faction has no control over the Congress; the neocons and AIPAC do. Actually, I doubt that he has much power to pick his cabinet. Given all that, were you the POTUS, what would you do?
It is like rafting in a violent stream without paddles. One will try to avoid the most deadly obstacle and try to steer the raft toward somewhere less deadly, but still deadly. When he has some chance, he will try to do something about the US domestic business. If he cannot avoid the "bone-crushing sanctions" (do not underestimate the power of Little Girl), he tries to control the extent of the tariff. If he cannot stop the weapon flow, he sends 10 patriot missiles to Ukraine. I would say Putin "gives up on him" not because Putin sees DT as hostile, but rather that Putin sees DT as unable to deal with the US deep state. DT is quite competent, but not competent enough to deal with the deep swamp. Many people had hoped that would happen, but I did not. He stayed on the back of the bull for about 120 days. I think that is pretty good. If you see a better bull-rider, please let me know.
Instead of blaming DT for his geopolitical blunders (too many to write in one book), maybe the US audience here should switch some firepower to the US domestic enemies. Maybe, if we can make the bull get exhausted faster, like bleeding a little, the next cowboy would have a better chance.
I think that the Beast, the techno structure that rule USA is now too powerful and too wild to be mounted.
Imagine, 65 years before, Ike alerted US people of the deadly danger of Military Industrial Complex for democracy and USA.
62 years before, a young president who wanted to stop escalation in Vietnam and stop the systemic banks power were assassinated.
53 years before, another president who painted the DeepState as a wild beast , resigned after a politico-mediatic manipulation.
20 years before, a vice-president abolished US democracy thanks to a very doubtful and monstrous "terrorist" attack on which there is no consensus .
15 years before, Snowden risked his honour and his live to alert American people , with proofs, of the dictatorship in the making in USA. Stubbornly dumb people called him "traitor".
Imagine the limitless power of this blob, without head to crush. It's a crazy train and each wagon is a locomotive. As crazy and powerful that Catholic Church in the 15th century or sovietic DeepState in the 80's.
If the beast is not domesticated( and I don't know who or what could do it, forget Trump) , it will break USA.
I'm walking in your shoes. It says something profound about the U.S. that there is such a shallow pool of talent at the top levels of the political class. No one with any real substance wants to be involved in it as an elected official.
I'm Gen X. Nixon was the best President of my lifetime. Every President since Tricky Dick (who was out of office before I was out of kindergarten) has been progressively worse, except maybe the placeholder Gerald Ford. Ronald Reagan flooded the country with illegal immigrants forever, and really believed his movie roles as a WWII soldier were just as heroic as being a combat veteran of that war. He ran the country through consultation with an astrologist, and was dominated by the CIA-connected members of his Cabinet. Just steadily downhill, every single new President of my lifetime...
I'm expecting the trend to continue with a twist; Trump's #47 term will not only be worse than Biden's #46, but also worse than Trump's own #45 term.
He does nothing good for the US by not slaying the beast. He's 80 yo, and lived his life and life involves risks to yourself and your family. No guts, no glory. He's either going down a gutless moron, or a hero. It's a choice.
Depending of who will write the History.
Trumpelstiltskins.
The guy is an incompetent loser, a bully, an economic illiterate and a third-rate Brooklyn hooligan, totally uncouth, in the image of the retrograde rednecks, chauvinists & KuKluxKlanners who elected him.
Making America a Shithole Country of the likes he so disdains. A beacon of nepotism, corruption & injustice.
A disgrace. Loathsome.
“If you don’t do my bidding, I’ll increase taxes on Americans importing your goods.” — Trump
Funny, everyone commenting here has something negative to say about Trump. What I don’t see is any other ideas on how to end this war. Just others jubilantly celebrating his efforts at trying to turn around a country that has been run into the ground by the deep state left wing radicals who somehow switched positions with the war hawks that republicans used to be in the 70’s & 80’s. You all revel with him failing which means you either aren’t an American or you’ve no patriotic sense whatsoever. If anyone had any economic sense you’d realize what he’s doing by weakening the dollar it makes US goods cheaper around the globe and by instilling tariffs he makes said products equal or in some cases less than the products made in other countries. Trump being the crypto president is also enabling stablecoins to buy a shit ton of bonds since other countries are dumping them this creates a new market for them and demand is high. He’s also killing banks and the Fed and the EU but since most here are that short sighted they can’t see the long game being played and most likely aren’t vested monetarily in it. So, keep up with the wise cracks as I’m sure everyone of you would do a much better job and I’ll keep counting the profits from my Bitcoin and other crypto assets I’ve owned for penny’s and watch you all keep laughing over things you obviously have no clue about.
You wright : " who are years-long close friends with Putin"
Same kind of close friends than Alyiev?
Zelensky is US vassal
Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper on the True History of Jeffrey Epstein and Ongoing Cover-Up – 7/18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BGfo4yiCc8
… and — it is ALL – “just a hoax”……according to Trump ?!?!
While we watch on TV starving Gazans dying from organ failure (…“because they are Amalek”)
Tucker's Epstein comments trigger official Israeli backlash – Jul 19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5KPkvxfT0
Tucker Carlson’s Message to America on the Epstein Cover-Up | Full Speech – Jul 15
https://rumble.com/v6w6qk8-tucker-carlsons-message-to-america-on-the-epstein-cover-up-full-speech.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aLXZj-oBLE
Trump has been unbelievably patient with Putin. Many in the US and Europe would argue too patient. He has constantly taken Putin's side. He berated and humiliated Zelensky publicly. And what has Putin done in return for Trump? N O T H I N G! So ya, Trump is not "imagining" that Putin played him, he WAS played, that's a fact, just look at the past 6 months. An 8 year old can see that. Putin took and took, and offered nothing serious in return, and now Trump is getting angry, and who can blame him. To more than half the world, he's seen as Putin's puppet, and he just accepted it. At some point, he had to snap, and Putin should have known that
The US played itself. They created this mess together with the Europeans and don't know how to get out. That Putin somehow played Trump is delusional, because the Russian point of view has been public since day one. If you cannot work with the Russian demands, then Russia will have to work it out on the battlefield. It's that simple.
so let me see if I have this right. If countries don't do what Russia demands they do, Russia has the right to go to war. Yes, I imagine this is the world Putin dreams of. I know for a fact it's the world Hitler dreamed of.
But back to reality now, Russia is a signatory of UN charter article 2 paragraph 4 which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. So no, what's simple is that Russia has no right to be doing what they are doing to Ukraine
Your answer shoes that you don't understand the conflict. Please read a little bit more. Fact is, Russia went in to protect the Russian population in the Donbass. But neither MSM.nor you care about that. The conflict could have been easily avoided if someone had asked what the people in Donbass wanted.
Qnd please leave Hitler out of this. It's just embarrassing.
You do understand that thanks to Russia's war, the Donbass region has been turned into a war zone. It will be years, possibly decades, before it's in livable shape again. Much of the Russian population there has been displaced, their lives upended, many of them killed by Russia's own army.
And even if somehow in your worldview, being killed by Russian artillery is a good thing, it's still irrelevant cause according to the UN charter, of which Russia is a signatory, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to invade a sovereign country. And don't try to make the juvenile argument that Ukraine isn't sovereign. The UN clearly states that Ukraine is sovereign, and Russia is bound to that.
So on every level, your argument is does not hold water.
Technically they invaded their own territory. The Donbass voted to be part of Russia because Kiev bombed them since 2014. Poroshenko even bragged about how the children in the Donbass will grow up in basements. I have seen the videos and I have family in Ukraine too. What do you think would happen once Ukraine technically forbid the Russian language and bombed people that were still part of Ukraine? Let me ask this, What would Quebec have done if Canada forbid the French language? They would be seek independence from Canada in no time. War is war and you can talk for years about whether it's wrong or right. It is always wrong in my opinion, but if we ignore the history and circumstances that have lead to it, then we will never understand the conflict and we will not be able to solve it. And that's the problem with the West. Nobody in the West ever asked what the people Donbass wanted. Historically it's Russian land, inhabited by ethnic Russians. If the West was so concerned about peace they would have allowed the Donbass to vote on its own future, but all the West has been talking about is the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state. What nonsense, if you think about it. You can't keep something together that doesn't want to be together anymore. So, believe whatever you want, every person has their right to believe in whatever they want. The people in Donbass though, made their choice and the Duma accepted their plead to become part of Russia, even people who weren't on Putin's side voted for it. (Funnily enough, people who were against Putin but still voted in favor if it, were sanctioned by the West because of it). Bizzar.
That 2014 vote was in violation of the Ukrainian constitution, and was littered with questionable antics.
And even if we take a break from legalities and just discuss the "will of the people", imagine if people could just randomly declare referendums. First of all, China looses Taiwan, Tibet and Hong Kong. France will have multiple breakaway provinces, England splits in half. Germany will splinter into a half dozen territories. California becomes it's own country. The rest of America splits in half. Brazil, Argentina, practically every country in the MENA region splinters. Where does it end?
I'm sorry, but any region can declare a referendum, then every region of every country on the planet will be conducting them. No Country wants to surrender their land, no matter how minuscule or if that segment of the population doesn't want to belong to that country.
If I were Pres Putin, I'd be very cautious about making any change to commit or consume more resources to finish Ukraine off in 50 days. As Iran clearly showed, US and Trump is not a friend and cannot be trusted.
If it were me, I'd cycle out my elite troops, replace them with rookies, and reserve the experienced troops for rapid deployment elsewhere. And I'd be ready for false attacks too.
Sorry to say this so bluntly but Western leaders are either dumb or/and desperate.
Main point being, Russia pays for its war in Rubles. Theoretically and practically they can print the money and fight Ukraine, because they don't have to important their weapons.
Also, cut Russia's oil and gas exports off, what will happen with Europe? Europe can't even full up their gas storage properly right now because gas prices are still so high... and then the West wants to cut off Russian exports? What a joke.
Weak, stupid, easily manipulated Trump has been mousetrapped.
Europe will get the US to fight the war that they so crave.
I have an instinctive distrust of Trump. What I see is all of the prep work being done for a major world conflagration. HBI (poster from B's board and Simplicius's Substack) says he doesn't see any indication of it behind the drapes, but I can feel it in my bones - like a high pressure front moving in before the storm.
I had it figured out a long time ago, to much derision- WWIII is coming.
There are only two ways to end massive debt: massive devaluation or war.
And never ever the oligarchy would let any politician able to devaluate approach the power.
Remain war.
However.
However, USA and allies absolutely can't afford a big war against pair.
And absolutely no means to win it.
You say that white US citizen are sure they are invincible? If it's true, this dream ( nightmare for others)could cost their nation and even probably the fate of humanity.
I notice that the ruble has climbed by about 1% against western currencies since Trump's announcement. In any case, China can't afford to let Russia lose, so it will act at minimum in ways that ensure that the west doesn't win. Unfortunately, it looks as if all parties (apart from actual Ukrainians) have an interest in the conflict grinding on for the foreseeable future. Fortunately, none of the parties have an interest in escalating – although a missile attack on Moscow that resulted in mass casualties could quickly change this.
« Majorly » is such a tawdry, albeit Presidential, adjective.
The use of it diminishes the quality of your text dramatically.
Must we climb down to such a primitive level?
Excuse me sir. I'm not good English reader so could you tell me if you make a kind of humour or if there is something wrong with you?
Thank you
"Majorly" is colloquial language and sounds low class and like broken speech to a native English speaker. It's grammatically correct in terms of word formation - you can generally add "-ly" to the end of any noun to form an adverb (which works like an adjective in speech). But just because you can, doesn't mean you should; the correct adverb is "extremely".
Major as used here isn't a noun, it's an adjective. A major objective means a big objective. A minor mistake is a small mistake. Both major and minor are comparative forms from Latin (major is from the magnus/major/maximus triad = big/bigger/biggest).
Of course, a Major can also be a military rank (noun), and a Minor someone below 18 (noun), but this is not what was meant.
The point with majorly is that it is simply uncommon usage in written language so sounds clumsy. Also, you don't normally adverbalize comparative forms. Or have you heard of "betterly"?
You're right, thanks for correcting my post.
Thank you.
Pas de soucis de mon côté. C’est vrai, certaines nuances ironiques peuvent s’avérer un tant soit peu insaisissables pour le lecteur pressé…
The Chump will soon realise that it's nigh on impossible to thread the needle with thick clumbsy digits on shakey hands, with poor eyesight.
What does this add to the conversation? Do you have any sincere belief that Trump has shaky hands? Poor eyesight? Twitter is full of moronic comments. I hope Korybko's comment thread doesn't end up turning into a new X.
You're obviously too Thick to figure out the metaphorical nature of my comment in relation to Chump's general behaviour!
Which means that you're extremely literal, and is a measure of your IQ, i.e a tad on the low side.
Well, in fairness, I shouldn't have punched your direction. You're far from the only poster in this article's comment thread with no more to add than more incessant "orange man bad" - no interesting insight, nothing to learn from reading it, just a visceral expression of bile. I suspect that sort of content now ranks higher than cat pics and porno as a % of internet traffic in total.
What's more I have berated myself on multiple occasions for previously believing that “What America needed” , was abother term of Trump in office.
Well I couldn't have been more wrong, Chump is a Lying Psychopath who is trying to drive the world to destruction.
If so, why didn't you ignore my comment Asshole?
No you just had to pick a fight you were going lose from the outset, with someone of a far higher IQ score than yours.
If you can't see that the Orange Man is Bad, then you are most definitely Cognitively Dissonant, and your comment serves to affirm the fact!
I apologize for the comment. My reason for posting it is that (in general) I constantly see posts everywhere - in Substacks I read, stuff on X, etc. - that's a simple emotional "I hate Trump, and I want to shout it to the world!". Ok, got it.
I don't learn anything from it. It doesn't add to the conversation. I wish people would stop - yelling your feelings an extra thousand times isn't going to have any affect on me except to annoy me. But it seems like feelings are all that matters in the west. For my own part, I appreciate some interesting insight. Or at least entertaining prose, like perhaps if you wrote your original comment like this:
> The Chump will soon find out that threading a needle with bloated toddler hands, the shakes of a cheap carnival ride, and the eyesight of a half-blind mole is about as doable as teaching a goldfish to juggle.
That at least has some double-entendre in meaning with Trump's origin in cheap carnival rides (his father Fred built condos that blocked the view to the ocean and the rides in Luna Park on the boardwalk for homeowners in Coney Island).
Please, please, please, no insult.
This place is safe of rudeness. Keep it clean.
Take a long walk on a very short plank!