Two--Big--Reasons Donald Trump Is In Electoral Trouble

Yes sir, ladies and gentlemen, there are two big, big reasons why this very Republican Party President is in trouble--big trouble--in this election year, regarding his possible re-election.

Here's the first.

I.M.F. Predicts Worst Downturn Since the Great Depression

'Unrecognizable': Experts warn of historic collapse in economic activity

US President Trump no longer pushing the US economy

The one thing, the one thing this President had going for him, if even that, was the economy, of course. And even that was largely handed to him, as all Presidents are, from the previous administration. Now, with this national and international, deadly, killing pandemic and the necessary stay at home orders across much of the nation and world, he certainly doesn't have that.

And the second thing now going against this President? Glad you asked. This came out today.

NBC News/WSJ Poll: Majority of Americans disapprove of Trump's COVID-19 response

Oops.

Sure, there's his maybe 30% of the nation or less that are his followers, if that isn't shrinking, but the majority of us, most of the nation see through this empty charlatan and emotional blamer.

These two, Mr. and Mrs. America, are the one-two punches that make this President very to extremely unlikely for re-election this year, this Fall. And his repeated emotional tirades at press conferences, lashing out at reporters and his tweet storms, online, don't help him. Not one bit. In spite of what he apparently thinks or wants.

And thank goodness.

Vote, folks. Come November, the 3rd, vote.

And vote blue.

My one big concern, however, is that, between now and our November election and this President's reckoning day, I hope he can take the pressure and rejection that seems to be--deservedly--coming his way.

God help us all.

Important article out right now with many and varied implications

From Yahoo! News today:

IMF Bombshell: Age of America Nears End

by Brett Arends, Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.



For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the "Age of America" will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.


And it's a lot closer than you may think.


According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China's economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.



Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America's share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China's would reach 18%, and rising.



Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China's.

This has so many ramifications, it's difficult to take them all into account.  Here's a bit of it, from the article:

The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities. Last fall, when I attended a conference in London about agricultural investment, I was struck by the number of people there who told stories about Chinese interests snapping up farmland and foodstuff supplies — from South America to China and elsewhere.

Here's an ominous little note from the article:

The last time the world's dominant hegemon lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That's when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. It didn't turn out well.

Finally, there's this note:

According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund's website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world's largest economy.

So get ready for our fall, ladies and gentleman.  It looks as though the party is nearly over.

I'm just glad we had George W. Bush in the White House for 8 years so he could do all he possibly could--and more--to hasten this decline as much and completely and totally as he could and did.

I just hope we can hadle being a second-rate power well.

That "cowboy swagger" will need to go bye-bye.

Link:  http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112616/imf-bombshell-age-america-end-marketwatch

Remember my oil "buy" recommendation?

I wrote on March 23 that we should have bought oil (and Halliburton) stocks BIG TIME if we were cynical and greedy, at the beginning of the George W. Bush administration, in 2000.

Of course I was right. (not assuming I always am, to be sure).

Well, here we are--an article in The New York Times today, saying that there are rising fears of an oil shock, since oil companies have reduced the number of refineries they have, due to the collapse in the price of oil.

You wouldn't think the oil companies would have reacted that far-reaching in this little bit of time but don't forget, it benefits the oil companies--all of them, world-wide--to reduce capacity as much as they can, again and again, over time. The less they can refine, boys and girls, the higher a price per barrel they can get for their precious commodity.

For stability in the United States and for the safety of both our residents, our homes and businesses, we should nationalize the oil companies and as soon as possible.

We never will, mind you. I know that.

As I've written before, we worship profit and profits and wealthy people and big wealth far too much to do what's right for the country.

We should nationalize Big Oil because they're going to do what's right for them--which is reduce capability and wring all they can out of a barrel of oil, in terms of price--and that goes in the face of what is right and good and sustainable for the country.

Screwing us is good business for Big Oil.

Buy oil stocks, folks.

It'll be good for you and your pocketbook, just not the country.


Link to original article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/energy-environment/27oil.html?th&emc=th

Good news, with bad

Bad economic news today in the form of reports inflation is up the most in 27 years.
(Link here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080819/bs_nm/usa_fed_dc).

Thanks again, W, what with yer spendin' an' all.

That's going to be tough on the economy, for sure, and means the Fed will likely have to raise interest rates so we keep inflation in check.

On top of the already-occurring credit crisis, due to the housing loan meltdown, this will likely mean businesses and business could really get beat up.

No one might be able to afford very much.

The good news is that it the dollar will go up because interest rates will likely have to rise and oil may go further down, God willing. It's very likely.

But the overall effect may just be that we have less and less control over what, exactly, the economy is doing due to the string of events of the last 7 years that got us to this point. Hopefully we won't have any serious "stagflation" (stagnant, lackluster economy, mixed with out-of-control inflation).

And that, of course, is where the thanks to our glorious leader, "W", comes in, what with his war and spending and tax cuts for the wealthy and for oil companies and on and on.

Anyway, there's some good and bad, as with most everything in the world, in this news.

As for the banks, there's been some good news in the last 2 weeks, in that none were closed down and taken over by the FDIC on Friday evenings. My suspicion has been held off for a bit. Hopefully held off permanently.

But wait. News today from Reuters shows that the former head of the IMF says a "Large US bank collapse" is possibly (or is that "likely"?) ahead.
(original story here: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSP21695020080819)

According to former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff, " 'The U.S. is not out of the woods. I think the financial crisis is at the halfway point, perhaps. I would even go further to say 'the worst is to come.'"

More: "'We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper, we're going to see a big one, one of the big investment banks or big banks,' said Rogoff, who is an economics professor at Harvard University and was the International Monetary Fund's chief economist from 2001 to 2004."

When you put the sharp rise in inflation together with this possibility--that the "worst is yet to come", it doesn't look pretty, does it?

Hopefully, Humpty, we can put all the pieces back together again.