If it turns out to be Trump v Sanders, what are the chances of Bloomberg winning?
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Zero pretty much.
PPP have done a bunch of polling for the early-March Democrat primaries:
Alabama - Clinton +28
Arkansas - Clinton +25
Georgia - Clinton +34
Louisiana - Clinton +31
Massachusetts - Sanders +7
Michigan - Clinton +10
Mississippi - Clinton +34
Oklahoma - Clinton +2
Tennessee - Clinton +26
Texas - Clinton +23
Virginia - Clinton +22
Vermont - Sanders +76
Massachusetts would be a big win for him, lots of delegates. Michigan and Oklahoma in play too.
I guess 0, but will give the victory to Trump. In that possible case, I can see Bloomberg becoming the most successful independent/other party candidate for president since Perot in 1992, but still won't win any delegates IMO.
Don't think that's the case. They are described as Indian-Americans. In UK people of Indian origins are classified under British-Asians.
Well, I guess I'm going by census classification. It is a bit weird in the US because Asian usually means East Asian. In California, 'white' people usually considered me 'Asian' while 'Asian' people called me Indian.
In the US its broadly categorized as "Asian", which includes people from the Indian Subcontinent.
I can confirm, broadly speaking...we are all referred to as Asians (Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis)
An example - University of Texas diversity breakdown -
Almost all of them do it this way.
Last edited:
That's probably unique to the US - where Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc prefer to be referred to as Asian instead of the outdated and vaguely racist term "Oriental", which was used for decades by whites as a way to "other" the Chinese.
Same thing applies to Iranians who in the US prefer to be called Persians, as well as Latinos who prefer that over Hispanic, and obviously African-Americans, who prefer that to Black or the more outdated Negro (which was commonly used in the US as recently as the 1970s)
Bush with Kasich as VP isn't the worst idea.
It makes sense, but is unlikely given that both are a million miles from getting nominated.
Nikki Haley nomination must have been a kick to the guts of Jeb! He brought his brother to SC lolzy
1998, Bernie Sanders going off on Ayn Rand groupie and free market and non regulation guru Alan Greenspan, basically predicting the crash brought on by these douchebags and the ensuing bailout 10 years before it happened.
So yeah, let´s keep listening to these people who keep saying Bernie doesn´t know anything about the economy.
So yeah, let´s keep listening to these people who keep saying Bernie doesn´t know anything about the economy.
Trump - "I'll get Mehico to pay for the big, beautiful wall"
Common refrain, so he gets asked...how?
His response -
The state of this mental midget
Common refrain, so he gets asked...how?
His response -
The state of this mental midget
Trump - "I'll get Mehico to pay for the big, beautiful wall"
Common refrain, so he gets asked...how?
His response -
The state of this mental midget
Bizarre. And Japan, again! Am I living in the 80s?!
Sorry Raoul , MSNBC may as well give Hillary oral at this point. As a dem , I see them in control of the message. The worst isn't Chris M , it's our Ms Maddows. She's a Hillary shill at this point. Fox is just shit.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...nors-hear-concerns-about-nevada-outcome/?_r=0
Establishment telling Hillary to look less establishment.
Establishment telling Hillary to look less establishment.
Man... as someone who works in finance, in investing, in the hedge fund business, who has read "When Genius Failed" which is the considered the book to read about LTCM's debacle, and has been shocked and laughed at their expense too, I just really really must point out that Sanders oversimplified to the extreme, is incorrect in some implications and assertions.
I've said it before as a joke, that you can't take my job if you don't know how to do it. I'm not actually worried about my job, if its gone tomorrow because Wall Street is a shadow of what it once was I'm confident I'll be fine. I'm worried that you can't step into the White House, or any other executive post on the globe with what seems to me an incomplete, uninterested in detail, idealistic approach towards banking, investing, and the financial system as a whole. It will end poorly for the economy, not because of how much the financial sector adds or doesn't to it, but because the financial sector are the gears of the economy, and if it doesn't work properly nor does the economy.
I can't sit here and say that 2008 was fine, or irrelevant. It wasn't, it cleary indicated the need for change in regulation, and from what I've followed I also think change has actually been insufficient. But here's the thing about regulation, its not about more or less, its about good or bad. And good regulation is all about the details.
Sanders on finance to me is akin to the Foreign Policy simplifiers, who either think that they'll just bomb everything and it'll work out. I don't expect him to get into details as part of the campaign, but what little I see is discouraging, as a financial economist.
Thing is, as someone who voted for Obama in '08 and '12 - MSNBC had very little to do with my decision making process. I don't think 'liberals' adhere to or swear by MSNBC as some conservatives do with Fox News.
Rachel Maddow and the other talking heads don't have anything like the clout some of the people at Fox News have with their 'vote bank"
In fact, I'd go so far as to say, more liberals hate watch Fox than watch MSNBC
Absolutely, I never watch MSNBC but have Fox on all the time. You just can't wank to Rachel Maddow.
You don´t need to be an expert to understand central banks and their policy, because their answer to any crisis is always the same (at least in the last 25 years): More money to a lower price.
Trump - "I'll get Mehico to pay for the big, beautiful wall"
Common refrain, so he gets asked...how?
His response -
The state of this mental midget
Joke is on us though. Several new polls showing that he's quite comfortably going to win SC. After that he maybe unstoppable.
Which parts in particular are discouraging to you and why?
That, yes. But I was talking about the hard on to nail the 'billionaires' and the bankers, without seeming to understand what they actually do. The policy it seems to lead to are restrictions and more restrictions on certain types of activity, without realizing that they're relevant to the functioning of the financial system, and the restrictions will make the whole thing very costly and slow. It might also forbid certain types of institutions from having certain types or risks, but leading to the risks getting concentrated elsewhere and there still being a different type of crash down the line. You know that risk doesn't dissapear, it just changes hands.
yeah. I agree with all of that. It is a general misconception, that everything goes tits up without government intervention.
I just can´t omit any situation, where I get the chance to complain about central bank policies. Greenspan is a moron and I feel deep affection for anyone who calls him or his successors out on their bullshit.
oh ffs. Please stop this. There is still a long way to go. He will implode and the circus show will sure come to an end.
We were saying that 6 months ago.
What I said below to Pedro. One thing is understanding the nature of risk. One issue with the crisis was that too many institutions had too much of the same risk exposure. But there is no system design that I can currently think of or that Sanders has proposed that mitigates it. There is already much more restrictive regulation on the balance sheet profile of banks and investment banks since the crisis. But there is the possibility that the risk they're not allowed to take on is getting piled up elsewhere (one place its piled up is the balance sheets of the central banks). Down the line this concentration could lead to a fracture in some other point of the financial system, possibly as essential as the investment banks, and we're there again.
Also, characterizing investing as gambling... LTCM put on a ton of risk on arbitrage (interest rate arbitrage specifically). Investing on arbitrage is not inherently bad, they just did it way too heavily imo. But that's a judgement thing, I really really would never do it, its not part of my investment philosophy. But its just as easy to go and characterize stock investing as gambling, because the real nature of it is that we study and study a company for weeks, and then we go and make an investment. But from there on we can win or lose, because despite all of our study there's still a ton of unknowns. In that sense its akin to gambling, you win and you lose, and even with the best intentions you can still lose plenty if you're wrong.
The natural consequence of that is restricting investing, trying to regulate it, direct it. But that inevitably leads to distortions, where one type of security or sector sees a lot more capital than another because of regulation. The crisis had that too, the government was all about housing, getting people homes. So there were all the incentives in the world to get a mortgage. Who is negatively affected? Everyone who wants a loan to start a business is now competing for a smaller capital flow and probably paying more for what they do get.
The notion that the government can greatly direct the economy is one I think is false. Managing the economy well requires vigilance, intellectual humility and patience. I think that on this issue Sanders is lacking the latter two, because he's very confident that he's right, and he wants to change too much too soon.
Congress is full of lawyers and politicians, and the brightest minds in the financial regulatory agencies get poached by the Street.
He isn't going to implode. People have been predicting his implosion for 6 months now.
The only way he loses is if two of Bush, Rubio and Kasich drop out and coalesce the vote.
A financial columnist in Brazil I like once wrote a satirical list of 10 things to be done to improve the country. One was that our equivalent of the SEC would move to one of the same type of fancy marble and granite buildings the investment banks base themselves in to impress clients, staff would be paid market level salaries and bonuses, and the max fines which are now fixed in local currency and don't get adjusted by inflation would now be fixed in shares of a famous local hedge fund. Not a half bad idea, but would the public react well to a SEC director getting paid $50 million in a year, while the President makes $400 thousand?
Thing is, as someone who voted for Obama in '08 and '12 - MSNBC had very little to do with my decision making process. I don't think 'liberals' adhere to or swear by MSNBC as some conservatives do with Fox News.
Rachel Maddow and the other talking heads don't have anything like the clout some of the people at Fox News have with their 'vote bank"
In fact, I'd go so far as to say, more liberals hate watch Fox than watch MSNBC
TBH networks still crush the cable news outlets. I just think msnbc has some skin in it like Fox. My wife's mental about politics. I watch fleetingly, hardly ever take anything from it. She watches from 7-11 msnbc predominantly, I chuck on headphones and watch Last Leg and similar programming.
To imply that Bernie Sanders with his 30 years in congress doesn´t understand what banks do is beyond arrogance, but then again, you also seem to think what we need now is another Henry Kissinger. He saw very clearly what was going on in banking throughout the Bush years, hence his ongoing war with Alan Greenspan, wall street´s messiah. We all know how that went. He has earned his right to be listened to, as he has been on the right side of the top economic, foreign policy, moral and environmental issues over his long political career. I think the biggest "hard on" he has is to root out corrupt practices and the national and worldwide risks associated with this corruption and the whole too big to fail structure of wall street.
Fear not, his half thought out Robin Hood policies will never see the light of day.
Ted Cruz's campaign photoshopped a Rubio-Obama handshake, while their campaign manager insisted it was authentic https://t.co/1iCrZ2owho
Cruz being a good christian AGAIN
Cruz being a good christian AGAIN
Last edited:
Really appreciate you taking the time to write a really great answer! As I have not studied much with regards to economics there isn't much that I can comment on from an informed position. What I will say is that I disagree with your assessment of Bernie, he has been working at this for a very long time and while he wants things to change he realizes that change will be piece by piece, not wholesale. Hence his emphasis on grassroots and keeping people involved in the political process beyond this presidential election. That among other things shows me that he has patience and despite being idealistic in terms of goals he is realistic in terms of expectations.
Not much to say in regards to his intellectual humility, but I can't see him allowing his ego to override good sense in terms of economic policy and listening to people that are well versed in these matters.
Quote-worthy:
- Status