Thought for the Day

It is a curious moment in economic history when a man who claims to be billionaire businessman and one would assume a devoted adherent of capitalism, uses his position as President to declare that free trade and competition are bad for the USA -the complete opposite of what his political hero Ronald Reagan said when the latter was President. Some among us have indeed been critical of the operations of the 'free market' but as capitalism is, or was the 'only game in the global town' it was always about its variations rather than the justification for its existence

Here is the thought: suppose capitalism does not decline to be replaced by socialism, as Marx expected, but just declines in what we might call 'system failure' with no coherent replacement? Perhaps what we are watching, as the USA buries free trade and competition, tears up the rule book and hopes for the best, is a long future of economic incoherence and in effect the replacement of competition with economic 'war' in which nobody wins in the long term.

The President will have achieved his dream, born out of an incendiary resentment, to destroy the political and economic system of the USA and to have broken the back of international economic regimes, but leaving nothing beneficial in its place. It is, in an even more curious way, a mirror image of his history as a businessman: six bankrupt business ventures that collapsed from incompetent management as he filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and walked away leaving his investors stranded without their money, while he pocketed a billion $ in tax compensation for being a failure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

It is a curious moment in economic history when a man who claims to be billionaire businessman and one would assume a devoted adherent of capitalism, uses his position as President to declare that free trade and competition are bad for the USA -the complete opposite of what his political hero Ronald Reagan said when the latter was President.

---

Trump clearly doesn't believe in true capitalism in which businesses compete freely in an open market. Rather. he believes in crony capitalism in which insiders get preferred treatment while those who don't play along with him are penalised. It looks like a similar approach may be applied to international trade, with only countries that cosy up to him and do him favours being exempted from tariffs.

To the extent that there is any coherent thinking behind this, it seems to be the simplistic assumption that whatever would be good for someone like him must be good for the country. It is also based on zero-sum thinking in which it is possible to gain only by someone else losing. This a complete complete travesty of economics, as well as good business principles. Trump has always viewed investors, customers and supplies as people to be screwed for his immediate benefit, rather than people with whom he can develop relationships for mutual benefit in the longer term. Given his limited intellect, it is not surprising that he brings the same mentality to international economic relations.

Meanwhile, hot on the heel of its reform of gun law, Florida has now raised the legal age of marriage to combat the scandal of child marriage in the US-

Florida has banned marriage for children under 17, after a campaign by a woman who was forced to marry her rapist when she was just 11-years-old.
Sherry Johnson watched from the gallery as the state legislature voted 109-1 to pass a bill removing exemptions allowing boys and girls of any age to marry if a pregnancy was involved.
"My heart is happy," she said afterward. "My goal was to protect our children and I feel like my mission has been accomplished. This is not about me. I survived."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8249341.html

This makes it more severe than in the UK where 16-year olds can marry. The point of interest I think is that it appears the advocates of child marriage are mostly Christian. An attempt to raise the age in Kentucky failed due to lobbying by a Conservative group called the Family Foundation of Kentucky.

A bill that would ban child marriage in the US state of Kentucky has been delayed by a conservative lobbying group, according to local reports.
The legislation had been expected to go to a vote by the state Senate Judiciary Committee late last week, but part of it was opposed by the Family Foundation of Kentucky, reports the Insider Louisville website.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/92084/kentu...-conservatives

Does the Chief Executive of the USA ever call into his office a senior official and tell him, or her, to their faces 'You're Fired!'? Would it not match the status of the Head of the FBI and the Secretary of State to tell them to their faces they are being sacked? And is that not an expression of the power the Chief Executive has?

Or, to put it another way -why does the Chief Executive prefer to sack people by tweet?

The word cowardice comes easily to mind.

Pilgrim, are you casting aspersions on Don Waynes courage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Or, to put it another way -why does the Chief Executive prefer to sack people by tweet?

The word cowardice comes easily to mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Pilgrim, are you casting aspersions on Don Waynes courage?

---

I am not a Pilgrim, nor am I David Dennison and I did not have sex with that woman...

If Dennison is Trump, which the record leaves virtually no doubt he is, the cash to Daniels — the agreement arranges for payment wired “on or before 1600 hours PST on 10/27/16” — is an expense plainly related to his presidential candidacy and thus, tawdry as it is, the public’s business. By law.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/d...icle-1.3861988

taw·dry
/ˈtôdrē/
adjective: tawdry; comparative adjective: tawdrier; superlative adjective: tawdriest
showy but cheap and of poor quality.
synonyms: gaudy, flashy, showy, garish, loud;

Well, who will win the "tawdriest" award, Trump or Stormy?
They had an article about Stormy Daniel's twitter feed in the paper, all the Trumpites are attacking her, calling her a Scank.....She has to correct their spelling to the proper English spelling Skank....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.e28aceff35e8

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Does the Chief Executive of the USA ever call into his office a senior official and tell him, or her, to their faces 'You're Fired!'? Would it not match the status of the Head of the FBI and the Secretary of State to tell them to their faces they are being sacked? And is that not an expression of the power the Chief Executive has?
Or, to put it another way -why does the Chief Executive prefer to sack people by tweet?
The word cowardice comes easily to mind.

---

Anthony Zurcher has written an article on this very subject, it is here-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43421000

Re Stormy Daniels -not sure if I have asked this before, but does a Non-Disclosure Agreement violate the First Amendment rights of the person who signs it, if it can be shown that they signed under duress -indeed, is an NDA always signed under duress and does this in itself make them legally fragile? I assume that if it is about a sexual affair that threatens to embarrass the party seeking the NDA this is not the same as X having told Y he killed his wife paying Y to keep it secret via an NDA?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43439731

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Re Stormy Daniels -not sure if I have asked this before, but does a Non-Disclosure Agreement violate the First Amendment rights of the person who signs it, if it can be shown that they signed under duress -indeed, is an NDA always signed under duress and does this in itself make them legally fragile?

---

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/res...ield-final.pdf

I found this law review article on the subject from a very good institution. It was written twenty years ago but that doesn't mean there have been a lot of cases that would supplant its reasoning or make it out of date. It also appears to be fairly influential given how many times it's been cited by other scholars.

I've only read the introduction so far, but it looks like it's an issue that is at least talked about in scholarship, even if there aren't a lot of court cases about it. While there is broad freedom for private parties to form contracts, courts may refuse to enforce them because doing so involves their action on behalf of the state (and I suppose the implication that they sanction the underlying bargain).

At the state (as opposed to federal) level, there are many cases where courts will simply refuse to enforce a contract because doing so would be repugnant to public policy. As the author states, the public policy may be the interest in public discourse, which implicates the first amendment concern. Duress is a formal contract defense and could apply regardless of the subject matter of the contract, but may be especially strong given that the only justification there is for allowing someone to relinquish a guaranteed right is that it was freely bargained away.

Oftentimes scholarship likes this reflects novel ways of looking at the law that aren't considered by courts. But I do imagine in this case, if and when the contract comes before a court the Judge will think long and hard about the circumstances of contract formation and whether the subject matter is something the state should involve itself in by enforcing the contract.