Most of the these "analysts" are actually people who supported Trump. They didn't really know he could likely win, they simply hoped he would. They didn't sense the sea change that was required in order to underpin, support and enable the kind of political upset that we just witnessed. But now they are out saying people were just tired of the political machine, blah blah blah as if that is somehow a new event. I was tired of the political machine before Bill Clinton took office! I was double tired of it for 8 years with Bush and triple tired of it by the end of Obama. Just being tired of something doesn't mean anything. The herd puts up with a lot of crap for a looooong time until they don't. The trick is to understand the signs that tell us the battle of Kruger is coming.
If you look back at my reasoning, it was all models based. I never said I felt Trump would win. I only said Hillary should lose to whoever appeared on the other side of the battle because a new conservative wave was sweeping the country. I saw this wave coming and predicted that if the Duck Dynasty people won out over A+E that it would be a sign of a major sea change. That happened and it was as I said earlier a glitch in the matrix. I said that the EU was at risk of breakup long before anyone ever heard about Brexit. I can't make this up because it's all in the blog as a matter of public record. So at this point I think my track record for "getting it" is pretty good and that should, in any fair society and despite me not having a Ph. D. or a national bully pulpit, give me the earned qualifications to critique all these Monday morning quarterbacks who talk about symptom after symptom without understanding the root cause. You cannot know the broader implications of the disease until you know you have the disease! Being tired of a soulless political machine is a symptom.
One guy in particular should know better and that is Steen Jacobson, one of Mish's mentors. Mish let Steen write a guest post containing many commonly spoken post election talking points that I think I am uniquely qualified to refute. They are listed below.
1: Donald Trump did not truly win the US election… Clinton lost it.
I completely disagree with the "Clinton lost it part". Clinton was just being Clinton and for the most part she played Trump like a fiddle. Despite the fact that she was physically ill she would buck herself up (or drug herself up as Trump suspected) and really put on a show for her adoring followers. About the only thing Clinton did wrong (besides getting caught for the email thing) was to insult the so called basket of deplorables. But the people she was referring to were not voting for her anyway and the FBI essentially cleared her of any criminal wrongdoing BEFORE the election. So to make direction statements like "Clinton lost it" is beyond the normal good logic of Steen. Had Clinton won he would just as easily pointed out all the strengths I pointed out and said that Clinton earned the win.
2: Trump policies not the answer, but drastic change was needed
I consider the two halves of this statement more than obvious but I do not consider them a meaningful explanation of anything. Trump's policies are not the answer because Trump is not willing to refute fake money and fake money is the pretty much the only problem there is. I know it doesn't seem like it, especially to people who have not studied economics (real economics, not academic bullshit economics) for thousands of hours like I have. I have pondered and pondered and written and pondered on this more than any ten people I have ever met. This is not a brag, this is simply the plain conservative truth. I have used my engineering sense to see past the symptoms to get to root cause. And without any doubt, the sneaky enslavement of people through the use of fake money is the root cause. If people would only get what they actually worked for then literally hundreds of millions of people would not feel like they are getting fucked. And they are getting fucked even if they don't know the mechanics of it. All you have to do is look at a story where useless politicians, bankers and others who add little economic value get paid as if they just cured cancer and you know something is wrong. On the other end of the scale, a skilled construction worker can put in a 12 hour day 6 days a week and barely have enough money to support his family. These things are the way they are because we have adopted fake money and they would be reversed in a hot hurry if we returned to honest money. Trump isn't going to change this! Trump is the king of debt. Trump loves fake money.
Also, drastic change has been needed for a loooong time. So just saying it was still needed is no kind of explanation of anything. C'mon Steen, you would never put up with this kind of weak logic from anyone else...
3: Only access to learning and thus technology spurs growth
Well, if you consider that economic growth is the ability to output more production and if production is based on human labor aided by knowledge/tools and energy then, yeah learning and tech spur growth. But the only thing?? I think not. In fact more people have been going to college in the liberal years than ever before and by any measure there is more tech out there than ever before. So where is the growth? Sorry Steen, busted again. MANY factors have to align in order to have growth and a major one of these factors is mood of the people. If people do not feel like they are getting fairly compensated for their work, why work? Why not just fake disability and join the ranks of the perpetually unemployed? In fact, this is what is happening even though there is unprecedented access to learning even outside of the college system. Trust me, I can learn anything off the web! The knowledge of our species is all stored there and google makes it almost trivial to find. So no, simply having access to learning and tech are not the only things that spur growth and again the shortsightedness of such statements is below your norm, Steen,
4: Change does not come when it is sought, only when it is needed
This adds no real insight. What exactly does "when it is needed" mean? How can we tell? When did the water buffalo at Kruger decide that a LEO ass kicking was needed? The lions take down the young, old, weak and injured all the time! Why did the herd finally decide to go kick the LEOs in the face when they did? Because it was needed? Wasn't it needed earlier? So again, this is useless drivel, noise essentially, for understanding what really happened in the presidential elections.
5: The defeat of Hillary Clinton represented more of a call for authentic change than any great vote of confidence in Donald Trump’s policy plans.
OK now he is getting somewhere but he didn't go nearly far enough because he doesn't see that this wasn't about dem vs GOP but rather about a pendulum that swings back and forth within the herd between liberalism and conservatism. The election marked a 3rd wave in the swing back toward conservatism. It would take a 3rd wave to bust through all the overhead resistance that Trump was faced with including:
- Trump's own stupidity
- Trump's careless mouth and lack of political savvy
- The main stream bought and paid for good for nothing presstitute media
- Being outspent 2:1 by bought and paid for Hillary.
- Pretty much everyone believing Hillary was a shoo in the entire time up until election day
- Everyone EXCEPT the emotionless, data based AI computer which predicted the Trump win. And me of course. I predicted Hillary would lose and it shouldn't even be close and I did so even before Trump threw his hat in the ring because I have a predictive model. The AI computer does not have this. Instead it used real time data to make its correct prediction later in the race.
Oh what pure bullshit! Clinton, in fact, WON the popular vote according to the latest news. I just hate this kind of Monday morning quarterback matter of fact "analysis" which is nothing more than emotional words put in place to create a story that matches with what happened. What stuff and nonsense Steen!
7: Conclusion number one, then, is very uplifting: spending more money does not buy you more votes, nor can it purchase integrity.
WTF??? Money has been buying more votes and violating more bought integrity in the past 30 years than at any other time in human history!! The fact that it seems not to have worked this time is true, but this was a core tenet of my long standing things to watch for in order to confirm that the migration back to right has indeed begun. By definition real integrity cannot be bought with any kind of currency be it real money, fake money or barter for the normal corrupting forces of sex, drugs and rock and roll! So this was another statement by Steen that has to classify as useless noise. But yes, my theories about Mammon Money losing its hold on people as liberalism peaks and conservatism takes over held up very nicely during this election. This was not a lucky guess folks. This kind of predictive capability is clear proof that I have the correct world view and these kinds of statements from otherwise very smart people like Steen prove that very, very few really understand what is going on.
Present company excepted, of course.
No comments:
Post a Comment