The Mad World of Donald Trump

Generali

Perhaps of interest:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/crying-trump?intcid=mod-most-popular

SnooksNJ

vivatifosi wrote: »

It is being reported on the breaking news tickers that he has ruled himself out.

Great news there will be no nationwide ban on big gulps.

Generali

Mayor Bloomberg ain't running:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/the-2016-election-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take

Over the course of American history, both parties have tended to nominate presidential candidates who stay close to and build from the center. But that tradition may be breaking down. Extremism is on the march, and unless we stop it, our problems at home and abroad will grow worse.

Many Americans are understandably dismayed by this, and I share their concerns. The leading Democratic candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Bill Clinton -- support for trade, charter schools, deficit reduction and the financial sector. Meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Ronald Reagan, including immigration reform, compromise on taxes and entitlement reform, and support for bipartisan budgets. Both presidents were problem-solvers, not ideological purists. And both moved the country forward in important ways.

He makes good points IMHO. Both Clinton and Reagan were excellent Presidents. Ronnie won the war and Clinton won the peace.

Generali

Brilliant piece here on 'marginal media'. The correction at the end is great too:

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/chris-christie-marginal-media/

Correction at 9:58 a.m. on 3/09/2016: Due to an oversight involving a haphazardly-installed Chrome extension during the editing process, the name Donald Trump was erroneously replaced with the phrase “Someone With Tiny Hands” when this story originally published.

It's the best correction since the Guardian rather pompously introduced its 'Corrections and Clarifications' column along with the 'Readers' Editor' many years ago. The second column had an entry along the lines of, "We would like to apologise for the first column in this series being headed 'Corrections and Clairfications'"

vivatifosi

Machine gun bacon:

the thought that this guy (Cruz) could be President is way too scary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8

vivatifosi

The EIU has added the likelihood of a Trump Presidency to its global forecasting service risk register:

https://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gr&articleid=2866

The piece has been picked up and run in articles in both the Guardian and Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12197107/After-tomorrow-Donald-Trump-could-be-unstoppable.html

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/17/president-trump-sixth-list-major-threats-global-economy-republican-trade-eiu

Both articles are interesting as they shows where this is placed in terms of current top 10 global risks... below a hard landing in China but at the same level as jihadi terrorism destabilising the economy. It is also seen as less risky (to the global economy) than a British Brexit and only marginally less risky than Grexit followed by a Eurozone break up.

Louise Cooper was presenting on the newspaper report I saw this morning, said she thought that this has yet to be priced into the markets and wouldn't be until later in the year when it is clear whether he would get the nomination.

michaels

I read this second hand on the BBC website and thus wasn't sure whether the risks were ranked on impact x likelihood or just impact?

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

I read this second hand on the BBC website and thus wasn't sure whether the risks were ranked on impact x likelihood or just impact?

Both I believe.

EIU states (all taken from website at https://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk ):

China:
High probability, Very high impact; Risk intensity =

Grexit followed by Eurozone break up:

Moderate probability, Very high impact; Risk intensity =

Trump:
Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity =

Jihadi activity destabilising world economy:


Moderate probability, High impact; Risk intensity =

UK leaving EU (Interesting how they score this):

Low probability, High impact; Risk intensity =

ETA:

Looks like v high = 5, high 4, moderate 3, low 2.

michaels

Thanks viva - if the bookie odds on Brexit are 4:1 against does that imply a 25% probability? IN which case are the other 'moderately probabie' risks more likely than that?!

Edit - Whereas a 'moderately probable' Trump presidency is currently 6:1 - go figure.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Thanks viva - if the bookie odds on Brexit are 4:1 against does that imply a 25% probability? IN which case are the other 'moderately probabie' risks more likely than that?!

Edit - Whereas a 'moderately probable' Trump presidency is currently 6:1 - go figure.

FWIW, I reckon that a Brexit is a bigger short opportunity than Trump winning.

Firstly I strongly expect that Trump would follow the Reagan model: employ experts and catch up on sleep. Secondly UK assets are viewed as critical to own as US ones for a globally diversified portfolio. Thirdly any gains from Brexit are likely to be long term with the costs short term. If you do believe there's an economic gain from Brexit in NPV terms it is negative probably which makes UK equities a short if you want to bet on Brexit.