Prediction - US Presidential 2024

[Bob Armstrong]

The USA has a clear choice - a better future.........OR........Autocracy.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

You are so pessimistic about the future of USA!

Very odd timing on this comment. You do realize I am predicting a Trump defeat in November.
After the Biden Trump debate I was very pessimistic about future of USA, it looked like Trump might win again.

I am now optimistic that Harris Walz will win.
A giant step forward but some way to go to be considered a healthy democracy.

[Dilip Panjwani]

The USA has a clear choice - a better future.........OR........Autocracy.

Bob A

I fully agree!
And I hope that they do not choose Autocracy, in which you are fined almost half a billion dollars for telling your bank that your property is worth xyz, but the bank can verify that before advancing any loan,
in which you may be put into jail for giving a porn film star a lot of your own money, to which your own wife does not object,
in which more of your money can be legally stolen,
in which the government can determine at what price you can sell your own goods, even if you have to stop selling that and create shortages to avoid a loss,
in which the government can print lots of money and autocratically distribute it, even if it causes inflationary hardships for the rest...

[Sid Belzberg]

I fully agree!
And I hope that they do not choose Autocracy, in which you are fined almost half a billion dollars for telling your bank that your property is worth xyz, but the bank can verify that before advancing any loan,
in which you may be put into jail for giving a porn film star a lot of your own money, to which your own wife does not object,
in which more of your money can be legally stolen,
in which the government can determine at what price you can sell your own goods, even if you have to stop selling that and create shortages to avoid a loss,
in which the government can print lots of money and autocratically distribute it, even if it causes inflationary hardships for the rest...

“Keep your eye on how much the Government is spending, because that is the true tax. There is no such thing as an unbalanced budget. You PAY FOR IT either in the form of taxes, or indirectly in the form of inflation or debt.” Milton Friedman

[Pargat Perrer]

I fully agree!
And I hope that they do not choose Autocracy, in which you are fined almost half a billion dollars for telling your bank that your property is worth xyz, but the bank can verify that before advancing any loan,
in which you may be put into jail for giving a porn film star a lot of your own money, to which your own wife does not object,
in which more of your money can be legally stolen,
in which the government can determine at what price you can sell your own goods, even if you have to stop selling that and create shortages to avoid a loss,
in which the government can print lots of money and autocratically distribute it, even if it causes inflationary hardships for the rest...

If every bank, for every loan application, had to assess property values, no one could afford to have a bank account. There wouldn't even BE any banks.

The onus is on the entity seeking the loan, and the assessment has to be done by reputable means.

Dilip, you seem to have zero understanding of basic economics. Your Libertarian "easy access to capital" would have a fatal flaw. Easy access means little to no qualification process, which would lead to massive loan losses, write-offs, bankruptcies, and in short order, economic collapse.

Again, this was all proven by the dot-com crash of the early 2000s.

[Pargat Perrer]

“Keep your eye on how much the Government is spending, because that is the true tax. There is no such thing as an unbalanced budget. You PAY FOR IT either in the form of taxes, or indirectly in the form of inflation or debt.” Milton Friedman

If you are going to critique debt- based government spending, which has survived decades of practice in the world's biggest national economies, then please do the same for Dilip's "easy access to capital".

How long do you think any national economy would last if the government / banks were handing out money willy-nilly to anyone requesting it?

And face it, if you want to remove most government spending, it HAS to be replaced with SOMETHING to keep the economy going. What do you, Sid, propose to replace it with?

[Sid Belzberg]

Your statement about debt-based government spending acknowledges its long history in many of the world's largest economies, but that doesn't make it a sustainable or ethical practice. As Milton Friedman aptly put it, 'Keep your eye on how much the Government is spending, because that is the true tax.' This spending, whether financed by taxes, debt, or inflation, ultimately places a burden on the citizens.

If we look at history, specifically 1933, when the U.S. government made it illegal for citizens to own gold (with a few exemptions for numismatic items and jewelry), we see a prime example of theft by government decree. Citizens were forced to trade in their gold for about $20 per ounce, only for the government to peg it at $35 per ounce less than six months later. This was not just a devaluation of savings but a direct transfer of wealth from the public to the government.

Fast forward to today, and we see the long-term effects of inflationary spending. An ounce of gold now buys approximately 125 steaks at a food market, while $20, which was equivalent to an ounce of gold in 1933, barely buys a single steak in North America. This stark contrast underscores how inflation erodes the purchasing power of money, a direct consequence of unchecked government spending and manipulation of currency.

Moreover, the origins of modern financial systems also have a dark side. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was established with significant involvement from John D. Rockefeller, who was deeply preoccupied with ideas of population control—a focus that continued throughout his life and even after World War II. His influence extended into various global health initiatives, including the founding of the WHO, where figures like Dr. Brock Chisholm, an outspoken eugenicist, were put into leadership roles. These efforts are part of a broader, intergenerational agenda that continues to shape global policies today, though I won't delve into an exhaustive list here. The point is that the taxation system has been corrupted from the start by business elites with agendas that have nothing to do with the well-being of the population and everything to do with massive government corruption.

In Canada, reckless government spending has led to even more dire consequences. According to Statistics Canada, about 25% of Canadians are being forced to humiliate themselves by relying on privately funded food banks to eat. This is not a temporary blip but a systemic failure where citizens are left to depend on expired food that is still edible for a short period—far from an ideal situation, but better than no help at all from a spendthrift government.

Adding insult to injury, the Trudeau administration's single contribution to the food bank was the absurdity of donating tampons as part of the food banks' budget. This move was an extension of is wasteful and insulting mandate to make tampons available in all men's washrooms. It reflects a gross misunderstanding of the real issues facing Canadians and highlights the disconnect between the government’s priorities and the actual needs of the people.


When you mention 'easy access to capital,' it's important to distinguish between reckless lending and strategic investment. I advocate for Grameen-style banks, which have proven vital to Bangladesh's growth by providing microloans to entrepreneurs who use the funds to create sustainable businesses. This is not 'handing out money willy-nilly'; it's about empowering individuals to generate economic value.

As for replacing government spending, history is littered with the failures of uncontrolled spending leading to worthless currencies—Argentina and the once prosperous Venezuela being prime examples. To avoid such outcomes, I propose that government spending should be replaced with private sector investment. Argentina, for instance, is making strides in this direction, leveraging private capital to stimulate growth and innovation.

By encouraging private investment over government spending, we can foster an economy that is driven by market forces, innovation, and efficiency, rather than by corrupt political agendas and unsustainable debt. This isn't just theory; it's a practice that has worked in various economies around the world."

[Bob Gillanders]

I fully agree!
And I hope that they do not choose Autocracy, in which you are fined almost half a billion dollars for telling your bank that your property is worth xyz, but the bank can verify that before advancing any loan,
in which you may be put into jail for giving a porn film star a lot of your own money, to which your own wife does not object,
in which more of your money can be legally stolen,
in which the government can determine at what price you can sell your own goods, even if you have to stop selling that and create shortages to avoid a loss,
in which the government can print lots of money and autocratically distribute it, even if it causes inflationary hardships for the rest...

Wow, that's a lot of twisted logic in that argument. Just ...weird.

Easier way to spot the authoritarian, they claim to have complete immunity.

[Peter McKillop]

Wow, that's a lot of twisted logic in that argument. Just ...weird.

Easier way to spot the authoritarian, they claim to have complete immunity.

I agree, Bob. Trump was found guilty by a jury that his lawyers had a hand in choosing. Don't know what that has to do with autocracy. Maybe Dilip has sipped from the conspiracy cup one too many times.

[Sid Belzberg]

Wow, that's a lot of twisted logic in that argument. Just ...weird.

Easier way to spot the authoritarian, they claim to have complete immunity.

The concept of presidential immunity is embedded in the US Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, lower courts must consider
whether immunity applies before dealing with other aspects of the case. Not abiding by this ruling invites resubmission to the Supreme Court, where
some cases may be headed as some lower courts appear to want to act outside the law of the land.

[Sid Belzberg]

[Peter McKillop]

The concept of presidential immunity is embedded in the US Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, lower courts must consider
whether immunity applies before dealing with other aspects of the case. Not abiding by this ruling invites resubmission to the Supreme Court, where
some cases may be headed as some lower courts appear to want to act outside the law of the land.

I don't believe the immunity concept is embedded in the Constitution. Rather it's a court interpration of something that is a necessity when a President is acting within his/her areas of responsibility as President (which do not include inciting a rebellious riot). It should not apply to crimes committed pre or post Presidency. Sorry, Trump, no get out of jail free card for you or anyone else who serves as President.

********************

"The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, the privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II."

https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...vil-suits.html

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html

[Pargat Perrer]

The concept of presidential immunity is embedded in the US Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, lower courts must consider
whether immunity applies before dealing with other aspects of the case. Not abiding by this ruling invites resubmission to the Supreme Court, where
some cases may be headed as some lower courts appear to want to act outside the law of the land.

Sid, you declared that debt-based government spending having decades of implementation doesn't make it sustainable or ethical. And you went back to the 1930s to describe its beginnings based on "stealing".

Then you turn around and declare that presidential immunity was just recently decided as law by the Supreme Court. Doesn't it strike you that this is just another example of imposing an unsustainable, unethical policy or law?

I believe that for over 250 years, no U.S. President claimed immunity or acted as if he had immunity. Now suddenly it's the law because a known bad actor wants it that way. If you're going to question the first thing above, you REALLY have to question the second.

The Supreme Court has now become political. It was inevitable. It shows the futility of dreaming for some system where a so-called "natural law" will be fairly implemented by purely ethical politicians, when even sworn judges can act with bias.

[Pargat Perrer]

Your statement about debt-based government spending acknowledges its long history in many of the world's largest economies, but that doesn't make it a sustainable or ethical practice. As Milton Friedman aptly put it, 'Keep your eye on how much the Government is spending, because that is the true tax.' This spending, whether financed by taxes, debt, or inflation, ultimately places a burden on the citizens.

If we look at history, specifically 1933, when the U.S. government made it illegal for citizens to own gold (with a few exemptions for numismatic items and jewelry), we see a prime example of theft by government decree. Citizens were forced to trade in their gold for about $20 per ounce, only for the government to peg it at $35 per ounce less than six months later. This was not just a devaluation of savings but a direct transfer of wealth from the public to the government.

Fast forward to today, and we see the long-term effects of inflationary spending. An ounce of gold now buys approximately 125 steaks at a food market, while $20, which was equivalent to an ounce of gold in 1933, barely buys a single steak in North America. This stark contrast underscores how inflation erodes the purchasing power of money, a direct consequence of unchecked government spending and manipulation of currency.

Moreover, the origins of modern financial systems also have a dark side. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was established with significant involvement from John D. Rockefeller, who was deeply preoccupied with ideas of population control—a focus that continued throughout his life and even after World War II. His influence extended into various global health initiatives, including the founding of the WHO, where figures like Dr. Brock Chisholm, an outspoken eugenicist, were put into leadership roles. These efforts are part of a broader, intergenerational agenda that continues to shape global policies today, though I won't delve into an exhaustive list here. The point is that the taxation system has been corrupted from the start by business elites with agendas that have nothing to do with the well-being of the population and everything to do with massive government corruption.

In Canada, reckless government spending has led to even more dire consequences. According to Statistics Canada, about 25% of Canadians are being forced to humiliate themselves by relying on privately funded food banks to eat. This is not a temporary blip but a systemic failure where citizens are left to depend on expired food that is still edible for a short period—far from an ideal situation, but better than no help at all from a spendthrift government.

Adding insult to injury, the Trudeau administration's single contribution to the food bank was the absurdity of donating tampons as part of the food banks' budget. This move was an extension of is wasteful and insulting mandate to make tampons available in all men's washrooms. It reflects a gross misunderstanding of the real issues facing Canadians and highlights the disconnect between the government’s priorities and the actual needs of the people.


When you mention 'easy access to capital,' it's important to distinguish between reckless lending and strategic investment. I advocate for Grameen-style banks, which have proven vital to Bangladesh's growth by providing microloans to entrepreneurs who use the funds to create sustainable businesses. This is not 'handing out money willy-nilly'; it's about empowering individuals to generate economic value.

As for replacing government spending, history is littered with the failures of uncontrolled spending leading to worthless currencies—Argentina and the once prosperous Venezuela being prime examples. To avoid such outcomes, I propose that government spending should be replaced with private sector investment. Argentina, for instance, is making strides in this direction, leveraging private capital to stimulate growth and innovation.

By encouraging private investment over government spending, we can foster an economy that is driven by market forces, innovation, and efficiency, rather than by corrupt political agendas and unsustainable debt. This isn't just theory; it's a practice that has worked in various economies around the world."

Thank you for an informative answer, much more than we ever get from Dilip.

I remember reading the article about the Grameen Bank when you provided the link. I think "willy-nilly" does indeed describe their loan policy because they don't turn anyone down. The fact that it is working in a nation like Bangladesh doesn't say much to me, knowing nothing about their economy.

I would be very interested to see some examples of what you mean by "private investment". The fact that it's investment tells me only the profitable things will get done. So it will not make up for all the non-profitable BUT NECESSARY things that government takes care of.

Your example of Argentina removing rent controls seems to show an economy in total freefall. Yeah, the supply is rising and prices are dropping because economic activity is sinking like the Titanic, and the IMF orchestra is playing on the poop deck LOL

Sid, you have often stated that when corporate taxation increases, corporations move to less taxing countries. Well, if you remove rent controls, tenants move to locations where their rent won't shoot through the roof in a year or so. Same principle.

[Sid Belzberg]

I don't believe the immunity concept is embedded in the Constitution. Rather it's a court interpration of something that is a necessity when a President is acting within his/her areas of responsibility as President (which do not include inciting a rebellious riot). It should not apply to crimes committed pre or post Presidency. Sorry, Trump, no get out of jail free card for you or anyone else who serves as President.

********************

"The Constitution doesn't directly discuss presidential immunity from criminal or civil lawsuits. Instead, the privilege has developed over time through the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article II."

https://constitution.findlaw.com/art...vil-suits.html

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2.html

That very well may be true, hence the statement that immunity has to be examined to see if it is applicable on a case-by-case basis before anything else. It is not an assured "get out of jail" card. It is simply respecting the law, which includes honoring Supreme Court precedent. The constitution clearly outlines the hierarchical structure of the court system, which implies respecting the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The remedy for a lawless president in the Constitution is impeachment, which is a political process, not a criminal one. Hence, criminal immunity is implied, and that is exactly how the Supreme Court viewed it.