CAN THE KING OF DEBT SAVE AMERICA FROM THE CERTAINTY OF A DEBT SPIRAL?

"I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me. I’ve made a fortune by using debt."
Donald Trump

Everybody knows in business or gaming, a high leverage strategy can bring in big bucks. But when the chips are down and you don't have the liquidity to ride out the downturn, loan defaults and insolvency, or unmet margin calls and forced sales, follow. Donald Trump was once over exposed in the real estate business and had to go into voluntary corporate bankruptcy six times for protection and restructuring. His negotiating skills and media savvy ways instilled confidence and he managed to make a hugely successful turnaround by diversifying into other fields like hospitality, golf courses, wildly popular "Apprentice" TV shows, branding and licensing his brand name. Whether pure skills or pure luck in timing is up to debate. Singapore's Remiser King Peter Lim once remarked "If you make $10m, you may be very smart. But if you make $100m, somebody up there likes you."  Trump believes he is a genius in leveraging borrowing for growth and profitability.

The US is the highest indebted country in the world and there are 3 types of Americans - those with heads in the ground who still think US is the richest country in the world; those who know about the debt but think the country can borrow infinitely without risk of bankruptcy; and those who know and understand the fiscal debauchery in the past have consequences which are just around the corner. Many Americans, especially the liberal Democrats in the corridors of power, are bedazzled by the monetary gobbledygooks of economists like Ben Bernake, ex-chair of the Federal Reserves, who once famously said: “The U.S. government has a technology called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent) that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.” He was speaking in the context of modern monetary system, a theory where money is essentially free.

Trump has inherited the largest leveraged country in the world. He is one of those who understands there are consequences. He arrives at the opportune time just before the ticking time bomb explodes. The King of Debt has his job cut out for him. Fortunately for Americans, while politicians on both sides of the aisle pay lib service to balancing the budget, Trump is a dooer and has the consistency of delivering on his promises.

When looking at national debt, it is more important to look at the rate of growth. The growth rate of the national debt is on a runaway train on a "J" curve track. Let's unpack this massive figure. The US national debt is currently US$33T which is about 120% of GDP. The huge debt is an accumulation of decades of deficit budgets, that is, the US have been spending more than its revenue every year. The budget shortfall is funded by debt, not money printing as most people carelessly mention. (The US, like all countries in the world, including Singapore, 'prints' money in certain circumstance like during times of financial crisis when it bails out institutions or provides financial aid by helicopter drop, or when it allows counter-party central banks to draw on pre-arranged swap lines to ride out liquidity crisis, and when it injects liquidity into its own market by buying back government securities in what is called Quantitative Easing). 

Of the total national debt, US$26T is owed to both local and foreign investors. US$7T is owed to intra-government holdings, such as Social Security and Medicare trust funds, etc.. In other words, surpluses of the two trust funds have been borrowed by the federal government and spent. 

The debt situation is exacerbated by massive unfunded liabilities in social security (US$22T) and Medicare (estimated max US$50T ). These US$72 Trillions are future payments promised by the government. To meet future payouts, the 2 trustees will first liquidate the Treasury Bills they hold, which currently is about US$3.2T in special-issue non-marketable Treasury Bills..The Treasury Dept will have to borrow to return the funds back to the trustees. For payments beyond that, Treasury will need additional borrowings, thus increasing budget deficits and national debt.

Debt Trap and Debt Spiral

A debt trap occurs when a country borrows money and then needs to take on more debt to pay off the previous debt because it cannot service the debt from its revenue.

A debt spiral is an extreme version of a debt trap, where interest payments grow so large that a country must borrow continually, just to cover these payments. The debt grows exponentially as borrowing becomes unsustainable, potentially leading to default or severe economic consequences.

There are certain key indicators that flag a country heading for a debt spiral. These are :
* Debt-to-GDP ratio continues to rise with no sign of stabilising.
* Rising interest payments consume an increasing share of government revenue.
* Difficulty in borrowing as perceived risk caused lenders to flee or demand higher interest rates.
* Declining economic growth impacts the government's ability to generate revenue.

Is the U.S. already in a Debt Spiral?

The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 120%. Most economists suggests about 75% max as acceptable level. Some developed economies sustain higher ratios, for various reasons.
.
The U.S. debt securities are of varying maturities. Current short-term interest rate is about 4.56% p.a. but the older Treasury bills carry much lower rates. Some estimates put the weighted average rate at 2.4%. Based on this the current interest is about $33T x 2.4% = $792B.

The annual revenue of the Federal Government is about US$4.7T. The interest payment of $792B on the national debt takes up about 16.8% of revenue. By most account, interest payment that takes up 10%-15% of revenue is considered at dangerous level. The US debt interest payment is already at an unsustainable level.

Treasury Bills are short term debt instruments. Every year about 30% matures and are rolled over into new debt. So the next year the older and cheaper debts will be replaced by new and higher interest-bearing debt. The weighted average rate will change. The interest cost is thus not actually moved by changes in market rates, but by the weighted average rate of the Treasury Bills.

Every increase of 25 basis points in the weighted average rate will increase interest payment by $33T x 0.25% = $82B. That means putting strains on budget as another 1.7% of revenue will be used to pay interest thus reducing spending in other areas.

How will short term interest rates bear out

Interest rate is set by the Fed depending on how they read the inflation trends. Inflation goes up, the interest rate rises to combat price level increases. Inflation decreases, interest rate drops to spur the economy. Lately the Fed felt inflation is coming down and rates were reduced accordingly. Some analyst disagreed with this view.

There have been suggestions the latest 50bp rate reduction just before election was not data-driven but a partisan political move by Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserves, to benefit Democrat Kamala Harris campaign. When asked if Trump was to demand his resignation, would he step down, Powell answered curtly "NO". As far as the King of Debt is concerned, lower interest rate is good for debt. Powell's job seems safe. As to the debate regarding removal of Powell, all presidential appointees work at the pleasure of the Commander-in-Chief although the Federal Reserve Act is silent on his removal. Powell's removal will be challenged in the court. A forced removal of Powell would be unwise as the independence of the central bank is a fundamental expectation of a free market system.

The Fed may set the rate, but there is still the demand side that ultimately determines the price for the Treasury Bills in the primary market. There has been fears dedollarisation will see a decrease in the demand for US$ Treasury Bills, thus pushing the rates up for the heightened risks. Despite all the publicity of BRICS, the demand seems to be relatively unchanged currently.

Where is the US economy headed

The trajectory of the U.S. economy depends on the dynamics of several key factors, including interest rates, inflation, fiscal policy, and global economic conditions. What are the key indicators showing?

1. GDP - The data shows modest growth of around 2% annually. However, there are signs of a potential slowdown due to high interest rates and global uncertainties.
2. Consumer spending - Beginning to show strain due to persistent inflation and rising borrowing costs. The effect of this is a landslide victory for the Trump campaign.
3. Inflation - Moderate but sticky. Inflation peaked in 2022 at 9.1% but has since moderated to 3–4% which remains above the Federal Reserve's target of 2%. Housing and energy, continue to face price pressures, suggesting inflation might remain "sticky" for some time.
4. Labor Market -  Strong but cooling. Unemployment is low at 3.8–4%, indicating a tight labor market. However, job growth is slowing, and wage gains, while still positive, are being outpaced by inflation in some sectors. There are however, suggestions data has been politically manipulated.
5. Debt and Deficits - The national debt exceeds $33 trillion, with interest payments nearing $1 trillion annually. Persistent fiscal deficits and rising borrowing costs are limiting the government’s fiscal flexibility.

Experts forecast :
Short-term (1–2 years): Likely modest growth with risks of a mild recession.
Medium-term (3–5 years): Slower growth as high debt levels and structural challenges weigh on the economy.
Will this hold after a dose of Trumpianomics?

The Trump Effect and the real dangers

Trump landslide spiked the stock markets. Wall Street and international investors understand the alternative, Kamala Harris and her full-blown Marxist policies would have meant economic doom of the US and power hungry Democrats would have changed the political structure of the country forever. Smart money has moved out of the stock markets. These are perilous times, nothwithdtanding Trump. The likes of Warren Buffet and Bezos have exited massively from certain counters.

Many experienced financial analyst suspect economic data has been manipulated to favour the Biden-Harris admin. They felt the stock market does not reflect the realities of the economic situation. Team Trump will discover they have been handed a cooked book. Whether that may in fact be the case is left to be seen. 

The Democrats are laying the groundwork to sabotage the Trump presidency. They make no attempt to hide what seems treacherous machinations. If the past few years are anything to go by, Democrats' doggedness to do their worse to political enemies and country have proven outstanding.

What Trump will do and its impact

Trump made 5 key promises with regards to the economy - trim the size of a bloated federal government, reduce tax, abrogate suffocating market regulations, tariffs to reshore manufacturing industry as a way to bring jobs back and revive the fracking industry. The first 3 promises are fundamental Republican (conservative) ideologies, the 4th his love for negotiation.

The formation of DOGE (Dept of Government Efficiency) that will operate outside of the government and led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramasamy aims to cut wastage, improve efficiency and stop corruption in the public sector. DOGE intends to downsize a bloated federal government. Some federal agencies may have to shut down. For example, there has been talk the Ministry of Education may be shut down. The government will be down-sized back to what was originally key functions of the Federal Government and hands off state responsibilities. Washington DC's wheeling and dealing bureaucrats in bed with lobbyists have been a cesspool of get-rich executives responsible for over-priced public projects. For example, more than US$30B was used to fund energy sustainable projects under Harris with nothing to show; untold US$ billions as aid to Ukraine is untraceable. DOGE mission is cut US$2T off fiscal spending and reduce budget deficits significantly.. 

Trump intends to cut taxes which will incentivise risk taking and spur economic activities and create more jobs. That obviously comes from a businessman mindset. Socialist sentiments of the Democrats abhor tax cuts which they always see as inequitable distribution of wealth. Trump's promise to cut taxes on tips, which Harris copied in her campaign, of course favours the small man. A tax cut means a reduction in gross revenue. Details are not yet out on how much the loss in tax collection will be and where will Trump find the alternative funds for the budget. Increase in economic activities leads to more tax collection, but there is a big time gap for the benefits to be felt.

Democrats have always been about more control over everything, over peoples' lives, over all spheres of markets. Republicans on the other hand, believe markets will operate more efficiently on their own, leading to better allocation of resources. Governments should hands-off as much as possible. With Trump, Vivek and Musk all coming from the business world, it will be interesting to see how much stiffling regulations will be jettisoned. Will American entrepreneural ingenuity blossom in a lesser regulated environment? Take for example, it is generally held FEC regulations have prevented the growth of cryptocurrency sector in the US.

Trump does not see tariffs as a tool of economic oppression but as a mechanism for trade negotiation. Trump's tariff 2.0 is about reshoring manufacturing industry. It will force American manufacturers to de-globalise and bring their plants and manufacturing jobs back home. It will most likely be a targeted tariff aimed at American manufacturers that are relocated overseas which Trump has always branded unpatriotic. It is an anomaly of Republican free-market ideology. Trump sees tariffs as revenue, but a large part of it will be leaked to subsidise industries and the public hurt by reciprocal tariffs on US exports. In the short term, Americans will suffer from rising prices of imports. How tariff 2.0 will work out in the long term is left to be seen.

During Trump's first presidency, the fracking industry propelled the US to a net-energy exporter and helped to stabilise world oil prices. The Keystone gas pipeline to transport Canadian gas into US would have improved US energy resource significantly. Biden reversed all Trump energy policies on his first day in the White House that let to oil price hikes and inflationary pressure world wide. By reviving the fracking industry, and no doubt the Keystone gas pipeline project, Trump will once again make the US a net energy exporter. US gas exports will boost revenue tremendously and help reduce budget deficits significantly. More importantly, it will put a downward pressure on domestic energy cost that will boost local economy. Pump prices will fall to ease transportation cost. All-in, lower energy cost will be anit-inflationary.

The task to straighten economic health of the US for the incoming admin is daunting. The old school back-room handshaking style of establishment RINOs will not cut it. It is time for tough approaches and out-of-the-box solutions. Trump appears to be building a cabinet of mavericks and tough cookies, and he can have his way in his second presidency since he has his trifecta. If Musk and Vivek deliver on the US$2T reduction on cost of running the Federal Government, and Trump's energy policy pan out, the downside risks of tariffs can be safely covered.

For the American public, things can only get worse before they can have a chance to get better. The tough times of living under the austerity scenario of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher as they restructured their weak economies decades ago would seem like the good life compared with what's to come. But if anyone can save the US from the certainty of a debt spiral, it would be the King of Debt.



This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

COUNTRIES MOST AT RISK FROM TRUMP'S TARIFF

"Trade wars are like a ticking time bomb. Tariffs are going to hurt both sides, especially in the long run."
Warren Buffet
“When people talk about trade wars, they don't realize that we're really the piggy bank for the world. We’re the ones who are getting ripped off.”
Donald Trump (2018)

Buffet's is the traditional textbook view which holds true when tariffs are imposed by a country to make their own products more competitive. However, targeted tariffs need not necessarily have a lose-lose outcome. The result of Trump's tariffs against China for unfair trade practices in his first presidency is mixed. China had pegged the Renmenbi to USD which made their products cheap. The tariff was a success for Trump when the Chinese eventually allowed their currency to appreciate.

This time Trump has once again promised tariff but details are not out. It's one of his election promises to bring manufacturing jobs back and he intends to do it by tariffs, punishing American manufacturing companies that either relocated or outsourced overseas. His objective for this tariff is reshoring of manufacturing back to US. At the simplistic level, it makes sense. But no US manufacturer or US trading partners are going to take it lying down. There will be reciprocal tariffs and supply chain restructuring. The US is a higher cost country and a sudden return of manufacturers will push up wages making exports less competitive. But who knows what the longer term future holds. For example, if dedollarisation works out, the USD may weaken to make American exports competitive again. Or Trump's fracking policies may reduce energy cost for US manufacturers giving them a competitive edge. Or tariffs may be expanded to make US products competitive. That would be going down Warren Buffet's rabbit hole.

US MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES THAT MOVED OFFSHORE
Manufacturers relocate due to globalization, cost considerations, and the development of global supply chains. These are the US manufacturing industries that have shifted offshore and where they went.

1. Electronics Manufacturing
Products: Consumer electronics, semiconductors, and components like printed circuit boards (PCBs).
Destinations: China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Malaysia dominate as hubs due to low labor costs and established infrastructure.
2. Textile and Apparel Production
Products: Clothing, footwear, and home textiles.
Destinations: Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, and Mexico are common choices, leveraging cheaper labor
3. Automotive Components
Products: Parts such as transmissions, tires, and electronics for vehicles.
Destinations: Mexico, Canada, and Asian countries like China and South Korea are key locations, benefiting from proximity or cost efficiency.
4. Steel and Aluminum Production
Products: Raw steel, aluminum, and related products.
Destinations: China and other countries with lower energy and labor costs have taken over significant portions of production
5. Pharmaceutical and Chemical Manufacturing
Products: Generic drugs, APIs (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients), and specialty chemicals.
Destinations: India and China are leading producers due to cost-effective production and regulatory considerations.
6. Furniture and Wood Products
Products: Assembled furniture, flooring, and cabinetry.
Destinations: Vietnam and China are dominant due to their manufacturing scale and access to raw materials.
7. Consumer Goods
Products: Toys, household goods, and appliances.
Destinations: China and Southeast Asia, where production costs and supply chains align well with consumer product demands.

TOP 10 COUNTRIES WHERE US GOODS COME FROM:
(Based on countries share of US annual imports of US$3.83T (and key products))

1.   Mexico (15.4%): Vehicles, machinery, and electronics.
2.   China (15%): Electronics, machinery, and textiles.
3.   Canada (12.1%): Energy products, vehicles, and machinery.
4.   Vietnam (3.9%): Electronics, textiles, and footwear.
5.   Germany (3.8%)  : Automobiles and parts, pharmaceuticals, machinery.
6.   Japan (3.8%): Automobiles & parts, machinery, electronics & semiconductors.
7.   South Korea (3.8%): Electronics, vehicles, and machinery.
8.   Taiwan (3%): semiconductors, electronics, and machinery.
9.   India (2.8% : pharmaceuticals, textiles, and jewelry.
10. Italy (2%): luxury goods, vehicles, and machinery.

US IMPORTS FROM ASEAN COUNTRIES:
(Based on countries' share of US annual imports of US$3.83T (and key products))

1.   Vietnam (3.9%): Electronics, textiles, and footwear.
2.   Malaysia (2.5%): Semiconductors, other electronics, machinery, and medical devices
3.   Thailand (1.7% : Automotive parts, machinery, and electronics
4.   Singapore (1.3%: Chemicals, machinery, and electronics
5.   Indonesia (0.9%): Rubber products, footwear, and textiles

TOP 15 COUNTRIES MOST AT RISK:
(Based on how much of their exports to US as a % of total exports))

1.    Mexico 80% or US$154b
2.    Canada 75% or US$121B
3.    Vietnam 29% or US$39B
4.    Japan 19% or US$38B
5.    Bangladesh 16% or US$8
6.    China 16.5% or US$150B
7.    South Korea 14% or US$38B
8.    Taiwan 12.5% or US$30B
9.    Indonesia 11% or US$9B
10.   Thailand 11% or US$17B
11.   Malaysia 11% or US$25B
12.   Italy 10% or US$20B
13.   France 8% or US$16B
14.   Germany 8.7% or US$38B
15.   Singapore 6% or US$13B

TRADE AGREEMENTS AND PROTECTION FROM TARIFF:
Here's an overview of whether these countries have bilateral trade agreements with the U.S. and the extent to which such agreements might shield them from tariffs:

1. Mexico
Agreement: The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA in 2020.
Protection from Tariffs: Yes. USMCA establishes free trade conditions for most goods. However, certain sectors like steel and aluminum have seen tariffs imposed under national security claims​
2. Canada
Agreement: Part of the USMCA.
Protection from Tariffs: Yes. Similar to Mexico, most trade is tariff-free, but tariffs have been applied on certain goods under national security or other pretexts.
3. Vietnam
Agreements: No FTAs; trade is governed under WTO rules and broader frameworks like ASEAN-U.S. ties.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited; tariffs can be applied.
4. Japan
Agreement: The U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement (2020) focuses on agricultural and industrial goods.
Protection from Tariffs: Partial; the agreement reduces tariffs on covered goods but doesn't eliminate all trade barriersBr /> 5. Bangladesh
Agreement: No FTA; Bangladesh benefits from generalized tariff preferences (GSP), although the U.S. suspended its GSP benefits in 2013.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited protection due to the absence of an FTA
6. China
Agreement: No comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). Trade is governed under WTO rules.
Protection from Tariffs: No, China has been a primary target of U.S. tariffs, especially under the Trump administration during the U.S.-China trade war.
7. South Korea
Agreement: The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) provides strong bilateral trade rules.
Protection from Tariffs: Yes, KORUS offers substantial protection, but some tariffs on specific goods (like steel) have been implemented
8. Taiwan
Agreement: No FTA; Taiwan and the U.S. maintain strong trade ties but rely on broader frameworks and negotiations.
Protection from Tariffs: No direct protection.
9. Indonesia
Agreements: No FTAs; trade is governed under WTO rules and broader frameworks like ASEAN-U.S. ties.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited; tariffs can be applied
10. Thailand
Agreements: No FTAs; trade is governed under WTO rules and broader frameworks like ASEAN-U.S. ties.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited; tariffs can be applied.
11. Malaysia
Agreements: No FTAs; trade is governed under WTO rules and broader frameworks like ASEAN-U.S. ties.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited; tariffs can be applied.
12. Italy
Agreement: Trade is governed under the broader U.S.-EU framework; no bilateral FTA.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited. EU nations have faced U.S. tariffs, particularly during disputes (e.g., aircraft subsidies).
13. France
Agreement: Trade is governed under the broader U.S.-EU framework; no bilateral FTA.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited. EU nations have faced U.S. tariffs, particularly during disputes (e.g., aircraft subsidies).
14. Germany
Agreement: Trade is governed under the broader U.S.-EU framework; no bilateral FTA.
Protection from Tariffs: Limited. EU nations have faced U.S. tariffs, particularly during disputes (e.g., aircraft subsidies).
15. Singapore
Agreements: U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (FTA) offers significant trade benefits.
Protection from Tariffs: Protected under its FTA.

While bilateral agreements provide legal frameworks for tariff exemptions, they do not guarantee absolute protection if the U.S. government invokes extraordinary measures under domestic laws or shifts policy priorities.
.
Trump's tariffs, such as those during his first presidency, often bypassed existing trade agreements by invoking national security concerns or trade imbalances. Even countries with FTAs (e.g., Canada, South Korea) faced tariffs in some sectors.

Some thoughts from the above info:

1. We can see why India gave two hoots to Biden and Modhi is openly supportive of Trump.
2. Mexico will kow-tow to Biden or Trump, whoever is president. It's the reason why Trump was dead sure in 2016 that Mexico will pay for the construction of the border wall.
3. Canada needs to kow-tow to US who has always given them special treatment. But may be punished due to Trudeau's extremist position against Trump. However, Trudeau is facing a vote of confidence in parliament and Trump's tariff promises may just be the hand that flicks the irascible Trudeau off his throne and spare Canada from the wrath of US under a president who promises to bring common sense back to the government.
4. Vietnam and Bangladesh may not be at high risk because major exports to US are in labour-intensive low tech textiles industry.
5. China has reduced its dependency on trade with US. With exports to US comprising of 16.5% of its total exports, tariffs will still hurt but not to the sort of critical extent faced by Canada and Mexico. China therefore, has much strength going into a trade negotiation with the Trump admin.
6. Taiwan is a critical player for its export of semi-conductors to US manufacturing companies. TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturer Co) has already set up plants in US during Trump's first presidency.
7. Singapore has lesser worries than any of the other countries in terms of direct impact given exports to US is only 6% of total exports representing 3% of GDP. It has played it's trade cards a little better than fellow Asean members being the only country to secure an FTA with the US. If the FTA does not protect from Trump's tariff assaults, Singapore's agreement allowing US access to military facilities may be critical factor in the island's favour, particularly in the current state of heightened security tension.

There may be justification for tariffs if it is targeted and used as a tool to smoothen imbalances of trade due to unfair practices, for reshoring, to protect a sector considered a national security concern, or to shelter some domestic industries to buy time for them to develop fully, A general tariff to make a country's product price competitive is inefficient and a ticking time bomb, to quote Warren Buffet. A tariff to be used as a political weapon is reprehensible. The details of Trump's trade policies are still to be seen.. 




This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

TRUMP STOPPED THE GLOBAL ELITES MARCH TO "THE END OF HISTORY"

"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"
Hagel

What German philosopher Hagel meant is that wisdom (symbolized by the owl of Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom) comes only after the fact, that is, true understanding of events and historical developments often comes only in hindsight.

Those who had believed the US presidential election will be a 50-50 battle, or in fact Harris will triumph, they never walked the grounds and they paid attention only to the leftist media. The size and energy of the crowds at Trump's rallies as he criss-crossed the swing states has been a clear indication of what's to come. But main stream media refused to share this with their mainly liberal viewership. This election has definitely shown the power of the three traditional megahorns of public opinions are no more. Mainstream media, Hollywood and celebrities, and polls are no longer trusted by one half of the country. Recall how Straits Times said Taylor Swift's endorsement will win the election for Harris.

Mainstream media are hosted by an echo chamber of progressive and radical liberals. No less than Jimmy Kimmel has admitted the various corporations meet regularly to co-ordinate what to propagate which they then shamelessly parot exactly same catch words or phrases in order to emplify their narratives against Trump. They have been doing this since Trump walked down that elevator in NY back in 2015. The only exception is Foxnews. Although CEO Paul Ryan is the ultra Trump-hater, the talking heads at Fox do not follow Kimmel's lead. Even Fox's Bret Baer, althought a Trump-hater, does not follow the herd. He has his own hard-hitting narratives. Harris enlisted a host of Hollywood stars and celebrities in the last two weeks of campaign. Her interview by Oprah Winfrey is a faux meet-the-press when campaign finance report revealed she was paid US$1,000,000 to host the meet. It was in reality a campaign ad which makes a mockery of journalistic integrity on the part of money-faced Oprah. Almost all the polls predicted a very close contest which did not seem to project the reality on the ground. Some suggested there was a fear factor on the part of respondents to identify themselves as Trump supporters and this impacted the poll results. A better indication can be seen in what is known as a 'neighbour' poll. Respondents are asked who they think their neighbour will vote. Such 'neighbour' polls have shown higher scores for Trump. The polymarket whale, a French trader who calls himself Théo, who won US$43m betting on Trump, said he relied mainly on 'neighbour' polls.

In the aftermath of Trump's convincing win in the election, comes a ton of explanation to what was incorrectly predicted to be a closely contested fight. If you listen to the media megahorn, Harris lost because voters are racists, sexists and misogynists, which of course are reasons swallowed by the guillible liberal mass. Others say Harris had a messaging problem. It's surprising two anti-Trumper media big names have more internal reflection. Jon Steward said he was wrong about Trump's chances of winning but accepted he won it fair and square. Bill Maher told the the Left "you're are brats, and you're snobs, and people don't like that". My own explanation is Harris lost because 15m Democrat votes went missing.

Kishore Mahubani, (short video above) Singapore's diplomat extraordinaire, said "Only a deeply troubled society will elect a person like Donald Trump as president". He was commenting on the degradation of the infrastructure, economies and standard of living of the US, and pondered why did Americans elect Trump. I have great respect for Kishore in many of his views, especially his forte on geopolitics. How can he be so wrong here. Surely MAGA is about rebuilding America. Does Kishore not understand Trump's priority? Heaven forbid if Kishore thinks Harris is better-placed to lead US with her open-border policies, pro-criminal inclination, socialists economics of someone branded as on the furthest Left of the Democrat Party, and pro-Ukraine war stand. Surely Kishore can see the chaos of US in the four years under Biden-Harris?

I brought Kishore into this blog to show how dangerous the Leftist media can be when one of Singapore's brightest son holds a view on Trump apparently coloured by mainstream media narratives. In the Singapore Inc silo, this must surely be the shared view. What we are seeing happening in US and other Western countries is a tectonic ideological battle. I would expect someone like Kishore to enlighten us with a big picture view that makes sense. I mean, do you understand what this woke culture is all about, this transgenderism, non-binary. pronouns, tampons in boys' restrooms, men in women sports, etc. Why open the floodgates for un-vetted illegal immigrants that include criminals and all sorts of bad hats. Why the mad rush to vaccinate everyone with untested vaccines. Democrats are not stupid folks. Of course they know the chaos their policies are creating. It begets the question why.

There is a very big picture narrative behind Trump-Harris battle that can help to make sense of our troubled world. It is something that I had wanted to blog about for a very long time but held back because it is way beyond my pay scale. I had hoped some super intelligent locals in academia or corridors of power can stand up and shine some light to enlighten the nation. Given this vacuum, allow me to express my thoughts on a very tough idea I have in my mind as I summon to the best I can some deep philosophical concepts.


The End of History

As a philosophical concept, the "end of history" contemplates the endpoint of ideological evolution, where society reaches its highest form of governance and moral order. Rooted in Hagelian and Marxist dialectics, it examines the possibility of a "final" stage in human political, social, and ethical development—where struggles for political legitimacy and ideological supremacy cease because society has reached an "ultimate" form of organization that satisfies human needs most fully.

Georg Wilheim Friedrich Hagel (1770-1831) introduced the idea that history moves in a dialectical progression of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Starting off with thesis which is the established order, or status quo, that is the current state or a system or society. Antithesis invariably arises, that is, opposing forces or ideas. This contradiction creates tension or conflict, challenging the validity or dominance of the thesis. The struggle between the thesis and antithesis, give rise to synthesis, which is a new, higher level of understanding or organization. The conflicts are resolved and society transforms the original state.

Human history is propelled by this cycle of contradiction and resolution. A society transforms from one form of organisation to another over time. Example from libertarianism to liberalism to conservatism, to communism, to capitalism, etc.

In Hagelian philosophy, dialectical progression is thought to drive history and human consciousness toward greater rationality and freedom. Each stage builds upon the previous one, with contradictions driving both thought and social order forward. This dialectical process continues until it reaches an "end" in an ideal state of freedom and rational self-awareness. For Hagel, history reached its "end" with the development of constitutional monarchies, which he saw as the ideal balance between freedom and order.

For Karl Marx (1818-1883) dialectical materialism, that is, material conditions — particularly economic relations — drive social and political change. Each stage of economic history (feudalism, capitalism, etc.) contains internal contradictions that ultimately lead to its downfall and replacement by a new stage, culminating in an "end" in communism. Thus for Marx, history ends with universal communism.

In 1992 American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published his book "The End Of History And The Last Man" in which he drew on the Hagelian idea but replaces the "end' state with liberal democracy. He argues that liberal democracy and market economies address humanity’s core desires for recognition, freedom, and economic security, marking the highest achievement in ideological evolution. For Fukuyama, history ends with the universalisation of Western democracy.


Liberalism vs Conservatism

In the context of US the underlying ideological struggle is between the Democrats (Liberals) and the Republicans (Conservatives). US is basically a two-party system. The Libertarians are just a side-show, often times viewed as a spoiler, garnering 1% or 2% of the votes. The only time when Libertarians had some high profile was in 1992 and 1996 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran as an independent. Their platforms overlapped ideologically and Perot managed to attract 19% of the votes in 1992 as Libertarians flocked to his campaign.

Despite their differences, liberals and conservatives often share a number of core values, even if they prioritize them differently or interpret them in contrasting ways. Let me go somewhat detailed into the key aspects so you can properly understand what the battles between Democrats and Republicans are all about.

* Belief in the Rule of Law:
Both sides generally believe in having a legal framework to govern society that covers protection of  individual rights, and ensuring justice.
Liberals often emphasize reforming laws to address inequality and social justice, while conservatives tend to prioritize preserving existing legal systems and order.

* Commitment to Democracy
Both value democratic processes - free and fair elections, the right to vote, elected officials are representatives of people.
Liberals focus more on expanding voting rights and ensuring inclusivity, while conservatives may emphasize voter integrity and protecting the system from fraud.

* Individual Rights and Freedoms
Both affirm the importance of individual freedoms - freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.
Liberals often prioritize rights related to social and cultural issues (e.g., LGBTQ+ rights, reproductive rights), while conservatives emphasize the protection of traditional values and rights related to property, family, and religion.

* Economic Opportunity
Both sides generally support the idea that individuals should have the opportunity to improve their economic circumstances, pursue prosperity, and succeed through hard work and initiative.
Liberals advocate for a stronger safety net and policies to reduce inequality, such as progressive taxation and government programs. Conservatives tend to emphasize free-market solutions, lower taxes, and minimal government intervention.

* National Security
Both recognize the importance of national security and protecting the country from external threats, whether through military defense or intelligence agencies.
Conservatives may prioritize a strong military and defense spending, while liberals may focus more on diplomacy, alliances, and multilateral approaches to security.

* Tradition vs Progress
Both value progress, whether it's in terms of social change or technological advancement.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the value of tradition, stability, and preserving established institutions. Liberals may be more focused on challenging traditions and advocating for social reforms to address modern challenges.

* Social Responsibility
Both believe in social responsibility - well-being of one's community, helping the less fortunate, and contributing to the common good.
Liberals tend to socialise  welfare, healthcare, and support for marginalized groups. Conservatives often stress the role of individuals, families, and private charity in fulfilling social responsibilities.

* Patriotism and National Pride
Both take pride in their country and value national identity, culture, and history.
Conservatives place more emphasis on national pride, military achievements, and symbols like the flag, while liberals focus more on the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality in the nation's history.

* Social Justice
Both care about fairness and justice.
Liberals support systemic changes to address inequality in society, while conservatives may prioritize justice in the form of maintaining law and order, individual responsibility, and equality before the law.

* Environmental Stewardship
Both cares for the environment.
Liberals advocate for more aggressive environmental regulations and government action to combat climate change. Conservatives may focus on market-based solutions and the importance of balancing environmental protection with economic growth.

The quarrels of the two sides revolve around how best to achieve these shared goals, with liberals emphasising systemic reform, social welfare, and inclusivity, while conservatives emphasising personal responsibility, tradition, and limited government intervention.

The two-party system unfortunately, is a fundamental weakness of the US since a constant is the flipping of policies with each change in administration.

The compromise that establishment politicians on both sides have been able to reach in the past 240 years of their history to achieve their goals has gotten more difficult. That ability to compromise started crumbling in the last 20 years with the advent of Barrack Obama and his identity politics. The Democrat Party has swung very much to the Left as the progressives take control. They are in effect now a Socialist party pushing full Marxist policies and members are growing more extreme, which in our part of the world we used to call ultra. Remember the ultra-nationalists of UMNO that wanted to arrest Lee Kuan Yew during the Separation period?

The Democrat Party of today is no longer the party of John F Kennedy whose short reign was fondly referred to as "Camelot", an association with the romance of King Arthur, a story set in high moral idealism. You must have been living in a cave if you say Liberals today love their own country. There are two key conservative values that stand in the way of Liberal machinations for total socialist control -- Christianity and the right to bear arms.

The smarter Liberals are now slowly red-pilling. Ex-House members Robert F, Kennedy Jnr and Tulsi Gabbard, and Senators Joe Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema left the party because it's values have changed. Others include Jeff Van Drew, Tricia Cotham, Francis Thompson, and Mesha Mainor. As I write, the latest Liberal to come out and said so is from Hollywood. Popular actor Michael Douglas said "..the Republican Party is now the party of the people, the Democrat is the party of the elites."


Neo-conservatism and Brzezinski’s Doctrines

Liberal tendency to put emphasis on human rights and diplomacy, and overly cautious about military intervention and assertive foreign policy were seen as weakness after WWII when the West had to confront communism during the Cold War. The weakness of liberalism was most strongly felt during the presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), a time that saw Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis of US Embassy at Tehran.

The 3 pillars of neoconservatism are:
* Spreading democracy, particularly in authoritarian regions, often using military intervention if necessary. This will lead to stability and aligns with U.S. interests.
* Have a robust military presence globally, advocating for preemptive actions to deter potential threats.
* Practice unilateralism to project U.S. sovereignty. Multilateral institutions limit American power and influence.

Neoconservatism had the most impact during George W. Bush presidency which saw US interference in the Middle East. Those heavily influenced by neoconservative thoughts are called neocons which include Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Bolton. They are well-known war mongers.

Neoconservatism as an idea is not partisan. Republicans McCain and Graham worked for Obama where the two Conservative senators were seen in the famous video giving Ukranian military leaders a pep talk promising US support. Diplomat (D) Victoria Nuland was deeply involved in the Colour Revolution of Ukraine. (D) Hillary Clinton was heavily involved in the Arab Spring managing American interests.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was Carter's national security advisor. His doctrines shared some neoconservative goals but they were more nuanced: His was a balance-of-power approach -- contain Soviet influence through strategic alliances rather than aggressive democracy promotion. Brzezinski preferred diplomacy and multilateralism when feasible, supporting interventions only if they were essential to maintaining global stability. He often opposed the outright use of military force to reshape political systems. In his book The Grand Chessboard (1997), Brzezinski outlined his vision for maintaining U.S. supremacy by strategically influencing key regions in Eurasia, advocating that the U.S. establish a stable presence without becoming bogged down in prolonged conflicts.

Neoconservatism and Brzezinski's Doctrines have been the guiding lights of American foreign policies in the past several decades be it a Democrat or Republican presidency. To Kishore's questions, it is the reason why they are building aircraft carriers even though their bridges are falling down and other infras crumbling.


Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is about open markets and less state control. It is a political and economic ideology where popular words bandied about are free-trade, privatisaton, deregulation, fiscal austerity, and market efficiency. This was the agenda championed by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. While Reagan made a remarkable economic recovery for US after the disaster under Carter, Thatcher had mixed results in the UK as she had considerable time consumed in her great battle with the powerful and polarising figure of Arthur Scargill, the powerful union leader who led the National Union of Mineworkers. (I was stationed in London for a short while at the time and was stunned at the vulgarities of the expletives of Scargill on the streets, for I was brought up imbued with this image of the "English gentlemen").

Neoliberal reforms were endorsed by famous economists of the time - Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. Other champions of neoliberal reforms were the European Union, WHO, IMF and World Bank.

Unfettered neoliberalism has tremendous downside - increase in income equality, reduced public social support, environmental degradation, and political instability. How so?

Neoliberal policies prioritise corporate interests and market outcomes. Corporations and top tier employees (big income earners) benefit at the expense of lowered wages for the other employees. Fiscal austerity sees reduction in social welfare programmes (healthcare, education). Deregulation often leads to less protection for environment. Concentrating economic power in the hands of a few leads to distortion of political processes and reduce accountability.


New World Order, One World Government, The Great Reset

What the heck are these all about? The three terms are complex and overlapping concepts that have evolved over time and often used loosely by global leaders, economists, conspiracy theorists and the general public.  They are focused on global governance, economic restructuring and international co-operation but they were grown out of different ideological and historical contexts.

New World Order as an idea arose out of the ashes of WWI and WWII when world leaders felt a need for some international system to prevent future conflicts. In 1991 President George WH Bush popularised the term when he mentioned it to refer to a world where the U.S. and allied countries would promote peace, security, and global economic stability.

The term One World Government arose sometime in late 20th century which was marked by the establishment of several international institutions, such as UN, IMF. It was seen as a move toward a more unified global governance. However, these bodies do not hold sovereignty over individual nations.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), introduced the concept of The Great Reset in 2020 as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turmoil it caused. The Reset aims to rethink global capitalism by prioritizing sustainable development, reducing inequality, and addressing climate change. Schwab’s proposal includes a transition toward what he calls “stakeholder capitalism,” where companies focus on social and environmental responsibilities alongside profits.

This is not to be confused with the "Reset" button that Hillary Clinton gave to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in 2009 which was a symbolic gesture by Obama admin to re-establish diplomatic relations strained during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.

Due to the vague ideologies, the secretive nature of groups that discussed these international issues, such as "think tanks" and policy groups like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, high profile Davos summits attended by billionaire elites, corporate capture of various international institutions, weird and prophetic sound bites from people like Bill Gates and Schwab himself, such as the timing relating to the outbreak of infectious deceases, the infiltration of governments and "you will own nothing but be happy", and the relentless efforts to force onto the world the Covid-19 vaccination, climate control programmes, and the Pandemic Treaty, all these led to public suspicion of ill-intent by a closed powerful and wealthy group.


Neoliberalism and WEF

The above lenghty primer is necessary so you can appreciate the evolution of ideologies to get to where we are at today.

Neoliberalism has bred a small group of people whose wealth staggers the imagination. As of 2024, 1% of the world holds 45-50% of the total global wealth. 63% of new wealth generated in the last two years went to the 1%. This wealth distribution trend is driven by factors like tax advantages for the wealthy, such as lower taxation on capital gains and inheritance in many countries (zero tax in Singapore), as well as financial and market policies and globalization that benefit wealth holders.

Wealth concentration and distribution of this scale for the 1% weakens economic balance and limits social mobility, fueling inequality in access to resources, education, and healthcare globally. Human history has shown this state of affairs cannot last. How and when the powder keg will explode is up to speculation, but explode it will.

This then explains the greatest anomaly that no one is asking. Neoliberalists are the unfettered Capitalists. The Liberals of today in all Western countries have turned into cultural Communists. Capitalism and Communism -- “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” (Rudyard Kipling). So why are neoliberalists - the Capitalist titans of industry, the global elites, the multi-billionaires, why are they working with cultural Communists, whether in the form of Democrats in US, Christian Democrats in Germany, the Conservatives or Labour in UK, French Macron's Republique, or Trudeau's Liberal Party? 

Backtrack above I said Marx's "end of history" is Universal Communism - East, West, North and South must turn Red. Notice above I mentioned also Liberal's multilateralism. Now you get the picture for the crazy idea of open borders, mass immigration and multi-culturalism. There is alignment of ideology with neoliberalism for a globalised economic order.

WEF is the operating front, the mechanism for the universal aspirations of cultural Communism embeded in the various Liberal, Labour, so-called Republique and other political parties in Western countries.

Neoliberalist billionaires that are fully behind WEF include Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus-Michael Kühne, Larry Fink, Marc Benioff, Michael Bloomberg, Ray Dalio, Jeff Bezos, Mukesh Ambani, Jeff Bezos, Jim Breyer, Patrice Motsepe, Larry Page, Sergey Brin (Singapore resident), David Rubenstein, Jack Ma, Lauren Powell (Steve Job's wife) and many many more from that special 1%. Elon Musk attends occasionally to share his views on technology stuff.

The money power of neoliberalists, often under the guise of philantrophist-capitalism, captures supranational institutions like WHO, media, various state agencies like FDA and CDC, and certainly buying politicians either the old fashioned way, or through lobbies or revolving doors, a strategy that allows them a foot in the door to shape and implement policies in countries all over the world. The end game is protection of their interests and preventing the inevitability of that powder keg of disgusting wealth from exploding.

When ideologies of neoliberalists and WEF align, is when money power and political power aligns. It does not bode well for the 99%. If you were in the 1%, wouldn't you want to board the vessel that gets you to a place where your monetary and political power can be safely ensconced? Plus the bonus of the various international co-operation in economic activities already captured?

Neoliberalists and WEF (the countries that back it) now see The Great Reset as their "end of history".


Enter Donald Trump

Like most people, I had misunderstood Trump. My perception of him is this big bully Gargantuar that tells the poor chap "You're fired". Trump has such a powerful presence in the room. In my mind I see him in the mould of Lee Kuan Yew. The only other person that had such a powerful presence to me is Jack Lord, (real name John Joseph Patrick Ryan) who played Steve McGarrett in the TV series "Hawaii Five-O". It was probably after two years into his presidency when I saw Trump delivering on his campaign promises that I began to realise the persona portrayed by media was agitprop. Yes those media corporations owned by the neoliberalists.

Now you can see in 2016 Trump stumbled onto the neoliberalists and WEF (aka Liberals) in bed together. It was no storm in a teacup of illicit affairs, but a moment of seismic consequence. Obama had brought America to the neoliberalists' "end of history" cliff. All it needed was for Hillary Clinton to tip Americans over. I have consistently shared the opinion that Trump's entrance on the political scene was providential. Because it forced all the neoliberalists and bought Democrats, as well as RINOs, to surface and attack Trump at a time when the demographic is not yet to their advantage. For decades, American institutions in public schools and universities have churned out indoctrinated Liberals. (Why do you think you see all those Pro-Palestinian protestors in colleges.) There is not yet enough Liberals to tip the scale. The only way for Democrats to win in the votes is cheat or bring in illegal immigrants.

In our modern history, almost all the momentous social upheavals all over the world, can be framed by a big picture narrative of evolution of ideologies. The current chaos in US and Western countries has its causation in the neoliberalists push towards their version of the "end of history". In the US, Trump's landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election has frustrated neoliberalists' ambitions. Unless you belong to the 1%, you ought to celebrate.

On the way to the White House, Trump has annihilated the powerful neocon dynasties of the Republicans - the Bush, Remsfeld, Romney, McCain Chenney and Bolton. There are still some RINO neocons in the party. He has recently announced neocons Niki Haley and Mike Pompeo, his ex-Secretary of State, will not be invited to join his new team. With big names out, Trump has effectively gotten rid of the war-mongers in the party. Unless you are not for world peace, you ought to celebrate.

Trump used a lot of his personal resources in 2016. This election, his campaign team has worked on support from the ordinary guys, which is much similar to Obama. Trump still has support from billionaires, but these do not seem to be neoliberals, rather they are those committed to conservative values. The Republican Party under Trump truly has flipped to the party of the ordinary people. There exists an anomaly though. Republican values of open market, tax cuts and small government may work against ordinary people. It's left to be seen.

As a Singaporean, I'm terribly disappointed Kishore basically asked "who would want to vote a man like Trump". Kishore either belongs to the 1% or he is unable to see beyond the discredited mainstream media. I wonder if Kishore is aware of the "Trump Effect" -- positive reactions almost immediately after his election victory:

* The Taliban announced they want peace with America.
* Putin said Western civilisation is not an enemy, they will still use USD..
* Putin takes Trump's aim for peace in Ukraine seriously.
* Mexico announced they will secure their border
* Qatar told Hamas leaders to leave
* President Xi said he wants co-operation with US
* EU proposes to use US LNG
* Houthis are stepping back
* Hamas calls for immediate end to War with Israel.

I wonder if Kishore has seen Trump's economic plans listed on his website and has tried to guess what is it that Harris has in store for America.

I also wonder if Kishore is aware Trump has already initiated three taskforces to:
* make America healthy again which includes investigating into the Covid-19 vaccine fiasco (headed by RFK Jr).
* investigate into government wastage (headed by Elon Musk)
* investigate Democrat-UN NGO pedophile networks and locate 325,000 missing unaccompanied children who crossed the Southern border.

Does Kishore think that Harris could have accomplished any of these? Why do leaders of the other countries react they way they do? Because like me, they see in Trump a doer. He delivers what he says. It would be a real concern if Singapore policy makers think like Kishore.

Addendum to the Trump Effects:

* Saudi royalty, Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud, former Saudi ambassador to the United States, asked Trump to complete what he started in the ME, a reference to Abraham Accords peace deals.


This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

HARRIS LOST BECAUSE 15M DEMOCRAT VOTES WENT MISSING, BUT WHY?

"First, they fascinate the fools. Then, they muzzle the intelligent."
Quote by Bertrand Russel when asked how Fascism starts

I saw this quote put up on Facebook by a well-educated and very decent good Singaporean that I know of.  It is obvious this person swallowed lock stock and barrel the sick leftist media's agitprop of Trump the fascist. This Singaporean never ask if that were true, how is it these mouth pieces in leftist media are all still free and not locked away during Trump's first term. So this good Singaporean, and unfortunately many educated Singaporeans, think those who support Trump are fools. But who really are the fools?

Bertrand Russel's quote is a size-fit for the Marx-Lenin-Mao communism era. A class war where they fascinated the proletariat to go after the bourgeois. That does not apply to the situation in the US in Biden era. The progressive liberalism of the Democrats first fascinated the intelligentsia - the liberal elites from the corporate world, the liberal professorial staffers of universities, the hedonistic Hollywood and entertainment millionaires, liberal talking heads of media, liberal leadership in public service, all these were fascinated by the idea of a liberated woke culture that they say will address the social ills of the country. Then they convinced the fools, and they tried to muzzle the disbelievers. This election clearly shows who are those fascinated, who are the fools and who are the disbelievers.

Before setting foot in office, the president-elect has already confirmed three of his many priorities, namely:
* A task force headed by Elon Musk to investigate government wastages which should save billions in annual budgets.
* A Make-America-Healthy-Again task force under Robert Kennedy Jnr to investigate Big Pharma, the vaccines, healthy food.
* A special task force to investigate into pedophile networks run by Democrats and UN NGOs to locate 350,000 un-accompanied children who have disappeared since they were brought across the borders illegally.

Only fools will think this is the modus operandi of a fascist. It is about rolling up sleeves and getting down to serious jobs as promised in the campaign. It is not about exercising power.

I bring in the Bertrand Russell quote on fools to remove wool from eyes for those who do not understand what they are seeing as the most fundamental revelation in this election because for four years, they have been brainwashed by media without even knowing it.

In this blog I want to show the big picture of election fraud that took place in 2020 and the fools should be able to identify themselves. It's a simple case of math that cheaters cannot explain away. Trump-hating folks who do no deep dive into the evidence, have often roast me a purveyor of election fraud. Let's avoid going into the details of various claims, just focus on two big picture facts. 

Harris won only in states prone to vote cheating:

Is it a coincidence Harris won only in the states where no photo IDs are required, or no IDs are required? Does anyone need any convincing voting without requirement of IDs or photo IDs is an invitation to cheat? I suppose only fools need to be educated on this. India has a massive voter base. They all have voting cards with photo IDs. Singapore has one of the best voter base integrity system.

This lack of voter identification has been exploited by Democrats for decades. They have fought tooth and nail to legislate it. In this election, Arizona (no photo ID) and Pennsylvania (no ID) have been beset with several vote cheating cases. But unlike 2020, this time, the conservatives were prepared. They have ground activist groups and state AGs closely monitoring the situation. They took immediate action when they see chicanery appearing. Many suits have been won in courts. Many attempts at cheating nipped in the bud. They have made it difficult for cheaters.   

Why do state democrats try so hard to legislate for no IDs or photo-IDs? Only fools do not understand this. Why do conservatives demand IDs? Because it is a safeguard clearly encoded in their constitution. Conservatives uphold their laws.

Harris lost because of 15m missing Democrat voters:

If this doesn't convince the fools, the mental acuity is beyond hope. In 2020, Joe Biden garnered a record breaking 81m votes by hiding in his basement. Barrack Obama was immensely popular and yet he managed only 66m in 2012. Does anyone insanely believe Biden can better Obama by 23% more votes? The explanation to satisfy fools in 2020 was there was a massive turnout of voters. Disbelievers well, we disbelieved. We cry massive fraud, some of whom went to jail for it, many suffered in no small ways.

In 2024 Trump garnered only 71m compared to 74m in 2020. He actually lost 3m votes despite massive voter turnout of conservatives. Trump's support from Afro-Americans, Hispanics, Jews, Asians, younger voters, and women were all up significantly. Add to this, there are certainly a significant number of independents and democrats sick of the chaos in the country who voted Trump. There was evidently a massive voter turnout for Trump. And yet Trump did no better than 2020. What gives?

On the other hand, Harris' result is consistent with Obama (2012) and Hillary Clinton (2016). It is statistically authentic. So what happened to the 15m extra voters of Biden in 2020? Did 15m Democrat voters sit it out? There is nothing that can explain this missing 15m Democrat voters other than they never existed in 2020. They were phantom voters created in a massive vote cheating in 2020. 

Perhaps the fools can have a better explanation. 

USPS (United States Postal Services) may have the answer:

Back in 2020/2021 when all the cheating allegations surfaced, I chewed on it quite extensively. My instincts screamed cheat!. There certainly were vote cheating, but it never seemed like there was anything that can point to an organised effort. There was a particular case involving USPS that was exposed by a whistle blower. After more than 3 years investigative work, this case has been filed with the US District Court in Maryland by attorney Brian Della Rocca a few weeks ago. But it seemed incredible, in fact, unbelievable, because the allegations claimed it involved a few million signed mail-in ballots were transported across statelines by USPS.

Except for Michigan (154,000) and Pennsylvania (81,600), Biden won the swing states by very small margins -- Arizona (10,500), Georgia (11,800), Nevada (33,600), and Wisconsin (20,600). So the millions of fraudulent ballots in the USPS case did not make sense when I first learnt of the suit.

Post 2024 election, the USPS case suddenly makes sense now. Where did Biden's 15m votes come from in 2020? Surely even fools can understand the implication.

This is the gist of the USPS case. There is no attempt here to make for the merits of the case, just a narration of the background story. You be the judge.

Jesse Morgan is a truck driver of a cargo transportation firm contracted by USPS. Morgan claimed that he transported massive numbers of completed mail-in ballots across state lines from Bethpage, New York, to Lancaster, Pennsylvania, shortly before the 2020 election. According to Morgan, the ballots were stacked in the back of his truck, which he thought unusual because of the large quantity and the fact that they were already filled out.

He said there were 20 Gaylord cartoon boxes, each containing about 50,000 to 100,000 ballots, making between one to two million ballots that he alone transported.

The story exploded after Project Veritas, a media outfit well-known for their often controversial investigative work, held a press conference.

A three year investigation and evidence collecting by attorneys John Moynihan and Larry Doyle form the basis of the latest legal case. Which incidentally, is not about voting fraud, but challenges the reliability of using USPS to deliver mail-in ballots and breach of Maryland Constitution.

The evidence shows the USPS facility at Grumman Road in Bethpage, NY was a concentration point for completed and signed mail-in ballots. Apart from Jesse Morgan, there were several other trucks loaded with similar Gaylord cartoon boxes. If Morgan ferried between one-two million ballots, how many million ballots were involved, and where were they delivered to? 

Completed mail-in ballots are sent as registered mail. By law, they are individually registered and recorded. To perform this function, USPS uses something called the Oregon device, some sort of mail processing hardware that takes care of the registration. Herein lies the big problem. Only certain USPS processing facilities are equipped with the Oregon device. The Grumman Road facility does not have this equipment. It is a facility for processing packages, not mail, and definitely not registered mail. So why did millions of ballots end up at the facility?

Back in 2020 Lt Col Tony Shaffer (retired) was one of many Americans who offered to help investigate the results of the 2020 Election. Shaffer is the President of the London Center for Policy Research, a New York Times bestselling author, and CIA trained intelligence operations officer with 35 years of experience in global and national security. After an interrogation of Morgan, Shaffer was convinced he was not lying. He called his old friend and former US Attorney General under President Reagan, Ed Meese, who relayed the matter to AG Bill Barr. Within ten minutes, Shaffer received a call from Barr and was told to hands off and warned he was interfering with an ongoing FBI investigation.

For his courage in coming out with his story, Morgan was attacked by the FBI at his house and accused of making the whole thing up. AG Bill Barr assured Americans that there just wasn’t widespread voter fraud in the 2020 Election. He repeated this claim multiple times after the election. The US Attorney of the Eastern District asked to investigate issues in his district, but Barr famously denied the request!

Jeffrey Clark, the Director of Litigation at the Center for Renewing America and former Trump advisor, said in Sep 2022 that his organisation sent out FOIA requests to 12 US Attorney districts located in the 2020 battleground states. It established that no investigations were ever conducted by the DOJ. Barr had lied through his teeth. The corrupt DOJ and FBI are where investigations go to die if it's a case involving Democrat complicity. Only fools were sold on this huge cover-up.

The reasons why Harris lost:

Fools will believe what the media now says. Harris lost because Afro-American males are sexist, they won't vote a female. Hispanics are racists, they won't vote a black woman. White males are misogynist, they too won't vote a woman.

Harris lost because of the missing 15m Democrat voters.

The question really is, was it because Harris did not have what Biden had?  Back in 2020 Biden said “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Or was it because they hesitated to do the same 3am vote switch similar to what happened in 2020? A repeat incident will be a tough one to explain. Was it because they were wary of Trump warning repeatedly "OUR LAW ENFORCEMENTS ARE WATCHING". Or was it because they changed strategy to using illegal immigrants to vote which were frustrated by strenuous and immediate opposition and law suits by the conservative base, not the RINO establishment of Mitch McConnell. A strange point to note is Alejandro Mayorkas of Dept of Homeland Security, let in 21m illegals cross the southern borders. What a coincidence that 21m figure. Could that have been the target all this time?

Fools will not try to dive deep to understand why the math in the two data points of 2020 and 2024 do not make sense. Heck, this blog won't even be able to bring the horses to drink the water.

I have no doubt that if Bertrand Russell were alive today, he could have easily see who the fools are.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.

TRUMP OR HARRIS - UNDERSTANDING THE MAN AND HIS TARIFF WAR

Recently, Temasek’s Chief Investment Officer Rohit Sipahimalani sat down for an interview of which Bloomberg splashed this headline. In my earlier blog 22 Sep 2024 I opined the position of Singapore Inc as regards who it prefers to see in the White House. Rohit simply confirmed my assessment of which camp our local elites are in. Although it is in the nature of an investment discussion to talk of scenarios of economic outcomes under the presidential wannabees, this close into the extremely acrimonious US 2024 Presidential Election, Rohit's public statement is rather concerning. Note how Bloomberg carried the news as a Temasek announcement. As a well-respected sovereign wealth fund, Temasek's views carry weight. If this were a nuanced attack by Bloomberg, too bad the Harris Campaign Team is too dumb to capitalise on it.

Russia is now pursuing Alphabet, the parent of Google, to pay fines for blocking pro-Russia channels on Youtube. The fines have now accrued to about US$20 decillion, that is 20 + another 33 '0' behind it. Meanwhile, Trump sued CBS News for US$10 billion for election interference in their deceptive doctoring of the Harris' interview in their popular "60 Minutes" programme. CBS had admitted to an act that some thought warrants a severe punishment, even a withdrawal of licence, by the regulatory body. But under the Biden admin, liberals and anti-Trump entities can literary get away with murder. Russia and Trump's pursuits are unlikely to be realised in full satisfaction. That however, is the least of the intent. Those who can see the bigger picture, understands the whole purpose is to put in constant public consciousness the extent of the lies of a captured media.

In a recent Trump rally, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made a joke on Puerta Rico's floating island of garbage. The media was quick to propagate all criticisms of Trump calling Puerto Ricans garbage. The reality was Trump said nothing of the sort, and neither did the comedian. It was just a joke about a well-known fact of the garbage situation in Puerto Rico. Hinchcliffe is a controversial comedian. Comedians do what comedians do. Unlike Beyonce, paid to appear at a Harris rally, but she was a singer who didn't sing, a bait and switch that infuriated the crowd who came to watch her performance. Unfortunately, for Hinchcliffe, this for him must surely be a career-ending act as far as engagement in political events is concerned. 

Trump's locker-room talk of "grabbing them by the p....." was certainly disrespectful but blown absolutely out of proportion by media. It was one single moment of reckless boast of manliness which to many, in their mind, has come to be the basis to judge Trump's morality, oblivious to the totality of the full complexity of his life and actions. In psychology this is called the "fundamental attribution error" which is a cognitive attribution bias, often caused by character assasination, and in the case of Trump, the media has done a fantastic job. This fundamental attribution error is probably on display in Singapore as it relates to Lee Hsien Loong regarding the house at 38 Oxley Road

For far too many, Trump is a misogynist. Yet those who bear this view, and the press, have nothing to say about Joe Biden creeping up behind and smelling women in public. Neither have they anything to say to Mark Cuban, the liberal billionaire, who condemned women supporters of Trump as lacking strength and intelligence. Nor have they anything to say about how ex-Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's husband, Paul Pelosi, battered his ex-girlfriend.  

A CIA whistleblower has now revealed that in 2016, FBI director James Comey, an avid Trump-hater, planted two female agents in Trump's campaign team to conduct honey pot traps. The attempt at entrapment was a failure for conservatives are built on stronger moral fibres. The media is absolutely silent on this. And they too are silent on honey pot success of Fang Fang, a Chinese CCP agent who had entrapped Democrat Congressman Eric Sawell.  Life was easy for a Democrat in a Democrat-controlled Congress. Sawell sat on the House Intelligence Committee and remain seated even after his amorous adventure was made public. 

Tim Walz, Kamala Harris' VP pick, has now been outed for a very long affair with the daughter of a CCP agent in the US. This would have ended his career in the government immediately, but he is still Harris' running mate. And the media is abolutely fine with it.

Trump held a massively successful rally at the world famous Madison Square Garden, a huge indoor arena where all sorts of events  have been held. Tickets for that rally sold out within 3 hours. New York is fiercely liberal and actively antagonistic towards conservatives in general and Trump in particular. It is a place where no one is placing their money on a GOP winner. Trump went into the Lion's den, a fiery display of his courage. In pre-WWII days, American Nazi youths held a rally there once to preach support for Hitler's Germany. For that reason, Democrats and media went to town to holler Trump is a Nazi and Hitler fan. If media were to say Hitler drank water, Trump drinks water, proves he is a fan of Hitler, many would have believed. Media does not show there were many Jews at the rally, and the only signs of Hitler was a group of Democrat activists outside the areana holding up placards with the Swastika sign. Never will media say Trump has a Jewish son-in-law and his daughter embraced Judaism.

In Revelation 2.13 John of Patmos wrote about where Satan dwells. It is in the Temple of Pergamon (present day Turkey). From its archaeological ruins, the Altar of Pergamon was shifted to Berlin and reconstructed in a special museum. In Nuremberg, architect Albert Speer once constructed a platform designed after the Altar of Pergammon. It was on this platform that Hitler made so many of his fiery hate speeches.  In 2008, for his nomination speech, Barrack Obama stood on a platform that was modeled on the Altar of Pergamon, following the footsteps of Hitler. (I blogged about this in Story behind the story behind the story 7 Sep 2019.) You got yourself a heck of a Hitler fan there. The media does not speak about this, but for holding a rally in MSG, Trump is a Hitler fan. 

I picked on some of the stories to show media capture by the liberals to draw caveat to what is now a general consensus - mainstream media cannot be trusted. These are just tip of the iceberg, yet majority of people are consistently consuming media lies as matter of fact. Most of the comments I see from Singapore elites seem to me to be coloured by the same media bias.

What is most confounding to me is the often alluding to Trump as erratic and Harris as establishment type politician, a bastion of consistency. It takes a man with a bigger vision to see how hopelessly inappropriate this assessment of Trump is. No less than our reverent ex-Foreign Minister  George Yeo, a man Lee Kuan Yew once credited as a visionary, who said for all the media hyped negativities, there is one thing to be said of Trump, and that is, he has been consistent in his core policy stands for years. As a matter of fact, for decades. The same cannot be true of Harris, who has been flip-flopping, and making a mess of where she stands on many issues. The one consistency of Harris is she is for abortion up to full term. The fact that Singapore elites cannot see through this fundamental difference is worisome.

Trump is one of those larger-than-life seemingly chaotic personality, often creating iconic moments in history. His famous descent down the escalator at Trump Tower on June 16, 2015, is one such memorable moment people often refer to. It was when he announced his candidacy, delivering a speech that set the tone for his campaign with strong, populist themes and controversial statements, including remarks about immigration. Most people are coloured by perception rather than deep understanding, and the biased media has a lot to do with this.  How much does an ordinary guy know about Trump? Let's be frank, ask yourself. The truth is, absolutely nothing other than what you see and hear. Most people perceives him as “like a bull in a china shop,” making a noisy entrance, upending the environment, and unsettling others with their intense energy. Think of him as brash, heedless of others’ responses, and unfiltered in expressing opinions or frustrations. He dominates the room, causing both fascination and disturbance in equal measure. The proletariat probably sees him as Gargantuar, the cartoon character from the Plants vs. Zombies video game series. He is that large, muscular zombie who carries a huge club and smashes everything in his way. He is all brute force, sheer power and destruction. The bourgeois may see echoes of the literary character Gargantua from Gargantua and Pantagruel, a 16th century work by François Rabelais .

Is it just me or do you too sense it too. We are living in a time, at least in Western-influenced part of the world, where there is a normalisation of wrong as right, and right is wrong. Media and progressive neo-liberalism has a lot to do with this. For all the pomposity thrashed onto Trump, we seemed to have the most peaceful four years in modern history of the world during his presidency. The unthinkable almost happened as the Abraham Accord that he pushed brought Middle East countries and Israel towards peaceful co-existence, the crazy man of the East, Kim Jong Un, simmered down and no North Korean rockets were fired towards Japan. President Xi sat down with Trump to thrash out their economic differences. Afghanistan war was finally over. Trump has been right on many things he said, including that seemingly offensive point on immigration he made in 2015. Look at the chaos, violent crimes and illegal drugs has brough to western countries with open borders.

I confess I shared the same opinion of Trump like most people back in 2015. However, his work in the White House made me do a double take and reassessment. I saw he delivered on many campaign promises. I saw through the lies of media and his political enemies. I saw the unconstitutional acts of leadership in government agencies and judiciary work against him. His accomplishments were significant given that much of his term was spent fighting the lies of the Democrats in pushing two impeachments against him, and appointees who were working against his mission. Here is a man who can work under unimaginable stress and make good on his promises. In this election, he is proving once again that capability to strive under intense pressure. No known presidential candidate ever has to face the kind of intensity of not just political opposition, but pure hate, and risk his life, in pursuit of a mission, as he mentioned in an interview some 40 years ago, to do better for his countrymen.   

That intelligent people cannot peel back the layers of Trump the showman to the core of his substance is a measure of the observer's emotion clouding critical thought. Take for example his latest gimmick of working in McDonalds and his press conference sitting in a garbage dumpster truck, with him complete in the famous French Fry apron and garbage collector's vest. His critics and stoic Singaporean elites no doubt see buffonery in action, but marketeers see a master class act that scored both ways -- endearing Trump to the working class and rebuffing his opposition to the extent they have no response. It was of course a mockery of Harris' claims that she once worked in McDonalds which was a lie to embellish her fictitious middle class upbringing, and a skit on Tony Hinchcliffe's faux pas comic line of Puerto Rico's island of garbage. 

Now back to some of the economic commentaries.

Rohit Sipahimalani:
“I know the conventional wisdom and consensus is that right now a Trump presidency is better for markets.... A Trump win is probably going to mean a stronger dollar and higher rates than you would otherwise have in a Harris administration ......  But as you look out to 2025, the picture is not that clear.... A slowdown in global growth would also have a direct impact on US-listed firms given that 25 per cent of revenues at S&P 500 companies come from outside the country,"

A stronger dollar means a better economy, with pressure on inflation and thus higher interest rates. Rohit seems to mean America is better off economically with a Trump presidency. You do notice where Bloomberg bias is.

Dylan Loh, an assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University’s Public Policy and Global Affairs division :
“While Trump may inject greater uncertainty and unpredictability, a Harris presidency will not and cannot suddenly engender stability, peace and predictability”

That seems to me like a bunch of typical word salad from Harris.

Lee Hsien Loong, ex-PM, Singapore:
"A second Trump term would likely spell more disruptions for American allies and other countries. In particular, I think, what you can anticipate is that his attitude towards allies, towards America’s friends, will be different from what the Democrat administration has done in these last four years,” .

Say what you like, LHL has visions far ahead of the pack. This is an important point of his observation. But then again, as I pointed out, if one has been able to see the substance of Trump, he has been consistent in this. He has made it very clear America will no longer be the sucker to bear disproportionately heavier financial burdens for various funding responsibilities, be it for global security, contributions to intranational agencies like UN and WHO, more particularly for those which have shown no loyalty to the interests of the US. He intends to be transactional. Medicant countries cannot expect to receive with their hands from Uncle Sam and kick him with their legs.   

The problem of trade tariffs:

This has been the core sticking issue of Singapore Inc as regards Trump.

Rohit:
"The tariffs are going to create uncertainty, which is never good for investment and actually I think it’ll be negative not just for emerging markets but across the world .....(it would) impact global growth”.

Tan See Seng, research adviser at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies 

“If Trump wins, he is likely to reconvene another trade war with China. If that leads to China doubling down on its ongoing effort to ‘decouple’ its economy from the US, Singapore’s economy will be affected but it’s unclear at this point exactly how so.” 

Bilahari Kausikan, a former permanent secretary of Singapore’s foreign ministry:

"If Trump were to carry out his promise to levy tariffs on all imports to promote American manufacturing, it would slow the world economy."

Lee Hsien Loong warned that if Trump were to slap tariffs of 60 per cent or higher on Chinese goods in his second term as promised, it would put Singapore in “uncharted territory”.

The contrarian says:

The downside of tariffs as expressed above comes out of standard economic text books. In most scenarios, tariffs lead to inefficiencies and resource misallocation. Higher import costs typically reduce overall consumer welfare, raise production costs, and can lead to retaliation from trade partners, which disrupts global supply chains. This generally results in less optimal resource utilization and may harm long-term economic growth by discouraging trade and investment.

However, a directed tariff can provide limited economic benefits, such as protecting certain domestic industries from foreign competition, potentially saving local jobs or encouraging the growth of emerging sectors

There have been many write ups, videos, and commentaries, presented sometimes in racist overtones, and more than often, aa a middle to the Orange Mop, for Trump's Tariff War I which they viewed as failures. Trump's tariffs on Chinese products was followed by a retaliation on American agricultural products. Which was to be expected. This resulted in the US spending billions on subsidies to help the farmers, the funds of course, came from the revenue collected from the higher tariffs. Of course no one can really work out the mathematics and say the winner is .... Again, the perception is Trump had his nose rubbed.

But here I stand alone and say, the winner of Trump Tariff War I is the whole world. The fundamental point overlooked by everyone is Trump's objective and did he achieve it. 

China's great leap in economic growth after opening up to the world was due primarily to it being a cheap manufacturing base. (Let's leave aside other issues of technology transfer, intellectual property theft and political stability). As its economy matures, China stuck to its monetary policy of pegging the renmenbi to US$. The fixed rate kept the yuan cheap and made China the factory to the world. This is an unfair trade practice that manifested in huge balance of payments for China. The massive forex reserves accumulated propelled China Investment Corporation to the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the world with US$1.4 trillion assets under management. This is a situation that Singapore Inc knows too well with its GIC experience. The situation is untenable as no country in the world, not just the US, will be able to compete on an unfair basis against the sheer size of the Chinese economy. 

Tariff War I was about China's unfair trade practices and bringing them to heel. That was Trump's objective. And did he succeed? A resounding YES. The Bank of China gradually allowed the Renmenbi to appreciate. Today, the Renmenbi is maintained on a managed float basis, more or less similar to what the Monetary Authority of Singapore is doing. The Chinese currency is now more or less in line with market expectation of where it should be. Had it not been for Trump's initiative, all factories in the rest of the world would have to shut their doors. 

I remember an incident back in pre-Tariff War I days. I was invited to quote for supply of a few thousand Corbusier sofas and 3-seaters for a grand international event to be held in Singapore. I submitted the lowest limbo-rock low prices possible, hopping to make on volumes. The winner was a guy from China, which was not surprising. What surprised me was their price which was just 25% of my lowest offer. Considering they had to factor in shipping cost, it was simply an impossible price. That in a nutshell, is what unfair trade practice does to competitors.

Trump's Tariff War II has a fundamentally different objective whcih the commentaries above seem to have missed the point. The tariff is to hit hard on American companies that shut down their US plant and either domicle it offshore in countries such as China, India, Vietnam. Mexico etc or simply outsourced from overseas. The objective of Tariff War II is primarily to force American companings to bring their manufacturing jobs back home to the US. Whatever one feels about Trump, that is what a leader has to do for his country.

As Ho Ching once said, Temasek can afford to hold contrarian views. Rohit is with the herd. I stand with Ho Ching here. Give me a tariff war any time over a nuclear war. A Harris win is taking a chance on a nuclear war in Europe. A Trump win is giving peace a chance. Trump's tariff may cause the decoupling of economies and re-alignment of supply chains. It will be unsettling for some but opportunities for others. But the world and Singapore will navigate it, however the outcome. Certainly a better scenario than a nuclear war. 

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.