He’s not a great orator

But this will have had some shirt buttons popping from swelling chests:

Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered period, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you. It be longs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration. And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not what truly controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

I think I can actually hear the shouts of “Fuck Yeah, ‘Murica” from here.

The stuff about trade and protectionism is dreck of course but …….

68 comments on “He’s not a great orator

  1. He’s certainly hit the ground running…. setting out with repealing Obamacare and replacing the bust of Churchill. The left don’t seem to know what to do (other than riot, then cry).

  2. It works for me. If only Britain had someone who even knew what Trump was talking about.

  3. It has been very useful that the left have, so recklessly, showed their true face, over Trump and Brexit. A good reminder of what we are dealing with.

  4. But this will have had some shirt buttons popping from swelling chests:

    But enough about Ivanka and Melania…..

  5. “It works for me. If only Britain had someone who even knew what Trump was talking about”

    It damn well works for me too squire

    You know Tim, he doesn’t need to be a great orator, but then he knows how to inspire people – and that is half the battle.

  6. He faces 2 real and massive problems:

    1–The economic mess left by the upper/middle class Marxian/Kenysian scum. Very dangerous.
    2- Amerika–the police state structures put in place by the above scum across decades of wiping their arse on the vision of the Founding Fathers. The Praetorians as Doug Casey calls them– The Alphabet Gangs, the thuggish cops, the corporate socialists, the bureaucrats, etcetera, ad nauseum.

    These are the really dangerous elements. The scum of the left and their media handmaiden only present a danger because of the other two above. Trump has shown he can beat the external left and the media–but beating them plus the other two is an almighty challenge. Esp when he has daft ideas about trade, jobs etc. Protectionism will just make matters worse. The market can create new jobs in new industries–but the scum of the left have blinded and crippled the market with their thieving, dictatorial and control freak ways. Restoring freedom and esp economic freedom will save America–but I don’t know if Trump really understands that.

    Good luck to him and God bless.

  7. @Mr Ecks,

    This would be the economic mess of technical full employment the US is suffering right now? Or the record-breaking GDP for the fourth year in the row?

    It may well have nothing to do with Obama, but the fake news is the idea that there is some kind of depression going on right now.

  8. @ BiG
    No one challenges the concept of full employment, it’s the crappy low-paid jobs with little opportunity for advancement, the shabby infrastructure and ghettoization of communities that pisses people off.

  9. So politicians should do something about “crappy low paid jobs with little opportunity for advancement”?

    What happened to the market?

    Or ghettoisation? Perhaps politicians should order people where to live. Or send their kids to school?

    Infrastructure you have a point, but much of the world is in the same boat and will be until (and if) governments can get their finances in order. Trump isn’t likely to achieve that and has promised as much.

  10. And to think it that if not for the DNC it could have been Bernie saying exactly the same thing, with only the direction from which the respective cheers and boos came from changing.

  11. In case you haven’t noticed, this guy is not a “don’t just do something, stand there” Reaganite. He is probably the most left-wing president since Roosevelt. More government, more protectionism, more spending, more debt, more control.

    And it’s the “leftist snowflakes” who are against him!

  12. “Full employment” Biggie?

    Leaving out the millions who have stopped looking and are surviving day to day?

    Try this website:

    http://www.shadowstats.com/

    And this pdf esp:

    http://www.shadowstats.com/article/c810x.pdf

    for a more realistic perspective on US employment figures.

    Also there is the question of the 17 trillion US debt and the approx. 175 trillion of unfunded liabilities for pensions, welfare etc, etc. And the large number of Yanks getting by on govt handouts etc–and on and on .

    Never said the depression was going on NOW Biggie –but it is heading our way.

  13. You are right that he is a “hands on ” type. But because that’s how he built a business not because of leftist idealogy.

    That might make a difference. But as I said , the market is the way to make America great again. And that involves a hell of a lot less meddling.

    You can see him going into some govt shithole and sacking all the dead wood. Which will likely be of minor benefit. But he can’t intervene his way back to American prosperity UNLESS the interventions are to reduce the power of the state. If he intervenes on those lines he could do it. Unless the Praetorians are able to kill him first. He has shown great cleverness in his campaign. Is he clever enough to know what really needs doing? I don’t know.

  14. So you have assessed the PDF in .1 of a second and can declare it fake news .1 of a second later. Amusing since–in the now classic style–it is you, self-proclaimed denouncer of fake news–who is actually the purveyor of same.

    There is a job just waiting for you in the Merkal govt Biggie. Rape in Germany being at an all time low no doubt.

  15. I thought it was an appalling speech, there were only 2 upsides to it:

    1. It wasn’t Hillary making it

    2. He did promise to fix the crumbling infrastructure, which I suppose will help those he claims to want to help.

    From Cafe Hayek:

    Somewhat under duress, because Elizabeth insisted on listening herself, I also listened to Trump’s inaugural speech. I would rank it among the very worst political speeches I have ever had the displeasure to hear. Its recipe seems to have been: combine three parts mercantilist fallacies, three parts offensive nationalist bombast, and four parts sheer populist hot air about how great the American people are and how great they will soon be again, thanks to Trump. Serve accompanied by half-hearted applause from the assembled members of the political criminal class. All in all, simply an appalling performance, even by the abysmally low standards applicable to such egregious ceremonies.

  16. @Ecks,

    Can’t take it like a man when you’re wrong? Well aren’t you just a special little snowflake?

  17. BNiD: A what the fuck have Café Hayek managed to do to put a spoke in socialism’s wheels? Some snobbish cunt looks down his nose at someone who has shit-kicked the massive odds against him. Let the “Café Hayek” snob-boy comeback when he has done the same damage to the left that Trump has.

  18. Yes, Julia. He does get under the skin of the intellectual classes, doesn’t he? Wouldn’t matter what he said. Still would have been an “appalling performance”.

  19. So assertive bullying Trumps (pun intended) argument does it Biggie? You are right because you are right and I should be a man and admit I’m wrong? How often has that shite been heard over the last year.

    The Shadow site exists to give the lie to bogus govt stats Biggie. You give me a refutation of the PDF–which you cannot even have read given the time factor–and I will consider your argument. I have no interest in whatever Obama-sucking cockrot the US Bureau of Labour has to say.

  20. The left isn’t mortally wounded and if Trump screws up the economy, which looks likely, they will be back with a vengeance.

    By all means rewrite asymmetrical trade deal, there’s no doubt the USA has given a lot of now rich countries preferential trade deals as part of soft power policies, especially during the cold was, but to claim free trade has killed all those US jobs is plain wrong, that was technology.

    His mercantilist policies will not reverse that trend, they will just harm the people he claims to want to help.

  21. BNiD: Agreed. Protectionism is a bad idea. Not as bad as WW3 via a Syrian No Fly Zone but still a bad idea.

  22. @BiG – it’s easy to have all time high numbers in employment – there are more people to employ now than there has ever been! The total population has grown circa 20 million since 2000 so say 10 million more people to employ!!

  23. His speech has been ripped straight from the Tax Research UK blog. He is an arsehole who appeals to morons.

  24. And that is the best the scum of the Left can do. Despite a billion dollars spent , despite a legion of lies and dirty tricks delivered by means that America’s Founding Fathers could scarce have imagined, that is the best the Left can do.

  25. I thought Eck’s pdf was quite interesting. According to graph 3, about 40% of the population are not employed. The question being asked is how many of them would like to be, and that’s difficult to answer from objective statistics available to the government. They try to do it on the basis of how many are actively trying to find work, which you can see the sense of, but it’s true that probably underestimates the figure somewhat. On the other hand, we have little idea of how Williams calculates his alternative.

    The ShadowStats number – a broad unemployment measure more in line with common experience -is my estimate.The approximation of the ShadowStats “long-term discouraged worker” category – those otherwise largely defined out of statistical existence in 1994 – reflects proprietary modeling based on a variety of private and public surveying over the last two-plus decades

    Hmm. “Proprietary modeling”.

    But an unemployment rate of 22% would seem to indicate that there are absolutely no low-skill jobs going in the USA. It makes you wonder why the Mexicans are still trying to cross the border into the US, and what they’re living on when they get there. Could it be that the Mexicans are more skilled than the Americans? Or could it be that there actually are jobs available, but the Americans don’t want them? Maybe some of those people who previously said they did/didn’t want a job have changed their minds? Or could it be minimum wage laws and union restrictions and employment rights and so on are pricing them out of the market?

    Nor is it clear that it’s even the right question to be asking. If a person has savings or independent income (e.g. a wife or husband in work) and would like a nice job but don’t need a job, and are therefore a bit more fussy about what they take, should that count the same as someone with no alternatives? If someone is both poor and in need of a job, but whose pride leads them to turn their nose up at jobs flipping burgers, should they count? If someone does not have the skills needed for the jobs available, should their wanting a job they can’t actually do count? Agreeing on precise definitions makes it complicated.

    “Proprietary modeling” is something that can hide a multitude of sins. Models have a nasty tendency to fit the opinions and expectations of their authors better than reality, if you’re not very careful about validating them. It’s probably a valid point that only counting those looking for work under-counts those who want to work, but I’d be a bit more cautious about taking black box model outputs from some random bloke on the internet with a point to make.

  26. ‘fix the crumbling infrastructure’

    Bogus objective for the economy. The trucks are rolling, the trains are getting through, people are driving everywhere. “Fixing” the infrastructure changes nothing.

    I saw a congressman on TV last night who said, “No, we are not going to do that. We have a $20 trillion debt; we are not going to make it a $21 trillion debt on the first day.”

  27. “This would be the economic mess of technical full employment the US is suffering right now? Or the record-breaking GDP for the fourth year in the row?”

    Nice spin.

    The labor force participation rate has plummeted under Obama.

    Growth of GDP in the last 8 years has been the slowest in 70 years. Reaching a crappy new peak each year is nothing to brag about.

  28. NiV–Some of your points may be valid.

    “If a person has savings or independent income (e.g. a wife or husband in work) and would like a nice job but don’t need a job, ”

    There is a clear difference between want, need and “can survive without” a job. Dossers survive without a job–but that is not a lifestyle many would choose. There may be households that have one person working out of several people who could have jobs but can’t get them. Thus living at a much lower standard than they might. Living yes but not very well.

    I agree about models that might be twisted by self interest –but that is just as true of the US Bureau and MSM sources. If they fail to please their bosses let alone print truths damaging to said bosses then they will be joining the unemployed not reporting on them.

    My point is that Biggie simply regurgitates MSM/US gov sources as if they are Gospel. You at least have read the PDF.

  29. It never ceases to amaze me how people of minimal accomplishment take the liberty of assuming a billionaire businessman doesn’t understand taxes and economics. He gets it. More than you ever will. He knows it from the dirty inside where few commentators ever see. At every turn for 18 months he has been right and his critics have been wrong. At this point, anyone who questions Trumps competence based on their own opinion of him has shot their credibility.

  30. “It never ceases to amaze me how people of minimal accomplishment take the liberty of assuming a billionaire businessman doesn’t understand taxes and economics.”

    Like George Soros?

    I’m not sure which is worse. The idea that Trump doesn’t understand the fallacy of Protectionism, or that he does, but plans to go along with it purely to get elected.

  31. Best to wait and then judge him on what he actually does.

    His method, or simply his way of communicating, has been to put his finger on something that’s true, and then ladle the populism on top. He’s already made a number of huge u-turns, probably more than a regular politician could get away with in a career.

    However, it seems his support already knew he was exaggerating, and don’t seem to mind much.

  32. On the Protectionist Fallacy, two things:

    China really does play unfairly, and it’s not just the currency manipulation. All very well for the Communist Party rulers, not so good for the masses. The masses remain artificially poor, as well as being semi-slaves.

    If Trump can push China into the market economy mainstream, communism will crack and he’ll have done untold economic good.

    The West will also benefit from the billion plus extra consumers.

    Simplistic, but true?

  33. “If Trump can push China into the market economy mainstream, communism will crack and he’ll have done untold economic good.”

    Yes. But China already understands the issue – implementing it is their problem. Xi said of it: “Pursuing protectionism is like locking yourself in a dark room, which would seem to escape the wind and rain, but also block out the sunshine and air. Waging a trade war will only cause injury and loss to both sides.”

    Saying that Protectionism is bad, but we’re going to do it anyway to get the Chinese to play ball is one thing, but to be saying that Protectionism is actually good is something else entirely.

    However, when it comes to international diplomacy and high-level negotiations, skilled poker players generally don’t show their actual hands. I don’t know whether he’s bluffing mad-dog insanity to push the Chinese into implementing reforms faster (it’s a well-known and generally very effective strategy), or if he really believes it. It’s a tribute to his skill as a negotiator that we can’t tell.

  34. @Iromman.

    If it had been ripped from TRUK there are four things clear.

    Firstly it would have been four hours long.

    Secondly it would contradicted itself often within the same paragraph.

    Thirdly there would have been lots of lists

    Forthly it would candidly have finished by banning someone.

  35. “Its recipe seems to have been: combine three parts mercantilist fallacies”: I don’t think I’ve ever talked to an American who wasn’t prone to mercantilist fallacies. Just look at the blogs: they all believe the crap.

    “three parts offensive nationalist bombast, and four parts sheer populist hot air about how great the American people are”: the choice was between a guy who chooses to spout such piffle, and a scold who would spout the same piffle about her chosen subset of Murkins while excoriating the rest. Since the scold was also apparently keen on going to war with Russia, is a gangster, a traitor, a drinker and an invalid, no wonder so many people held their noses and voted for the coarse blowhard. They were right to do so.

    Just as they were probably right to vote for Obama over McCain.

  36. NiV,
    From which we can deduce that Xi is an absolute cunt. But then we knew that because you don’t get where he’s got, etc.

    I don’t believe that Trump is a genuine protectionist. Xi is obviously. And I doubt he’d be able to enact Protectionist measures. What he will hope to do, I think, is level some playing fields.

    After that it’s up to individual Americans (and their foreign counterparts) to take advantage.

  37. >This would be the economic mess of technical full employment the US is suffering right now? Or the record-breaking GDP for the fourth year in the row?

    That means nothing when it’s all been created through galactic-sized government debt, at levels never seen before, and which the US will never be able to pay off.

  38. I really like Cafe Hayek, but their tactics in defeating the left are generally that Don B writes slightly snotty, but basically polite, letters to newspapers, plus his occasional newspaper columns, which get read by about 13 people.

    All good and essential work, but about as effective as popgun against the bulldozer tactics employed by the left in the last half-century.

  39. If it had been ripped from TRUK there are four things clear.

    Firstly it would have been four hours long.

    Secondly it would contradicted itself often within the same paragraph.

    Thirdly there would have been lots of lists

    Forthly it would candidly have finished by banning someone.

    Alas, and no Venn diagrams. Trump holding up a Venn diagram would have been something to behold.

  40. “I don’t believe that Trump is a genuine protectionist. Xi is obviously.”

    The first rule of success in business is that you sell to the public what they want. Not what you think they ought to want, or what you would want if you was them, or what’s good for them, or any of that stuff. Politicians around the world are all Protectionist because that’s what gets them into office. The businesses bribe them to continue, and the voters know no better, and think it’s a good idea. Just look at all the arguments we’ve been having over Brexit.

    There *are* no mainstream libertarian free-market political parties, because it’s not a popular viewpoint with the public. You can argue about the reasons for that, but I have to be realistic and admit it. Which means that any choice of political party is always going to be a case of picking the lesser of the two evils.

    Trump is, in oh so many ways, the lesser of the two that were on offer. There are a lot of things he stands for that I agree with, and I think are long overdue. But his stated policy intentions on trade are clearly Protectionist – because that’s what the voters want, and what he was elected to deliver. I don”t find it at all hard to believe that he genuinely believes in it, since lots of people do, although I’m keeping an open mind to the possibility that it’s a negotiating position and he’ll offer to abandon it in exchange for other trade concessions.

    The classic case of Protectionism is a conspiracy between big business and the government to defraud the public of their own country by excluding foreign competition. Trump’s background is from big business, he still has lots of friends in big business, and now he’s in government. What can you expect?

    Trump’s presidency is probably good news for all sorts of other reasons, but don’t fall into the partisan’s trap of thinking he’s perfect. I still have hope that it’s a negotiating front, or that some one will manage to talk him out of it, but it’s not like he’d be the only one doing it if he did. It was the entire basis of the EU, which we were part of, and that structure has survived for decades. Protectionism is a system with a lot of support and a long history. It’s not going to die out overnight.

    For that matter, it might even be because he knows the left are going to oppose anything he does by reflex, and if him supporting Protectionism induces the leftist media to explain to the public exactly why it’s such a bad idea, that’s got to be good. I even saw the BBC citing Bastiat the other day in an explanation of why most economists thought Protectionism was bad! That would be impressively super-Machiavellian if so, but who knows?

  41. NiV,

    If someone does change Trump’s mind on protectionism it’s unlikely to be his head of the National Trade Council, Peter Navvarro.

  42. “Mr Ecks
    January 21, 2017 at 10:59 am

    BNiD: A what the fuck have Café Hayek managed to do to put a spoke in socialism’s wheels? Some snobbish cunt looks down his nose at someone who has shit-kicked the massive odds against him. Let the “Café Hayek” snob-boy comeback when he has done the same damage to the left that Trump has.”

    Whatever damage Trump may have done to the Left, he *is* a socialist. State control of everything. There is, literally, no difference between his and Clinton’s preferred policies – only their rhetoric differs.

  43. “There *are* no mainstream libertarian free-market political parties, because it’s not a popular viewpoint with the public.”

    Sad but true. The people want a strong, autocratic central government* that will do what they want done – or what the central government convinces them should be done.

    *The literal definition of fascism. The fact is, the people WANT fascism. They want government to act against all sorts of bad things, EVEN IF GOVERNMENT IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ACT.

    “There is, literally, no difference between his and Clinton’s preferred policies – only their rhetoric differs.”

    There is a difference. Trump recognizes limitations on government, both legal and practical. Hildebeast does not.

  44. Trump –as the late Larry Hagman put it–loves being in control. At some point and in some context so does the vast majority of the human race.That does not make him a tyrannical Marxian turd —one who in O’Rourkes phrase “would boss the grass in the meadow about which way to bend in the breeze”.

    Trump is wrong about protectionism but neither I-nor anyone else– can yet say what his actual plans are. To get rich you must have a clear idea of what is going on and form/carry thro effective plans. And then adapt if the plans aren’t working or circs change. In that is the best hope of an effective Trump presidency.

  45. In other news…

    Over on TRUK, the Murphatollah has pronounced a fatwa on ‘George Fox’:

    What a load of nonsense, which is why I think your time here is up

  46. I think the old left right political descriptions mean nothing. We should be talking big state small state. Those who want the government to control and interfere as much as possible and those who prefer the near minimum.

    That’s what put Hitler and Stalin on the same side of the political spectrum and Labour closer to Hitler than Thatcher’s conservatives. It’s why the left want to cling to their old definition.

    And of course we know where we find Murphy in the new definition

  47. “Those who want the government to control and interfere as much as possible and those who prefer the near minimum.”

    But even that’s too simplistic. I want the state to interfere hardly at all in most areas of life, but with crime and punishment I want the state to come down harder on murderers and crooks. And I want it to throw all illegal immigrants out, and not let so many legal immgrants in. (Perhaps that’s not so much big government, though, as strong government sticking to what it’s supposed to do.)

  48. Talking of Thatcher, my wife was musing over dinner about how she would have dealt with Trump.

    My guess is beating him half to death with a copy of Road to Serfdom or Wealth of Nations, or maybe both, one in each hand.

  49. “I saw a congressman on TV last night who said, “No, we are not going to do that. We have a $20 trillion debt; we are not going to make it a $21 trillion debt on the first day.””

    I’m guessing that’s a congressman who’ll be looking for a new job after the next election.

  50. @Tel

    I take your point but if those were the only areas where you wanted heavy government interference that would still be a ‘smaller state’ than one that wanted to tell you what to eat, smoke, learn at school, what light bulbs to use, who to sell cakes to, how often to flush the loo, insist you love you neighbour etc etc. AND crack down on law and order and immigration.

    My thoughts on a minimalist small state might be one that concentrated on health and defence – from internal and external threats. Pretty much NHS police and armed forces. Personally I’d want a bigger state than that but still one far smaller than we have at the moment.

    Labour, communism, Fascism, Murphy. All big state supporters. All cut from the supreme arrogance of thinking they know what is best and that others should do what they are told. Dangerous the lot of them.

  51. @bloke in Cyprus a long way up

    Yes, reading the transcript actually feels inspiring, but listening to his voice just sounded like he wanted to pick a fight with everyone!

  52. Tim and Mr Ecks seem to have relegated Trump’s hostility to free trade to the status of an embarrasssing footnote rather than a fundamental objection to the man.

    I am not so willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Free trade has probably done more than anything else to keep the world peaceful and enhance quality of life globally these past 70 years. For him to come into office and say he’s going to do away with it is exceptional and the man needs to be opposed at every turn.

  53. ‘Tim and Mr Ecks seem to have relegated Trump’s hostility to free trade to the status of an embarrasssing footnote rather than a fundamental objection to the man.’

    Would you rather have Hillary little girl?

    The American system will constrain Trump’s bad ideas. Since Gamecock didn’t run, there were no perfect candidates. Keying on one of Trump’s failings misses the point.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.