Pragmatically Distributed

But since when has the VP debate ever mattered?

Surely, his victory doesn’t hurt Trump.  But I’d be more enthusiastic about it if there were a record of VP debates ever turning the tide.

Rushton’s theory has to explain away too many historical examples where intelligent human populations that normally invest significantly in their offspring also had high fertility for his take on the idea to be salvaged.

Examples that immediately come to mind are:

• Puritan New England had a birth rate in excess of 8, and it remains one of the highest ever for which there are good records to base estimates upon
• The birth rate of 19th century Britain was more than 4
• Early 20th century Russian women had more than 5 children (this high fertility rate was one of the strategic factors which motivated Wilhelmine Germany, which had a fertility rate of ~3, to start WWI:  The German military command wanted to achieve dominance before Imperial Russia was in a position to demographically threaten Germany as the preeminent state of Continental Europe)
• Pre-WWII Japan averaged over 4 children per woman
• The average in Communist China before the one child policy was greater than 5

There are also intra-racial variances in births for which the theory has little or no explanation.

Black Americans have much lower fertility than black Africans; the birth rate of France after the Napoleonic Wars and throughout the 19th century was stagnant compared to either Britain or Germany; Scandinavian nations, even after immigrants are factored out, have higher birth rates than Germans.

The historical trend prior to the 20th century has been for European fertility to be comparable to low-IQ races.  It is only by focusing on recent decades that Rushton’s theory superficially appears somewhat applicable.  But because this time range is too narrow for fixed evolutionary factors to be a tenable explanation and because it ignores too many counter-examples outside of that time range, his r/K selection theory should be discarded.

Here is how we see the state breakdown:

Lean Trump

Missouri

North Carolina

Ohio

Arizona

Iowa

Tied

Florida

Nevada

New Hampshire

Colorado

Lean Clinton

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Wisconsin

Michigan

Trump, who had reached his peak just before the debate, has lost ground in state polls.  But not by a significant amount considering he had a bad week due to his pointless focus on a former Mrs. Universe, and less so due to the debate which seems to have been a wash in terms of his standing.

This dent in his trajectory is not fatal because he still remains in striking distance of taking the lead back if he can find another catalyst to ride momentum on.

In an age when a concept as obvious as gender has somehow become a bizarre focal point of confusion (for the rather large number of you who were unaware of this, we remind you all of the scientific fact that there are only two genders), no one should be surprised to see that most confused of currencies, the euro, edge towards disintegration.

While ostensibly the euro project was undertaken by the Delors Commission for reasons of commerce, the true, barely concealed aim of the currency which emerged from that Commission was the destruction of the concept of the European nation state and, along with it, the European peoples.

The real need of all currencies to be in harmony with a viable nation and the crackpot, anti-nationalistic fanaticism of the European Union which compelled it to launch the only anti-nationalist currency in history have finally led to these two fundamentally conflicting ideas, fraudulently combined in the single form of the euro, to approach a boil.

It took three, grueling, decades to reach this sad point in history but the European Union is, before it is anything else, a technocratic dictatorship of the bureaucrats; therefore the speed of its collapse was destined to be bounded to the glacial velocity of bureaucracies.

Be that as it may, the long-awaited critical mass has arrived. The catalyst for the reaction that will end the euro, the currency of roughly 20% of world GDP, and spark either a deep global recession or a depression, is Deutsche Bank.

The accelerating crisis facing this bank leaves Chancellor Merkel well and truly behind the eightball – All choices on the decision tree ultimately branch off into the failure of European Monetary Union.

Continue reading “Too Failed to Save – Deutsche Bank Heralds a Global Crash”

Trump won because Hillary pretended the election is being held in 1996 and her job is to make the DLC great again.

Clinton had no defense against attacks about her positions on substantive issues such as trade, the economy, manufacturing, and foreign policy.   The only points she scored were on schoolmarm gotcha’s about his past personal statements or his business activities.   For his part, Trump was thrown off course when the topic moved to his taxes, but he evened things up with her emails.  When the debate revolves around scandals, Hillary can never do better than fight Trump to a draw.

The electorate will remember what Trump said because the subjects of his attacks all centered on leading issues.  Hillary on the other hand pretended the past 8 years of her career never happened and the condition of the country is excellent.

The delivery of Trump’s attacks were given in a clearer way than they were against his primary opponents, though he did not go on the attack as often as he should have.  If he had turned the subject back to her failings more frequently he would have won by a greater margin.

In terms of temperament, Trump had the advantage.  He didn’t come across as insane, but he managed to sound real and passionate while Clinton was slippery, over-scripted, and her script was limited to Dick Morris-style triangulations about micro-policies.  A Dick Morris approach is the wrong one when the world is convulsed by macro-disasters.

The pundits will probably wrongly count the debate as a Clinton win on grounds of tone.  They will be wrong because a darker tone better reflects the dark mood of the electorate.

Part II of How Comte Overthrew Marx is scheduled for next Monday.

While I, or, rather, we, work on fine tuning this entry over the weekend, we will offer readers the end of week circulars.

Trump

His pulling the rug from under the media over the birther issue can only be interpreted as more bad news for Clinton: The smoothness with which he pulled it off is a demonstration of his rapid improvement as a general election candidate. Greater confidence, amazing unpredictability, a finely honed message, united with his seeming genius at controlling the political discussion all make him uniquely formidable in the final stretch before election day.

After updating our state-by-state election analysis with this week’s poll results we see the swing states breaking out as follows:

State of the Race

Lean Trump

Missouri

North Carolina

Ohio

Florida

Arizona

Nevada

Iowa

Tied

Virginia

New Hampshire

Colorado

Lean Clinton

Pennsylvania

Wisconsin

Michigan

Compared to our rankings from last week, this current state by state breakdown is even more positive for Trump. Two states, Colorado and New Hampshire, have been moved from lean Clinton to tied. Florida is now lean Trump, while all of the lean Trump states remain in the Trump camp.

The solidification of Ohio for Trump holds important implications for his chances of taking Pennsylvania. In presidential elections Ohio has normally been 3 to 5 points more Republican than Pennsylvania. If this past trend holds true this year – which we suspect it will because the voting demographics of both states have remained stable over the years – then to win Pennsylvania Trump must take Ohio by at least 3 points.

Recent polls suggest Trump is already ahead in Ohio by at least 3. If he can expand this lead to 5 points or more on election day he should be expected to also win Pennsylvania.

The contest for Virginia continues to narrow between Trump and Clinton. This validates our recommendation that the Trump campaign not write off Old Dominion.

Michigan and Wisconsin, once considered by most pundits to be out of reach for Trump, are now beginning to show evidence of inroads by Trump there as well. Neither is as promising as Pennsylvania and Virginia. But if Trump does win those latter two, it will mean he is sweeping the electoral map.

Continue reading “The End of Week Circulars for September 17, 2016”

Time constraints have forced the followup to How Comte Overthrew Marx to be moved to this Saturday.

In the meantime, the election…

Judging by her latest fainting spell, we can assume the stress of the presidential campaign is greatly accelerating the effects of whatever underlying disease she is suffering from.

At this rate of deterioration she may, as Moses did, drop dead with the promised land finally within sight after wandering the desert for forty years with Bill Clinton.

How should Trump approach this?

I recommend he link her failure to explain her true medical condition to her secretive nature: Why is she hiding her secrets from the public?

Assuming she is even able to attend the debate, there is a risk she could faint on stage. This possibility should be taken into account by team Trump.  If she does, the media would almost certainly try to blame her episode on Trump being too aggressive. During debate preparations (will he prepare for the debates???) he should practice delivering his attacks against her in a matter of fact way. Of course, given his nature, he’ll probably just shout whatever comes to his mind.

But my recommendation is the better approach since it factors in the likelihood she could collapse right next to him.

With her health grabbing the spotlight for the moment, now would also be a good time to quietly get rid of Stephen Bannon for having altright connections.

As I explained in the end of week circulars, although Bannon is probably not an ideological ally of Richard Spencer, Spencer is working overtime making the word “altright” as toxic as possible while Bannon is on record expressing sympathies with it.

The time is ideal to “Retire” Bannon before his altright associations lead to an unneeded scandal as we get closer to election day.

Trump

As I predicted on Lion’s site in mid-August when I heard the Trump campaign was about to begin its ad war offensive, Trump is now statistically tied in five swing states:  Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

The ads of the Trump campaign combined with sharper messaging have turned the race into a jump ball.  The work of Kellyanne Conway to change his image into that of a more conventional, non-threatening, Republican candidate, but without diluting his nationalist policies, has worked beautifully.  If Trump wins, she, in our enlightened, Hamiltonian opinion, deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor.

To sustain their current momentum, the Trump campaign needs to continue going on the attack against the many flaws of Clinton.  The tone of the attack ads should all be negative, and remind voters of every scandal the media either does not report on or tries to sweep under the rug.  This will keep distractions and side issues, such as the Khan uproar, from taking the message off of Hillary.

A theme I recommend they deploy against her is that she gets away with law breaking because she is a privileged elite.  This theme will echo in the minds of voters by linking together her elitism, which keeps her separate from the ordinary people, with her criminality which is of such a degree that it would earn any other non-elite multiple life sentences in federal prison.

I see two potential problems lurking for the campaign:

Lack of Debate Preparation

Supposedly Trump is refusing to practice for the debates despite the recommendations of staff to do otherwise.  This is a recipe for an unneeded failure.

To coax him into preparing somewhat for the debates, I recommend the staff offer him “zinger” lines to use against her.

His instincts are to go on offense, and if he has some rehearsed lines to go after her with, he might agree to more preparation if he is handed some good shots to get in against her.

It will also help him stay on the attack during the debate.  If he goes on offense and stays focused on her weak points, he should win because her failures are inexcusable.  He can only fail in the debate if he lets her many weaknesses go unchallenged due to incoherence.

Something along the lines of “it’s too bad our Benghazi personnel didn’t have Swiss francs for you to airlift to Iran” should peak his interest in practicing.  It will also go over brilliantly on live television because there is no defense she can make to salvage the role she had in the attack on the embassy.

Richard Spencer’s Altright Speech and Stephen Bannon

Spencer continues to be stupid.  This week he held a conference making antisemitic statements.

This would not be a problem for the Trump campaign, except for the fact Bannon went on record a few months ago stating he made Breitbart.com open to altrighters.

Although Bannon is probably not antisemitic and at the time the altright was not uniformly antisemitic, the labeling of Spencer is making any associations with the altright increasingly toxic for Trump.

Bannon will probably have to be let go by the Trump campaign so that Conway’s softening of Trump’s image continues without any racism scandals knocking their message off course.

The problem is how to let Bannon go while keeping the media reaction to a minimum.

I recommend they push him aside over the weekend when a football game is on, or some other distraction grabs the attention of the media momentarily.  When the media eventually asks where he went, the campaign should make up some frivolous excuse about how he “wanted to enhance coming initiatives with Breitbart”.  Or some such nonsense.  And the next day introduce a new distraction to take their eyes off of Bannon’s exit.

If they ask anything more about the altright, say there is no association between them and the campaign, and that Hillary is just raising a small distraction to keep voters from noticing her terrible record.  The should also put her on the defense by repeating their theme today that Hillary is calling millions of ordinary Americans harmed by the policies she supports racists.  Then pivot back to another issue.

However this is handled, Bannon will likely have to go due to Spencer’s egomania.

State of the Race

I see the following swing states as lean Trump, tied, or lean Clinton:

Lean Trump

Missouri

North Carolina

Ohio

Arizona

Iowa

Tied

Florida

Virginia

Lean Clinton

Pennsylvania

New Hampshire

Wisconsin

Michigan

Colorado

Despite the growth of Northern Virginia as government workers continue to live large off of the loot they’ve stolen from the American taxpayer, the state of Virginia is winnable if black turnout is lower compared to their 2008 and 2012 turnout.

Virginia remain a top target state of the Trump campaign in case Pennsylvania doesn’t work out.  The lean Clinton states could pulled be closer into the Trump column with more advertising and messages on issues that are particular to those states.

Response to Commentators about Hamiltonian Economic Policy

In the blog entry, A Gentle Introduction to Alexander Hamilton, Jason Liu and Garr questioned what was meant by “state guided” capitalism in a Hamiltonian regime.

Liu in particular wanted to know how this differed from the state supported capitalism of East Asia.

In the article, we defined the difference between capitalistic, libertarian, and liberal economic systems in the Hamiltonian Model of Economic Systems:

1) Capitalism – The political actor fashions the political competitive boundary conditions and remedies any violations of the conditions; the private sector actor using price signals decides on which actions are most valuable within the boundary conditions established by the governmental actor (they do not violate laws) and naturally occurring conditions.

2) Libertarianism – The private sector actor fashions the political competitive conditions; the private sector actor decides on which actions are most valuable based on price signals within the system boundary conditions.

3) Liberalism – The public sector actor fashions the political competitive conditions; the public sector actor decides on economic actions within the system.

The question Liu asked presents us with a good opportunity to demonstrate how the above definitions work in practice.

Consider how Japan would likely deal with a nearing bankruptcy of one of their iconic car manufacturers.

If Toyota were on the bring, it is highly likely the Japanese government (the public actor in our system) would intervene on behalf of Toyota (the private actor) to keep them afloat.

In a Hamiltonian system, there would be no bailout for, say, GM (private actor) if it were failing.

The federal government (public actor) under a Hamiltonian system would instead focus on fashioning a business environment that would support all manufacturers through common policies shared by all manufacturers – such as good trade agreements (more on trade in a future post), taxes specially directed to manufacturers, cheap carbon energy to supply factories with fuel, efficient ports and airports to import raw materials, flexible labor arrangements, etc.

By these common policies, a welcoming environment would yield itself to manufacturing of all kinds.

However, there would be no bailout of a particular GM if it fails despite operating in a good environment.

Hamiltonians consider the role of government finished when a good business environment has been created for private actors by government policy.  The government role is then no longer concerned with what private sector actors do so long as they do not violate laws.

A private actor at risk of going out of business, would be allowed to fail so that whatever economic niche was filled by that company could be filled by a more skillful private actor.

Distinguishing what role a public actor should take and what role should be that of a private actor will require many examples to make clear in the minds of readers, because what is arguably the realm of the private and public actor can overlap and cause confusion.

But with practice and more examples, we feel that this model of the relationship between governmental and private actions will become clearer to readers, especially those of you with common sense and sound judgment.

Metternich, Volume IV, Private Letters of Metternich, 1826.

Page 274

January 27. — I have received, my dear Victor, your reports and letters from London. The former are very well done, and the Emperor has read them with interest.

. . . I beg you to fix your attention somewhat more particularly on what the Russians (especially the Princess Bagration) say on the situation of things in Russia. You will see from what I told Vincent in my last despatch what the affair really is. It is neither more nor less than an exact copy of those of Madrid, Naples, and Turin. ‘ The conspiracy has immense ramifications, and the number of individuals already arrested is between twelve and thirteen hundred. Among this number are persons of the highest classes of Russian society. If the Emperor Alexander had lived, the same thing would have happened, and he and the Imperial family would have been massacred. . . .

Lebzeltern cannot remain at St. Petersburg. He is too much compromised by his brother-in-law Trubetzkoi. The public already regard him as a Carbonaro. Ah well! Lebzeltern, with all his good qualities, is one of those who never believe in the existence of sticks until they have been beaten to powder. He believes in conspiracies now his brother-in-law has been arrested as a conspirator. Whenever I expressed my opinion to the Emperor Alexander, Lebzeltern, and oftener still Nesselrode, have taxed me with being a visionary, and with behaving badly to the Emperor of Russia. See what the Russian Carbonari are saying at Paris : every word is an indication to me. It is impossible yet to foresee where the affair will stop. Meantime it somewhat disconcerts our young noblemen.

 

Metternich, Volume IV, Private Letters of Metternich, 1826.

Page 277

March 20. — I do not know a more difficult post to occupy than that of the Emperor Nicholas. I will give you a sketch of Russia.

Peter the Great changed her frontiers. In Asia he moved them westward — in a word, he said to Russia, Thou shalt henceforth be part of Europe. He was right in this, but he was wrong to destroy so many of the ancient institutions of the state and not replace them.

Catherine II., entirely European, thought only of glory. She was a thorough woman, and she had the misfortune to live in the era of encyclopædists.

Paul I., if he had not been insane, would have rendered great services to his country. His sentiments were thoroughly monarchical. His characteristics are sufficiently shown in the act by which he regulated the succession to the throne.

Alexander, who was fortunate in taking the crown after his father, was unhappily the child of the age. Always going from one religion to another, from one taste to another, he moved everything and built nothing. Everything in him was superficial and exaggerated, and he ever inclined to prefer bad means to good : at the end of five-and- twenty years he left his empire at the point to which the Emperor Joseph II. had conducted his in nine years. Joseph II. however, was an administrator, and the Russian monarch was not.

The population of Russia is divided into two classes; in this respect it resembles the States of the middle ages ; the difference, however, is in the quality of the classes. The aristocracy forms everywhere else the superior class, but in Russia it is only the principal persons — or, we may say, the Court and its suite — who form the superior class.

In an empire thus organized, full of peculiar positions, of necessities which exist nowhere else, the Emperor Alexander wished to introduce the refinements and the abuses of what in my opinion is very improperly described by the epithet of modern civilization — a monster without a body and all ideas!

 

Metternich, Volume IV, Private Letters of Metternich, 1826.

Page 206

Vienna Dec. 22 — What a shocking event at Taganrog! How little worth are all human calculations. They have less weight than invisible, intangible atoms, which need but a breath of air to carry them to the end of the earth. In spite of my cold-bloodedness, this unexpected catastrophe has touched me most deeply.

At midnight of the 13-14th I received an express from our sub-consular agent at Warsaw. On the cover was written ‘most urgent’ three times repeated. I turned the letter over and over without being able to imagine what could be the cause of such urgency.

When I opened it the first lines that met my eye told the news that the Emperor Alexander had died on Dec. 1. Could the truth of this be doubted? The letter had passed through the Warsaw post-office. Four whole days passed without the news being confirmed or corrected — on the fifth day certainty overpowered us.

Dec. 28.— We are still in the greatest uncertainty here how the conflict between the two Emperors will end. We live in an extraordinary century, that seems to be meant to go through the cycle of all experience. A throne which no one can mount is a novum in history, and this experience may be turned to the greatest triumph of philanthropy. But whatever may result from this, the blame lies with the Emperor Alexander. He had a peculiar and deplorable inclination to go wrong as to the means of carrying out the good intentions he had in his mind. This defect in his nature was also the ground of all the misunderstandings between him and me. He often allowed me the honour of looking into his inner thoughts. I approved of them, and we understood one Another quickly enough as to the starting-point and the end to be arrived at. Then we both started on our way. I went straight to the end proposed; the Emperor went round about. I called to him ‘ Stop’ He cried in return, ‘ Do but come with me.’ Now I cry at the top of my voice, ‘Indeed you have taken the wrong road’, but he goes on further astray, full of vexation at being left alone.

 

The Origins and Principles of the American Revolution, compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution – Friedrich von Gentz, close diplomatic associate of Metternich

Page 65 – 66

The relics of the old constitution were not so much boundaries to the omnipotent desolating power of the revolution, as landmarks, designating its victorious progress. The constitution, of 1791, was only a short and voluntary pause; a sort of resting point, at which nobody meant long to wait. The second national assembly did not make a pass, no, not one, which was not an attack upon some ruin or other of the monarchy. The establishment of the republic did not satisfy its authors. The execution of the king scarcely appeased the ravenousness of his butchers, for a single instant.

In the year 1793 the thirst for destruction had gone so far, that it was at a loss for an object. The well known saying, that Robespierre meant to reduce the population of France by one half, had its foundation in the lively sense of the impossibility of satisfying the hitherto insatiate revolution, with any thing less, than such a hecatomb.

When there was nothing more left in the country to attack, the offensive frenzy turned itself against the neighbouring states, and finally declared war in solemn decrees against all civil society. It was certainly not the want of will in those, who then conducted this war, if Europe preserved any thing, besides “bread and iron.” Fortunately, no strength was great enough long to support such a will. The unavoidable exhaustion of the assailants, and not the power or the merit of the resistance made, saved society; and, finally, brought the work shops themselves, where the weapons for its destruction were forged, within its beneficent bonds again.

 

Alexander Hamilton – The Stand No. III, [7 April 1798]

In reviewing the disgusting spectacle of the French revolution, it is difficult to avert the eye entirely from those features of it which betray a plan to disorganize the human mind itself, as well as to undermine the venerable pillars that support the edifice of civilized society. The attempt by the rulers of a nation to destroy all religious opinion, and to pervert a whole people to Atheism, is a phenomenon of profligacy reserved to consummate the infamy of the unprincipled reformers of France. The proofs of this terrible design are numerous and convincing.

The animosity to the Christian system is demonstrated by the single fact of the ridiculous and impolitic establishment of the decades, with the evident object of supplanting the Christian Sabbath. The inscription by public authority on the tombs of the deceased, affirming death to be an eternal sleep, witness the desire to discredit the belief of the immortality of the soul. The open profession of Atheism in the Convention, received with acclamations; the honorable mention on its journals of a book professing to prove the nothingness of all religion; the institution of a festival to offer public worship to a courtezan decorated with the pompous [title] of “Goddess of Reason;” the congratulatory reception of impious children appearing in the hall of the Convention to lisp blasphemy against the King of Kings; are among the dreadful proofs of a conspiracy to establish Atheism on the ruins of Christianity—to deprive mankind of its best consolations and most animating hopes—and to make a gloomy desert of the universe.

Continue reading “How Comte Overthrew Marx – Part I: Introduction to the French Revolution”

The triumph of the nationalism of Alexander Hamilton was the triumph of the unification of capitalism with nationalism, the unification of economics with statecraft. The trials of history have proven his system of nationalism to be the greatest of any competitor from the 19th century to today because it answered the question of how the prosperity of modern nations may exist harmoniously with the exercise of national political power.

Continue reading “A Gentle Introduction to Alexander Hamilton”