http://ranprieur.com/#9a417fe513f58988c3b5b1e84cfc57397194a79b 2016-02-03T15:50:16Z Ran Prieur http://ranprieur.com/ ranprieur@gmail.com http://ranprieur.com/#32e4bcdfe84ea0d0cc2fecf6728b032088012b8a 2016-02-03T15:50:16Z February 3. Some quick notes on the Iowa caucus. Trump's weak second place finish shows that it is possible to underestimate the American people, and if he really wants to be president, he has to do fewer PR stunts and act more like a serious candidate. For the Democrats, Bernie's virtual tie is a symbolic win, but in terms of delegate math, Iowa is the kind of young, white, educated state that he needs to win 2-1 to be on track for the nomination. To have any chance to overcome Hillary's superdelegates, he has to do much better than expected among black people.

Bernie's performance among young people is great news for the future: he got eight out of ten voters under 30, and six out of ten aged 30-45. You might say, in 20 years when those voters are older they'll switch to establishment candidates because they'll be better off financially. But they won't! That's age of growth thinking: "a rising tide lifts all boats." There will never be a rising tide again, in 20 years most of those voters will still be poor, and their grandparents will replaced by more young people who want cancellation of debts, an unconditional basic income, and a financial transaction tax.

More about the new economy (thanks Andy): Economics might be very wrong about growth. Experts are gradually noticing that growth is no longer exponential but linear, but the whole financial industry is still based on exponential growth, which is why it keeps collapsing.

And The Fed wants to test how banks would handle negative interest rates. I think the whole economy should be built on a foundation where concentrations of wealth tend to shrink over time instead of growing, and Charles Eisenstein wrote a good chapter on this a while back: The Currency of Cooperation.

]]> http://ranprieur.com/#be6be9a5772c8bdc560db72d09863b9d91926b14 2016-02-01T13:30:48Z February 1. I've put off writing about presidential politics because it's easy to get swept up and say dumb things. A few months ago I thought Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders, because I remember how in 2008 Obama barely beat Hillary despite being an establishment candidate with an all-time great campaign organization. Bernie has almost no superdelegates, his organization is nothing special, and Hillary has learned from the blunders she made in 2008, and yet Bernie is running strong. This makes me think the whole framework has changed, and candidates who can brand themselves as outsiders now have a big advantage with voters.

A few months ago I thought Donald Trump was a joke, and now I see him as an unstoppable juggernaut. Read this month old reddit comment about Trump's mastery of the media. I would go farther and say he has an intuitive understanding of mass psychology, and he's been laying the foundation for this run since the the 1990's. Because he has established a persona where people already expect him to say ridiculous things, he's gaffe-proof. Other candidates have to walk a tightrope between boring the voters and alienating them, while Trump is walking a highway where he can be popular and offensive at the same time. Somehow he can play the strong leader and play the clown. You can read more about Trump's powers in several smart posts on Scott Adams' blog.

Assuming it's Trump against Clinton in November, I see this as a repeat of 1996, where Trump is Bill Clinton, polarizing but charismatic, and Hillary is Bob Dole: unlikeable, boring, and unlucky. And Trump can easily rebrand himself as a moderate, because he has a long history of being a moderate before he talked like an extremist to win the primaries.

I don't think President Trump would ruin America, or save it. I would expect him to propose a bunch of simple-minded reforms, let congress rework them to fit the system, and where the reforms work he'll take credit, and where they fail he'll blame congress. Bernie Sanders could do the same thing, but because of Trump's pre-existing alpha businessman persona, and his myth manipulation skill, he would be more likely to get away with it and win a second term. The big doom scenario is if there's some disaster that shuts down congress, Trump takes temporary unchecked power, it goes to his head, and he doesn't give it up.

If I'm wrong, and Hillary wins, it will be with the votes of sensible old people, or because an independent candidate splits the Republican vote. The establishment Republicans would never admit it but they'd rather have Hillary be president than Trump.

If Sanders is the nominee, Republicans will unite against him, and Trump over Sanders could destroy the Democratic party, if they react to the loss by fearing voter passion exactly when they should embrace it.

]]>