Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Trump in the Hot Seat

trump in the hot seat

For a while I wondered as did most people - why Donald Trump has not divested himself of his assets  in order to avoid what looks about to be a major problem for his presidency.
What were his options that would have avoided  a potential hearing in the Supreme Court over his potential violation of the Foreign Emoluments clause in the Constitution.
This is a very real problem because it is a bipartisan group of ethics lawyers - very expert in their field - that are bringing the case.  He will not be able to argue political witch-hunting.
At issue is whether government officials (like the Chinese) are (a) paying for services by staying at one of his hotels, or (b) rewarding the President in a private capacity.
I believe that the  plaintiffs will argue that these Chinese officials (and many other officials from other nations) are doing both - because they are irrevocably entwined - and thus the President is violating the Constitution.  This is a pretty good argument and coming from a group of lawyers who are undoubtably more knowledgeable that the Supreme Court in this matter.  When you add to the matter that time is obviously of the essence - the Justices may be very inclined to accept the argument of the ethics lawyers, and partly because this is likely to become an even more serious issue that will not go away.
So one might imagine that since Trump's able attornies must have advised him of how serious this could be, why has he sat on his hands and done absolutely nothing ?
Lets take the first option, why not just give his business to his children. Well there is almost certainly a major problem here.  Like most real estate  businessmen, and by his own boasting (he is the King of debt) he is almost certainly heavily leveraged - which means he is on the hook for a lot of debt. 
If he were to give his assets to his kids, he would still be stuck with all of the debt.  That cannot be passed.  And it is likely that his debt is greater than his assets .  That would be highly risky - it could leave him a bankrupt after his presidency.
Second option - why not sell all the assets ?  Well for the same reason as before, it might literally wipe out the business, since the debtors would have first call on the proceeds.
Third option: put it all into a blind trust (that is with no family controlling any part of it) ?  Probably impossible because of the natur e of the business and the opaqueness of the business partnerships.
There can be only one of two outcomes of this.  The Supreme Court finds for the plaintiff and Trump is faced with the loss of all of his assets.  He would have to resign the presidency, or face an almost certain impeachment.
The other option is that the Supreme Court finds some magical way to let him keep his assets - and braces itself for  another ethics violation probably within weeks.  I think that a conservative judiciary will not place itself at such risk.

For these reasons I believe that Trump will resign within the next 12 months.
Perhaps the Congress will drag its feets in order to make Robert Reich's warning come true:

Thursday, September 1, 2016




Not very smart




More lies on immigration


trump (2)


New Evidence on How Money Shapes US Elections




How economically savvy is Trump, anyway ?




Check it out

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Obamacare setback


This is not vindication for the Republican opponents. It highlights an unavoidable fact – that millions of Americans are really quite sick, and poor.

What would be more cost effective ?  More subsidies, public healthcare via expanded Medicare ? A revamping of health for profit (the fallacious conservative argument that it would handle more people more cheaply) – or should we just watch them die ?


When will the undecided voter–decide ?


In their book “The Timeline of Presidential Elections,” Robert Erikson and Christopher Wlezien show that voter preferences tend to be very stable in the fall,
but that campaign observers -- the authors analyze people betting money in online political prediction markets -- tend to assume those preferences are far more volatile."


The argument then is that the block of "undecided voters" is really more about hope by the political operatives, than reality.

"...the candidate that is most engaging and least offensive is the candidate who wins this essential bloc—and therefore the election.
They’ll tell you, and tell themselves, that they’re voting for the candidate with the best ideas.
But they’re really voting for the one who they believe is most “on their side.”


In the end, subtlety will sway more undecided voters than the sledgehammer.

"The 28 exceptions to the Incumbent Rule help support the theory on why this happens.
Many challengers who did not get a majority of undecideds in the election were recent or current holders of an office equal to the one they were seeking.
Voters were equally or more familiar with the challenger's past performance in a similar office, so the challenger assumes incumbent."


This analyis tries to promote the theory that undecideds tend to vote for the challenger to an incumbent.
This approach is an attempt to use mathematical precision - but as is very obvious,
there are really too many exceptions using this approach to find a generalized and simple rule.




All analysis tends to agree that undecided voters tend to be those that are the least interested in the election
The actual (apparent) interest in any particular candidate as in the huge crowds that Trump often pulls, is really not a good indicator of how these people will vote - if they bother to vote at all.

It is not really the issues that he claims he can solve - but the opportunity to vent anger at a system that has passed them by,
a sense of entitlement that has no laudable arguments except what they perceive as their  traditional birthright.

Where Trump falls very short is that while he does present himself as a champion for this large neglected block of blue collar workers (as did Bernie Saunders),
he offers no real remedy at all - except 'trust me'.
This combination of (often vulgar) pandering showmanship - with no uncomfortable and complex narratives - is really entertainment for the undecideds.
not clarity.

Friday, August 12, 2016




CNN and other networks argue that the voters need to see all the candidates.  I would suggest that that is a half truth.  His outrageous vulgarity attracts sensation seeking viewers.  But enough is enough.  He is just pushing your buttons CNN, NBC, CBS and FOX.  Stop it – enough already.


trump and his mouth