Open mike 07/11/2024

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, November 7th, 2024 - 100 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

100 comments on “Open mike 07/11/2024 ”

    • Dennis Frank 1.1
      7 November 2024 at 7:19 am

      They didn't go with the enemy within thesis -just ran it as sub-text.

      For the Democratic Party, rear-guard action as the political opposition will not be enough. The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election. It took too long to recognize that President Biden was not capable of running for a second term. It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system – which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults.

      That section of their analysis resonates with me. Mass cluelessness sank the left option despite the right being even more clueless. Undecided voters swung right because the left were incumbent and failed to provide a positive alternative.

      Reply
  2. Visubversa 2
    7 November 2024 at 8:29 am

    "They did not vote for her because she is a woman"

    "What is a woman? I don't know because I am not a biologist"

    Reply
    • SPC 2.1
      7 November 2024 at 8:43 am

      We know the answer of 6 Justices of SCOTUS, who all testified to Senate that they believed no one was above the law not them, nor POTUS.

      They then determined that POTUS was above the law, when acting as POTUS.

      Some also said there was no intent from them to undo Roe v Wade.

      Political correctness is no guarantor of justice.

      Mothers of children will die because of state law changes impacting on their health care.

      Reply
    • tWig 2.3
      7 November 2024 at 1:17 pm

      Trump is merely politico-tainment, put up by his backers as a smokescreen for what will be going on in the background. It will be a waste of energy to watch his daily shenanigans, no matter the outrage they cause.

      Reply
      • Obtrectator 2.3.1
        7 November 2024 at 10:22 pm

        Been saying that for years, Wiggie. But still they troop dutifully along to report it all while ignoring the real stories.

        Reply
  3. Muttonbird 3
    7 November 2024 at 8:43 am

    What a f*cking surprise:

    Christopher Luxon told RNZ the first reading would be next week, but he wouldn't be in the House for it because he will be travelling to the APEC Summit in Peru.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533011/david-seymour-defends-timing-of-treaty-principles-bill-debate

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 3.1
      7 November 2024 at 9:53 am

      Run-a-way–to Peru…

      PM Baldrick does not have the willingness or courage to slap down Mr Seymour who increasingly appears to be the actual PM…well in his own mind at least.

      Reply
      • Muttonbird 3.1.1
        7 November 2024 at 10:54 am

        He just doesn't want to be seen voting for this divisive bill, so the bill reading was conveniently brought forward to a time when he was not in the country. That's probably the main reason, placing as much distance between himself and his dodgy deals.

        Coward.

        Reply
        • James Simpson 3.1.1.2
          7 November 2024 at 11:16 am

          You do realise they don't all sit in Parliament and vote individually?

          When was the last time a Prime Minister was in the house at the first reading of a bill – any bill?

          Reply
          • Muttonbird 3.1.1.2.1
            7 November 2024 at 1:44 pm

            Luxton has made sure he isn't in the house for this particular bill…

            Your reply asked two rhetorical questions. I looked at your post history and you ask a lot of questions demanding evidence. Classic sea lion behaviour.

            Overall, you appear a typical conservative masquerading as a leftie. You can fool some of the people and all that, I suppose.

            Reply
            • James Simpson 3.1.1.2.1.1
              7 November 2024 at 4:37 pm

              I would describe myself a s a classic centrist that wants this country to succeed whoever is in power.

              I don't see politics as so sport where you cheer for one side and boo the other. You should question them at every step.

              As to the point, do you really think the PM should be in the house voting on a bill he doesn't support, rather than attending APEC? Is that seriously your position.

              Reply
              • Muttonbird …
                7 November 2024 at 9:02 pm

                Oh god, here we go, another sensible centrist who wants unicorns as long as it's not through progressive policy.

                And, yes I do think baldy should be in the house to voting for a bill he is voting for and is responsible for. It's not just any bill, it's his deal and he should be explaining why his far right politicians are about to spend six months dividing people only for the whole thing to be canned at the end.

                As a sensible centrist you have conveniently bought the idea Luxton can't be there because of APEC. That's only because the reading of the bill was moved to coincide with APEC.

                I will consign you to the dishonest idiot pile along with Dennis Frank and Belladonna.

                Cheers!

                Reply
          • Drowsy M. Kram 3.1.1.2.2
            7 November 2024 at 2:21 pm

            When was the last time a Prime Minister was in the house at the first reading of a bill – any bill?

            Might happen occasionally by chance, and then there are those rare cases when a PM considers a bill sufficiently important to speak at its first reading, as PM Ardern did for the Child Poverty Reduction Bill (2018), Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill (2019), and the Abortion Legislation Bill (2019).

            Luxon's hands are tied, and the position of the National party is very clear:

            Christopher Luxon says his hands are tied on Treaty Bill, set for release in two months [9 Sept 2024]
            “We are supporting a bill to first reading. It will come to the house in November,” Luxon said, during Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference.

            “As I’ve said very clearly, as National Party leader, that is not something that we will support beyond its first reading,” he said.

            That Luxon will not be in the house for the first reading of ACT's Treaty Principles Bill may be chance and/or reflect a belief that this bill is an inconsequential requirement of the National-Act coalition agreement.

            Following the leak, staff from other government agencies are now required to physically visit the Ministry of Justice offices to look at hard copies of Cabinet papers relating the Treaty Principles Bill to prevent leaks.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Principles_Bill#Coalition_agreement_and_2024_leak

            https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/a-treaty-principles-bill/

            Reply
  4. ianmac 4
    7 November 2024 at 9:07 am

    Suppose Morgan is not really showing a trend???

    Morgan: "Roy Morgan’s New Zealand Poll for October 2024 shows a significant swing in support with the Labour-Greens-Maori Party Parliamentary Opposition up 7% points to 48% now with a narrow lead over the National-led Government (National, ACT & NZ First) on 47% (down 8% points).

    And:"Support for all three parties in the National-led Government dropped in October. Support for National dropped 6.5% points to 31% – their lowest level of support since being elected last year, support for ACT was down 1% point to 9% and support for NZ First was down 0.5% points at 7%."

    [lprent: for link click here ]

    Reply
    • weka 4.1
      7 November 2024 at 9:09 am

      link please.

      Reply
      • ianmac 4.1.1
        7 November 2024 at 9:24 am

        Sorry Weka. I don't know how to copy link for this one.

        National support down significantly in October after the sinking of HMNZS Manawanui in Samoa

        Roy Morgan’s New Zealand Poll for October 2024 shows a significant swing in support with the Labour-Greens-Maori Party Parliamentary Opposition up 7% points to 48% now with a narrow lead over the National-led Government (National, ACT & NZ First) on 47% (down 8% points).

        This is the first time since last year’s New Zealand Election that the Labour-Greens-Maori Party Parliamentary Opposition has been in front of the National-led Government (National, ACT & NZ First) and follows the sinking in early October of the HMNZS Manawanui in Samoa.

        Support for all three parties in the National-led Government dropped in October. Support for National dropped 6.5% points to 31% – their lowest level of support since being elected last year, support for ACT was down 1% point to 9% and support for NZ First was down 0.5% points at 7%.

        For the Parliamentary Opposition, support for Labour increased 6% points to 29%, support for the Greens was unchanged at 14% and support for the Maori Party was up 1% point to 5%.

        Reply
        • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1.1
          7 November 2024 at 9:33 am

          The link is here. Strange that RM puts the reson for the Nat decline on sinking of HMNZS Manawanui in Samoa, not unemployment, cost of living, and numerous other NACT actions.

          Reply
          • ianmac 4.1.1.1.1
            7 November 2024 at 9:47 am

            Thanks for the help. Next time I should go to the Morgan Home page,

            Reply
          • satty 4.1.1.1.2
            7 November 2024 at 10:11 am

            The linked article does mention other reasons, too:

            “In addition to the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui there were contentious cuts announced for the planned Dunedin hospital redevelopment in late September with costs escalating and accusations the National-led Government has broken a core election promise.

            “The decision to scale-back on the Dunedin hospital redevelopment has drawn widespread criticism and sparked a widespread backlash across the country.

            And the economy not really recovering:

            “There was also bad news on the economy released in late September which showed GDP contracting in the June quarter by 0.2%, the first quarterly decline since the September quarter 2023. Annual growth in GDP was also negative for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, shrinking by 0.2% compared to a year ago.

            Reply
            • Karolyn_IS 4.1.1.1.2.1
              7 November 2024 at 3:53 pm

              Yes. RM did include those. But it's strange they picked the sinking of the HMNZS Manawanui as the headline.

              Reply
          • AB 4.1.1.1.3
            7 November 2024 at 11:31 am

            The Morgan commentary is usually completely stupid – best ignored. It's worth noticing for trends (real trends, not natural fluctuation around a stable baseline) and the actual numbers always deserve scepticism.

            Reply
    • Dennis Frank 4.2
      7 November 2024 at 9:57 am

      It does seem significant, Ian. Although the RM has sometimes displayed anomalous results (TMP up 3% one month, back to normal the next), for National to drop by double the margin of error is remarkable. Wait & see what next month brings though.

      Reply
  5. Jenny 5
    7 November 2024 at 9:49 am

    Whether the elephants are making love or making war the ants still get trampled

    Australia [& NZ] would get ‘caught in the middle’ of trade war between US and China

    If Donald Trump goes through with large trade tariffs on China it would have big consequences for Australia, says the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor John Lyons.

    @0:17 minutes:

    ….He's talked about 60% tariffs on China, uh I think he will go through with those.

    Executive orders don't necessarily have to go through Congress and China would respond to that.

    China would hit back.

    So I think we're on the brink of a trade war, of another major trade war between China and the US.

    Obviously with huge consequences for Australia Australia getting caught in the middle

    Having to choose between our biggest customer China and our biggest ally the United States

    English (auto-generated) lightly edited for clarity.

    Christopher Luxon has a hard choice to make; prioritise a military alliance with the US led AUKUS pact over trade with China and crash the New Zealand economy.

    Or prioritise trade with China over the AUKUS and earn the enmity of the US Hegemon and their new vengeful president.

    Reply
    • Tiger Mountain 5.1
      7 November 2024 at 10:01 am

      Well it would be interesting to watch the acrobatics from business/farming/Natzos–because even if CoC chose to suck up to the US, NZ exporters will still not easily get their product, particularly meat and dairy in, let alone a free trade deal.

      Trumpy gets grumpy very easily and being nice to NZ is not at the top of his to do list.

      Reply
    • SPC 5.2
      7 November 2024 at 11:09 am

      Any further development in the existing trade war between USA and China (2016-2024 is one we can continue to stand apart from.

      Christopher Luxon has a hard choice to make; prioritise a military alliance with the US led AUKUS pact over trade with China and crash the New Zealand economy.

      Or prioritise trade with China over the AUKUS and earn the enmity of the US Hegemon and their new vengeful president.

      MFAT needs to stand by our position, as per Taiwan being part of one China.

      Our goal should remain that the South Pacific is never again part of a military conflict/great power confrontation.

      Our concerns are

      1.freedom of the sea for trade to South Korea and Japan from Europe/Suez/India.

      2.to respect resolution procedures for small nations (ASEAN) in territorial disputes.

      3.security of supply of chips from Taiwan to the global market.

      We should

      a.support mediation to realise Taiwan becoming a self-governing part of China (but be wary because America may use/be using a standoff to control other nations as security subordinates/economic satellites).

      b.refuse membership of AUKUS pillar 2 because it infers association with an Oz,UK/USA "nuclear" vessel deal. Thus undermines our own stated policy as per a nuclear free Pacific.

      c.we should propose an alternative to AUKUS pillar 2, we could be a member of.

      That matter is more complicated now, because Trump may destroy NATO (we are NATO+). So we should take our time.

      Reply
    • Adrian Thornton 5.3
      7 November 2024 at 11:39 am

      "Having to choose between our biggest customer China and our biggest ally the United States"

      You would think that China being Australia's "biggest customer" ie; biggest trading partner would make that decision a pretty easy one to make…but no

      "China is Australia's largest two-way trading partner, accounting for 26 per cent of our goods and services trade with the world in 2023. Two-way trade with China increased 9.3 per cent in 2023, totalling $327.2 billion. Our goods and services exports to China totalled $219.0 billion in 2023, up 18.3 per cent compared to 2022"

      While the USA ranks about 5th as a trading partner and a long long way back in terms of actual trade.

      All the USA really seems to offer Australia is an outlet for the racist paranoid, manufactured fear of China that quite a few (most) members of the political establishment and their compliant press of both countries shove down the throats of their citizens…bit like what we have it here, with the rabid China hater Guyon Espiner and RNZ stirring up the hate and fear like the good propagandists they are paid to be.

      Reply
      • Tiger Mountain 5.3.1
        7 November 2024 at 1:12 pm

        “Neither Washington, Moscow or Beijing” is what us old school internationalists say.

        But…while being Imperialist powers, the three are not necessarily identical in a given situation. The yanks have over 800 offshore military bases and facilities, China and Russia a mere handful.

        Reply
  6. SPC 6
    7 November 2024 at 9:51 am

    How did the Palestinian Arab city of Dearborn and the Moslem area of Hamtramck vote.

    Here is the result.

    https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/32487/trump_won_dearborn_upped_his_performance_in_hamtramck

    Another detail the only Palestinian Arab member of Congress won re-election, also Michigan. She asked people to vote, but would not endorse Harris.

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/6/re-election-for-tlaib-and-omar-first-muslim-women-to-serve-in-us

    https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinians-dismayed-by-trumps-win-their-leaders-urge-peace-2024-11-06/

    Reply
    • SPC 6.1
      7 November 2024 at 10:06 am

      Biden has 2 months left to do an Obama.

      (UNSC Resolution 2334 Dec 2016 – the one that made Stephen Rainbow expose his venomous hatred of McCully and presumably anyone else opposing the project of Zionist river to the sea state – the man for our C of C stuff the Treaty/UNDRIP and "UNSC 18 if Trump is POTUS"? times).

      He should require an end to use of arms, or cut off supply of arms – so there can be a winter-cease-fire and focus on aid delivery.

      Reply
  7. Jimmy 7
    7 November 2024 at 10:26 am

    Harris finally about to address the crowd.

    Reply
  8. gsays 8
    7 November 2024 at 10:49 am

    The US election result offers another opportunity to the left to reflect on what policies offer broad appeal especially to blue collar workers.

    A shift of the focus up and out from individual issues and a more overarching perspective

    Also, how to recompense those that do so much unpaid and very important work- childcare and elderly parent supervision/care.

    Maybe that is a UBI for those with little or no formal employment. Obviously taking in to account those issues raised by weka in regards to acommadating the disabled and others.

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 8.1
      7 November 2024 at 11:05 am

      Trump did a Luxon and just kept repeating that the economy was a mess and he would fix it, where in neither case (USA/NZ) was this true.

      People believe this constant repetition of lies. Labour must counter this by attacking it immediately every time it happens.

      Reply
    • Dennis Frank 8.2
      7 November 2024 at 12:35 pm

      Yeah, here's some analysis along those lines…

      In the weeks and months ahead, the Democrats will have to accept that they have fundamentally misunderstood the electorate, and even their own coalition. Over the past decade, both party coalitions have been shifting, and the biggest change has been along class lines.

      Democrats, long the party of the working class, started attracting white-collar professionals while Republicans began shedding their image as the party of big business and picked up more support from non-college-educated voters. Many Democrats didn’t seem fazed by this shift. In fact, some welcomed it. https://unherd.com/newsroom/will-the-democrats-ever-win-back-the-working-class/

      Could be class is still relevant in political framing, huh?

      According to the early demographic data from the AP VoteCast survey, voters without a college degree shifted six points more Rightward from 2020, backing Trump by 11… the gap between this group and their college-educated peers, who backed Harris by 16 points, is the widest on record at 27 points, a sign of how polarised America is becoming along education lines. Perhaps even more startling, the Democrats lost voters who earn less than $50,000 annually for the first time on record. Since 1988, when the exit polls began asking voters about their income, Democrats have won the working class every time… From 1992 to 2020, the party carried these voters by double digits. This year? Harris lost them by one point.

      Shoulda used focus groups? Does seem a fail in political marketing.

      Reply
      • gsays 8.2.1
        7 November 2024 at 5:06 pm

        That coalesces with what talking heads one the radio have been saying in the aftermath.

        Listening to Half Arsed History, an irreverent ocker podcast, I've learnt that things are coming a full circle.

        From Wiki;

        "In 1854, the Republican Party emerged to combat the expansion of slavery into western territories after the passing of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The early Republican Party consisted of northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and, after the Civil War, former black slaves."

        While The Democrats enjoyed the support of the white southern farm owners/slave owners.

        Reply
  9. Reality 9
    7 November 2024 at 11:01 am

    It seems USA is still very conservative. And not ready for a woman President when in many countries that is mainly not an issue any more.

    A nightmare ahead for USA and the world's security and stability. Can we hope the White House staff will be able to have some control over the mad ravings and behaviour of the occupier.

    Reply
    • Visubversa 9.1
      7 November 2024 at 11:40 am

      Last time he went through Chiefs of Staff and Defense Advisors like kleenex. This time only the faithful will be appointed.

      Reply
      • Dennis Frank 9.1.1
        7 November 2024 at 12:40 pm

        Last time he went through Chiefs of Staff and Defense Advisors like kleenex

        Yeah, that was my first thought, since he had RFK Jr with him the other day, apparently headed for cabinet rank. Fall-out within months seems likely. I bet the bookies will get plenty of takers guessing how long their like-mindedness lasts, if Trump does give him a top job.

        Reply
    • Jimmy 9.2
      7 November 2024 at 11:49 am

      Do you think the democrats would have done better if they kept Joe Biden on?

      Reply
      • SPC 9.2.1
        7 November 2024 at 12:42 pm

        No, Biden was well behind in the polls.

        Could they have won …

        First mistake.

        Biden said he would be a transition POTUS 2020-2024, not seek a second term. Then changed his mind. And this in the pandemic recovery period (inflation/cost of living) where incumbency was not an advantage – simply because Biden thought he was the guy who beats Trump once again.

        Second mistake.

        When they were to later discover he was unfit to do another term there was a division between those asking him to stand aside and others acting as his staff pretending otherwise. This undermined the party credibility.

        Third mistake.

        They decided to run the VP to run in his place due to limited time for a primary (find a democratic way to choose someone else). This left her being associated with the administration record (pandemic/post pandemic inflation/living cost).

        Fourth mistake.

        So the party was without a new beginning candidate in 2024. Which Biden and the party accepted was (and it was) the right approach back in 2020.

        The campaign

        The VP had little time to organise a campaign strategy to overcome her incumbency (and lack of primary leadership mandate) predicament.

        Trump may have won by staying around to see off an aging Biden and exploiting failure of succession. Few VP's go on to win.

        Reply
        • lprent 9.2.1.1
          7 November 2024 at 2:19 pm

          The first mistake was the crucial one. There is always a risk with elderly leaders. Look at Reagan's second term. Or what is likely to happen to Trump this term. He is not exactly healthy and has been looking really frazzled in teh latter stages of this campaign.

          The late withdrawal also meant that the primary didn't happen. Because who stands against a sitting president who want to go for a second term?

          I'd agree that the general dithering caused most of the problem.

          What was the vote difference? Fractional both in the popular presidential vote, and in the bother the popular vote, but also in the battlefield states electoral college votes.

          Reply
          • alwyn 9.2.1.1.1
            7 November 2024 at 3:05 pm

            Biden never explicitly said that he would only run for one term as President. He did talk about being a transition candidate but what does such a statement really mean?

            Politico, in December 2019 claimed "“Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term,” reported Ryan Lizza." Biden immediately denied it. "“No, I never have,” Biden said when asked by a reporter on Wednesday if those discussions were taking place. “I don’t have any plans on one term.”.

            Then in March 2021, not long after his inauguration, he said " “My plan is to run for reelection. That’s my expectation,” he said shortly after he was inaugurated."

            https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-denies-mulling-term-pledge-elected-president/story?id=67662497

            https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/

            He certainly should have stood down, and announced it at least a year ago when the Democratic Party could have run a campaign to pick the best candidate, rather than getting stuck with Harris who was never a likely winner on her own merits. She was a failure when she did campaign for the job in 2020 and withdrew from the race before any of the primaries had been held then.

            However she really isn't the one who should take the blame for the loss. That must rest on Biden who wouldn't get out of the race that he was clearly no longer capable of completing successfully.

            Reply
            • SPC 9.2.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2024 at 3:14 pm

              Then in March 2021, not long after his inauguration, he said " “My plan is to run for reelection. That’s my expectation,” he said shortly after he was inaugurated."

              As a strategy to have more standing than a place holder while in office …

              Reply
              • alwyn …
                7 November 2024 at 3:29 pm

                I think that the concept that a President has little power because he isn't going to stand again is greatly exaggerated. That would imply that any President in his second term is powerless. After all they not only won't choose to run again. They can't do so.

                Was Clinton powerless after 1996? Was Obama helpless after 2012?

                If you really believe that then we don't have to worry about Trump. After all, he is only a placeholder because he can't run again.

                I wish it was that easy.

                Reply
                • SPC …
                  7 November 2024 at 3:43 pm

                  It is common for a POTUS to have little domestic power in their second term because they do not control the Hill for more than the first few years.

                  They need the second term to bed in the change from their first term.

                  Otherwise they grandstand on foreign policy later on.

                  Reply
      • SPC 9.2.2
        7 November 2024 at 1:22 pm

        I suspect many of the Democratic Party now wish Biden has been candidate in 2016 (his policies were more pro union and worker than Clinton and so he won the rust belt twice) and had two terms (HC first term VP, and KH second term).

        And thus no Trump.

        Or even better, that the chad votes in Florida were counted in 2000 and Gore had won. No Iraq war, not tax cuts and banking deregulation (no GFC). A focus on global warming action, the post 2000 ME peace process continuing, a new future for the relationship with Europe and earlier Obamacare and more investment in economic well-being at home.

        Nostalgia, for what have been – there is always the Warren Sanders ticket in 2028 or more likely Gretchen and Josh and Hakeem (Benson).

        Reply
        • alwyn 9.2.2.1
          7 November 2024 at 3:14 pm

          "not …… banking deregulation (no GFC)."

          Your memory certainly differs from mine. In particular I remember that "One of the more important laws passed after the great crash and whose repeal was a key factor leading to the 2008 crisis was the Glass-Steagall Act. It prohibited the same bank from engaging in both relatively low-risk traditional commercial banking (using FDIC-insured and Fed-backed deposits to make mortgage and business loans) and higher-risk trading, insurance and investment banking operations" and then that "Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which unleashed an acquisition spree that supersized banks by allowing the combination of traditional bank lending with trading, securities and insurance activities."

          That happened during the Clinton Administration where Gore was the VP. Surely you aren't suggesting that if he had become President he would have reversed the things that he had supported?

          Reply
          • SPC 9.2.2.1.1
            7 November 2024 at 3:37 pm

            As per that in 1999.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

            There was a lot of loose money after 2002, the FedRB and financing the coming war in Iraq and more.

            US banks and banks like Northern Rock in the UK had developed a new banking business model. Instead of raising deposits and then lending them to house buyers, banks originated mortgages and distributed them. This simply involved selling the cash flows coming from mortgage repayments. These cash flows were then sliced, diced and packaged into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or collateralised debt obligations (CDO), a process known as securitisation.

            This led to a property bubble.

            https://www.economicsobservatory.com/why-did-the-global-financial-crisis-of-2007-09-happen

            The Subprime Loan Boom

            Even in normal times, banks do not often hold onto the mortgages they issue. They are resold to financial institutions, which market them as investments in interest payments.

            During the housing bubble, the banks sold these loans to the big Wall Street banks, which re-packaged and marketed them as low-risk financial instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). A big secondary market for originating and distributing subprime loans soon developed.6

            The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in October 2004 relaxed the net capital requirements for five investment banks in 2004: Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER), Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS).

            This fueled greater risk-taking among banks and freed them to leverage their initial investments by 30 times or even 40 times.

            https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/financial-crisis-review.asp

            Reply
  10. SPC 10
    7 November 2024 at 11:41 am

    This post by Alwyn says why there is some hope for the Democratic Party.

    Historically periods where one party has control of all branches of government do not last long – 4 years or so.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/the-2024-us-election-a-no-win-scenario/#comment-2016053

    But in this case, this is a GOP and movement which wants control of the USA.

    1. it will be 6 years in the Senate at least and the liklihood of the end of the filibuster to enable moves to change law impacting on elections (voting rules).

    2.and there is this SCOTUS which will not block it.

    Reply
    • lprent 10.1
      7 November 2024 at 2:21 pm

      Historically periods where one party has control of all branches of government do not last long – 4 years or so.

      More likely 2 years. That does seem to be the long-term trend.

      The house mid-terms in 2026 are likely to be upsetting for the GOP because they usually are for incumbents.

      Reply
      • SPC 10.1.1
        7 November 2024 at 2:52 pm

        I suspect they will change voting rules, the Democrats would filibuster in the Senate to stop that ….

        Reply
        • Belladonna 10.1.1.1
          7 November 2024 at 3:07 pm

          Do you have any grounds for your suspicion?

          Changing the voting cycle of the Senate would be a highly revolutionary change.
          No indication, whatsoever, that I've seen that this is being contemplated.

          Note that Senators tend to have a very long view – looking at multiple 6-year-terms – and usually long-outlast any one President. And would be well aware that any change which benefited one party now, is likely to disadvantage them in the future – when the election cycle swings away from them.

          You also seem to have the idea that the Republican Senators (and Congresspeople, for that matter) are some kind of monolithic bloc. Recent history shows this to be very far from the case. The party is riven with dissent in both houses – and members frequently find it difficult to work together – even to elect a leader of the house.

          Reply
          • SPC 10.1.1.1.1
            7 November 2024 at 3:49 pm

            President-elect Trump has talked about jettisoning the filibuster before and could pressure Senate Republicans to do so

            It depends who decides, DJTrump or MitchM.

            https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4976895-mcconnell-stands-filibuster-senate-gop/

            Reply
            • Belladonna 10.1.1.1.1.1
              7 November 2024 at 3:53 pm

              An intent to change the filibuster – which may even have cross-party support – is one thing

              Claiming intent to alter the timing of Senate elections (which is what I'm taking from your comment "I suspect they will change voting rules" – replying to a point about the timing of Senate elections) is quite another thing.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                7 November 2024 at 4:02 pm

                No

                change voting rules

                is about access to voting, voting rights, right to vote.

                Reply
                • Belladonna …
                  7 November 2024 at 7:22 pm

                  Voting where? In the Senate? All a filibuster can do is slow down the passage of legislation It doesn't have anything to do with "voting rights".

                  It can (in very extreme circumstances) stop the passage of a bill (usually, while a deal is hammered out between the two parties). The Senate already has a way to prevent this (3/5 of voting Senators can end a filibuster) – although it's rarely been used successfully.
                  Notably, filibusters have historically been used by the Republicans, rather than the Democrats (e.g.to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation)

                  Less than 6 months ago, the Democrats were proposing to remove or weaken the filibuster.

                  https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-gear-overhaul-senate-filibuster-major-bills-win-2024-rcna152484

                  If you're implying that there are plans to change the right of ordinary citizens to vote in the US, through some kind of legislation affecting the right to vote being presented to the Senate – then I'd want to see a lot of evidence.

                  Reply
                  • SPC …
                    7 November 2024 at 10:48 pm

                    If you're implying that there are plans to change the right of ordinary citizens to vote in the US, through some kind of legislation affecting the right to vote being presented to the Senate –

                    Yes, obviously …

                    this is thread 10

                    and the liklihood of the end of the filibuster to enable moves to change law impacting on elections (voting rules).

                    but it would have to go through both House and Senate.

                    then I'd want to see a lot of evidence.

                    You've played the don't get it card, now it is spent a lot of time to present enough evidence to someone who offers the deterrent that they will always require more.

                    I presume you you are already aware (of the evidence) that the GOP is focused on the issue of proof of ID before registration or voting.

                    This is becoming a nickle and dime show bore.

                    Reply
        • alwyn 10.1.1.2
          7 November 2024 at 3:21 pm

          The Democrats are already on record that they want to get rid of the filibuster. Some examples were "Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin, who is running for Michigan's open Senate seat, has said she's "loud and proud on reforming the filibuster." Sen. Sherrod Brown, the Democrat fighting for his political life in Ohio, supports ending the filibuster, with a particular focus on the PRO Act, a pro-labor bill. Angela Alsobrooks, running against popular former two-term GOP Gov. Larry Hogan in Maryland, said last month she'd "vote to abolish the filibuster.".

          I don't actually know how they got on but if the Republicans did actually abolish the Filibuster the Democrats aren't in a very good position to object.

          https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrats-risk-boxing-filibuster-2024-sources/story?id=110826480

          Reply
          • SPC 10.1.1.2.1
            7 November 2024 at 3:50 pm

            MitchM opposed the Dems doing it, lets see how he deals with a POTUS of his own party who supports it.

            Reply
            • Belladonna 10.1.1.2.1.1
              7 November 2024 at 3:55 pm

              Given that McConnell has already announced his intention to step down as Senate Republican leader – his opinion may not matter that much.

              https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/who-will-replace-mitch-mcconnell-as-senate-gop-leader/

              Reply
              • SPC …
                7 November 2024 at 4:00 pm

                So Mitch saying he opposed it, to be consistent with his opposition to Dems doing it, when they had a majority meant nothing. Just him being consistent before he leaves …

                Reply
                • Belladonna …
                  7 November 2024 at 7:31 pm

                  He isn't leaving the Senate (plans to serve out the rest of his term), just not in the leadership role.

                  He seems to be consistently opposed to ending the filibuster – regardless of who the President is. So not sure what your beef with him is.

                  Indeed, his opposition (as well as that of some other Republican Senators) – is an effective illustration that the Republican control of the Senate isn't monolithic in scope.

                  Trump (or, more likely, Vance) will have to work with the Republican Senate leader to build support for the President's policies.

                  Support is anything but guaranteed. Indeed, they may well look for Democratic support to end the filibuster (if that's indeed on the cards) – since it's been a Dem policy plank to remove it, and many Repubs are opposed.

                  Reply
            • Obtrectator 10.1.1.2.1.2
              7 November 2024 at 10:31 pm

              Lord above, is that man still there?

              Reply
  11. Mike the Lefty 11
    7 November 2024 at 12:07 pm

    To take a line from Monty Python.

    Basically, it went how I expected – except that the Silly Party won.

    I think this is due to the number of votes cast….

    And to paraphrase some lines from Blackadder.

    Mr (Trump) may look like a monkey that's been put in a suit and strategically shaved but he's a brilliant politician. The number of votes (16,472) I cast is simply a reflection of how firmly I believe in his policies….. We are agreed! It is a triumph for stupidity over common sense…!

    Sums it up rather well, I reckon.

    Reply
  12. Tony Veitch 12
    7 November 2024 at 12:33 pm

    Humble pie time – I got my prediction wrong!

    But perhaps I can take some consolation from the fact that I was totally wrong!

    Not just the Presidency, but the Senate and the House have gone republican, and with republican (I refuse to accord the party a capital R) control of the Supreme Court, the orange buffoon really has a licence to do whatever he wants!

    In the words of Edward Gray – "The lights are going out . . ."

    Reply
  13. ianmac 13
    7 November 2024 at 12:34 pm

    Yesterday the Speaker allowed Luxon to repeatedly not answer any question asked by Hipkins. Q2 I think. Luxon refused to answer questions about the Treaty Bill that the Government will introduced today. Many points of order and Luxon's "out" was that they were not going to support it so no need to answer.

    https://videos.parliament.nz/on-demand?id=1d901774-20f8-4c76-37cb-08dcfe7c32e9&dateFrom=6%20Nov%202024&keyword=Question%20Time

    Reply
  14. Obtrectator 14
    7 November 2024 at 12:35 pm

    As here, so in the DSA (Disunited States of America): the less-RW candidate harped on about how they wouldn't be as bad as the more-RW candidate (while still maintaining largely the same policies as them). 'Twasn't enough.

    Reply
  15. joe90 15
    7 November 2024 at 12:47 pm

    . Hurricane, climate, and sea level rise researcher.

    Brian McNoldy

    ‪@bmcnoldy.bsky.social‬

    Science friends in the U.S.: we have two months to make sure data, code, and websites are saved somewhere securely. This isn't going to be pretty.

    https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:pww7y3jqm3lc5ugvqdbhnzej/post/3labpq7ectl2y?

    https://bmcnoldy.earth.miami.edu/

    Reply
  16. Dennis Frank 16
    7 November 2024 at 3:10 pm

    All in all, it's just another brick in the wall:

    The U.S.-Mexico border is nearly 2,000 miles long. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. government built less than 500 miles of border wall, and much of it replaced smaller, dilapidated barriers.

    Trump’s GOP party platform released during the Republican National Convention in July promised, “We will complete the Border Wall.” Trump has indicated plans to redirect military funding to construct new sections of the wall, defying congressional appropriations… https://time.com/7171654/donald-trump-immigration-plan-2024/

    Kamala didn't call it deplorable. As far as I can tell, she didn't call anyone or anything deplorable. I suppose she could have tried reprehensible – but since it has an extra syllable she would have lost another slice of the cellphone button-pushing brigade.

    Reply
    • Belladonna 16.1
      7 November 2024 at 3:41 pm

      Harris was most unlikely to have used the word 'deplorable' – given that Hilary Clinton used it to refer to Trump supporters (and was widely condemned for doing so).
      I'm sure it was red-penciled out of any Harris speech.

      Reply
    • Mike the Lefty 16.2
      7 November 2024 at 6:33 pm

      Trump won't be deporting all illegal foreigners from American soil because the American farmers need all their cheap labour or will go bust because the Americans either don't want to do that kind of work, or want decent wages to do it. He knows it and everyone else knows it.

      Reply
  17. SPC 17
    7 November 2024 at 4:42 pm

    John Key explains that the economy is all.

    Is he aware of the consequence on the world economy of protectionism after the GD?

    Is he aware of the consequences of disengagement from collective security?

    The Poles did and Ukraine fears their fate.

    Whose economy is better with Trump?

    Is not tariffs on the American consumer, to afford tax cuts for the wealthy, really good for them?

    https://thedailyblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-03-at-3.17.54%E2%80%AFPM-696×591.png

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360478337/sir-john-key-not-surprised-after-donald-trumps-us-election-victory

    Reply

Leave a Comment

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.