Tag Archives: trump

We are all High Risk now

I’ve heard it all about Trump. I agree with much of it. He is all the bad things you think he is. He is a whirlwind of incompetence. All true. Not in dispute on my end. And yes, we should be very vigilant and very involved, because what he seems to be doing, primarily, is making people very uneasy about the future. But enough of the hot-takes and put-downs and emperor-has-no-clothes memes. It is time to put away the childish things. All the rants, all the ridicule, all the facepalm… all of it. Even if it is just for a minute.

 

Try this: Think about Trumpworld like you were having it explained to you by a financial advisor. Maybe your financial advisor, if you have one. He/She is likely very serious, very focused, and not a political blowhard. He can chat about either party with equal ease. He knows that filtering out the political background noise is essential to making good financial decisions. What would the Trump administration look like if you filtered out the stadium-volume politics? That is what good financial advisors do. The good ones are good because they can look at a proposition without getting too wrapped up in the writ-large politics of it. Trump is not a politician. He has no political background, skills, or even firm political beliefs. What he has done with his life is amass a personal fortune, and a key part of amassing a fortune is learning to lay off risk. If you play with big numbers and you can get someone to reliably take more risk than you take, you will reliably amass wealth at their expense. That’s how a guy who couldn’t make a casino work; who rolled craps on bottled water, vodka, and steaks (I guess American’s couldn’t get on board with those things); a guy who has cratered and declared bankruptcy at least four times (plus other sell-offs and bail-outs); managed to become the President of The United States of America: Laying off risk on potential voters.

 

That’s not all of it, of course. The other part of the Trump mystique is getting people to ignore or minimize the risk he are asking them to take. To make this sleight-of-hand work you have to either misdirect them about the degree of the risk, or you have to get them very focused on some other risk. The mark has to be so focused on that other risk that they overlook the obvious risks they are being asked to take by Trump. That is how you get investors to buy in, and it extends executives, staff, regulators, and whole governments. Reading the room and having a feel for what token of misdirection will be most effective is probably the one thing Trump is really good at. He proved it during the 2016 campaign. He routinely clobbered people with better, or better-formed, political platforms because he could play an arena full of potential voters in a way they couldn’t dream of. Prairie Home Companion, meet Tony Montana fronting Led Zeppelin.

 

The last tie-in to Trump’s success in 2016 is evangelism. Not just Christian Evangelical evangelism, but also the idea of a true believer who is all-in. Apple was showing their understanding of the concept’s power when they added “Mac Evangelist” to their org chart. Trump is a Trump Evangelist. The Best. The Smartest. The King of Deals. And so on… And that nauseating passage aside, Trump is pulling from both flavors of the word, almost equally. In a religious setting the risk is always outside, facing in, threatening the audience. The unbeliever. The heavy metal music. The gangsta rap lyrics. The [insert your favorite secular pleasure here]. The reward the religious evangelist offers is the safety of being inside, away and apart from the external menacing force. Trump knows this play like he knows the buttons on his TV remote. All he had to do is sprinkle in the barest soupçon of old time religion and the audience understood. Inside Good. Outside, Bad. Prosperity Gospel Politics brought to the Presidency.

 

And yet again, there is a huge risk component in Religious Evangelism. [“Again with the risk?” you ask? Yes. Stick with me for a sec] Think about it like your somewhat boring and outwardly apolitical finance guy would. Guys like Joel Osteen are just laying off huge amounts of risk on their flocks, and the house always wins. Trump is doing the same thing, but in his case the flock absorbing the risk is 350 million US citizens who are now finding out that the risks are high, they are real, and there is no way to mitigate them.

You want an example of what kinds of risk I am thinking of? Here ya go: You have rank amateurs running the departments of Housing, Energy, and Education. How do you feel about those three things? Pretty strongly, I’d imagine. If there is a bedrock to western civilization it is housing, energy and education. So who were “the best people” to guide these bedrock agencies? You have a guy who initially refused the job because he admitted not having any pertinent experience (aside from having lived in a house, I shit you not), running Housing. You have a guy with an Ag degree [full stop] in charge of our nation’s nuclear weapons and fissionable materials over at DOE. And lastly you have a woman with no professional education or education policy background in charge of Education… but who’s brother (Eric Prince of Blackwater fame) made a cool billion(z) leveraging the US population’s concept of risk in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, oh yeah, this: did anyone notice that her husband is the founder of Amway. Amway is basically a peak-risk-distribution effort. The company always takes on less risk than their franchisees. Always. The house always wins. Always.

 

So stop thinking about what a braying jackass Trump is. He was one before all of this started. Nothing will change. He will always be a braying jackass. Get over it.

 

I am making the case that we start thinking about Trump as the guy who sees the entire US population as a risk-soak. His presidency is just like every other Trump deal: The less equity you have at buy-in, the more risk you gotta take. And over 95% of the US population does not have the required equity to hedge against Trump. We are faced with the prospects of backsliding on worker protections, civil rights, air and water quality, Social Security, healthcare, foreign relations, foreign economics, domestic economics, and the feeling that a world war is imminent. At the same time we are seeing Wall Street deregulated, energy corporations take over the EPA, and a massive increase in military posture and spending. The payoff is supposed to be a period of sustained economic resurgence. Last I checked the DOW was over 20,000. That was pre-Trump. At the end of eight years of G W Bush it was around 6,500. Talk about selling ice cubes to eskimos! There has been plenty of economic growth in the past 10 years, but it all stayed out in shareholder-land. The money was not used to create jobs, build factories, build coal-fired power plants, and club baby seals for fun and profit. It was used to pay the guys who had been exposed to the least risk in the first place. They are the people who bear the least risk of being without good housing, good healthcare, good education, clean water, affordable energy and good nutrition.

 

While the US Senate deliberates in secret over what version of Trumpcare can get 51 votes, think about the risk you are being asked to take on. Guys like Trump use risk as the basic measuring stick for every major decision. Maybe it’s time we all started doing the same.

A observation on Close Up Magic

When Trump was mowing down the seemingly endless pool of rivals for the GOP nomination he was pulling off a very simple con: Whatever the opponent’s strength is, that is a bad strength to have.

Trump never had to back up his self-aggrandizement because he had a very public brand and he maintained a drumbeat of labeling his opponents with simple, easy to comprehend nicknames.

The youth movement of the GOP, Marco Rubio: Little Marco

The reality-challenged but politically powerful Ted Cruz: Lyin’ Ted

and so on… There was no time to be asking serious questions about Trump’s policy goals because “hey, look over there, it is a new target for my grade-school bully act.” At no point does anyone in the press (I have looked, but maybe I missed someone) call him out on this. They are falling for this “got your nose” level scam, and falling hard. And it works, and as one after another falls to this trick he wins the GOP nomination.

To the press it all seems like a lark, because, you know, he’s a hack and has burned much of his needed support base by humiliating them in a very public way. All of the living former US Presidents are telling American’s that Trump is not acceptable and a danger to the core principles of the nation. And there it is again. Got yer nose! Two-term Republican President George W. Bush?A two-term Republican President, leaving office, zero live appearances at a national convention. Well, you gonna listen to a guy who was photoshopped out of the GOP family picture for two straight GOP Conventions? What about his dad? A one-termer. Probably senile. Jimmy Carter? Bill Clinton? Who in the GOP is listening to them on anything, ever? People who have held the office were discredited out of hand.

On the other hand, people with zero experience, or negative experience, are showing up alongside Trump and getting free rides. Nigel Farage buggered off to who knows where when his Brexit ambitions were realized. He had no plan because he never thought he’d win. (maybe that makes him a perfect role model for Trump now?) He shows up alongside Trump on the campaign trail? Aside from being a major no-no in US election protocol, he was given a free pass on his cowardice. These sort of free-rides might be explained by a simple “cult of personality” effect. But the silence that greeted people with real job experience? That is a straight-up con job.

So what happens when he is facing Hillary Clinton, a very experienced, very politically savvy opponent with top-level foreign policy credentials and a AAA-rated philanthropic foundation? Experience is bad. It’s a code-word for “beltway-insider”. Experience in the US Senate, and having run the gauntlet of those elections? Generic claims of how bad she was, no supporting evidence needed. Again, experience is a negative. Service as Secretary of State? Again, that experience is turned into a negative. The GOP spent tens of millions of dollars on congressional investigations and found nothing of substance. That should be a point to Clinton. Nope. Regarding Benghazi Colin Powell says (I paraphrase) rightly that Christopher Stevens made a decision to operate with a minimal security detail and it came up snake-eyes. Again, a GWB-guy, and we don’t like him anymore. Plus Powell has always been too cozy with the Dems. Regarding the so-called email scandal, again, nothing of substance. The power of the FBI applied to a small pile of emails (ask GWB who deleted 2.2million at the height of the Iraq war, when serious questions of who knew what and when were being asked, if 30,000 emails is a lot of emails) finds nothing. Still, it is turned into a negative for Clinton. This charade is now in full-on snowball mode. And then the director of the F B fucking I piles on for no apparent reason two weeks before the election.

And speaking of strange bedfellows, Trump starts off his campaign with Paul Manafort fresh off a Ukraine PR campaign for Putin, and seemingly still running errands back to the Kremlin. Nothing. No alarm bells. One day of warm press and he is replaced. Nobody ever asks if he is still working in any capacity. The Kremlin is thought to be behind a stream of leaked emails from the DNC. Most of these are beyond vanilla. And despite playing an open wink-and-nod game with Putin during the campaign, Trump gets a free pass. Again, The Kremlin Is Openly Hacking US Assets to Support A Candidate For U. S. President. The CIA knows this. Crickets. Oh, And Manafort shows up again at the tail end of the campaign. Not a peep about how a guy who … “returned to Ukraine in September 2014 to become an advisor to Yanukovych’s former head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine Serhiy Lyovochkin. In this role he was asked to assist in rebranding Yanukovych’s Party of Regions. Instead, he argued to help stabilize Ukraine, Manafort was instrumental in creating a new political party called Opposition Bloc. According to Ukrainian political analyst Mikhail Pogrebinsky, “He thought to gather the largest number of people opposed to the current government, you needed to avoid anything concrete, and just become a symbol of being opposed”. Sound like a familiar strategy? You can read his Wiki if you want to see how this guy operates.

My point here is this: A very simple tactic of finding your opponent’s strengths and ridiculing them was allowed to create a wave of public apathy that Trump rode to the Oval Office. We now have four years to decide whether we are collectively willing to both hold Trump to the best of his promises and prevent him from following through on the worst. On top of that we have to depend on the same ass-clowns who obstructed Obama for eight years to reign in Trump’s worst impulses, as well as not hop on board and stoke the engine. And I do mean collectively. Gutting Medicare will not spare Trump-voting grandparents. Gutting environmental protections will not target left-leaning lungs. Trade wars will not be surgical.

The best leaders actively seek out contrary opinions, actively engage them, often hire them. It allows them to see new opportunities, identify flaws in their original plans, and build solutions that create the most benefit in both the short and long term. Trump has NONE of that. He is building a sycophantic echo chamber of politi-ghouls who will tell him whatever they have to in order to preserve the Presidential Illusion. We the People need to work together to breach that information fortress. May we find the strength.