Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • What will happen in 2020 ?

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on November 23rd, 2018 (All posts by )

    First, everyone should view this Steve Bannon Oxford Union debate.

    It’s an hour long and, while I rarely watch hour long YouTube videos, this one is worth while.

    He gives a talk about his European sessions with new “right wing” leaders like Viktor Orban, the Hungarian Prime Minister.

    Viktor Mihály Orbán is a Hungarian politician serving as Prime Minister of Hungary since 2010. He also served as prime minister from 1998 to 2002. He is the present leader of the national conservative Fidesz party, a post he has held since 2003 and, previously, from 1993 to 2000.

    Orban is hated by the globalists in Germany because he has built walls to keep put “migrants,” which he says his county cannot support.

    Orbán’s social conservatism, national conservatism, soft Euroscepticism and advocacy of what he describes as an “illiberal state” have attracted significant international attention. Some observers have described his government as authoritarian or autocratic.

    In August 2018, Orbán became the 2nd longest-serving prime minister after Kálmán Tisza. If his current government lasts a full term, upon its completion, he will become the longest-serving Hungarian prime minister in history.

    He also talks about the Italian election and the leaders Salvini, the conservative and Di Maio, the leftist party “Five Stars” leader were able to come together as a coalition. Both are populists. That is his point.

    Bannon also has an excellent interview with Euroweek news.

    Again it is mostly about Trump. Also he tries to define “Populism” and talks about the “Davos Elite.”

    Several topics in the Oxford Union discussion came up, especially what will happen in 2020. He makes several good points about the midterm election. He says that Democrats out worked Republicans and that the turnout was what would be expected in a presidential election. He expresses interest in Beto O’Rourke, who lost the election in Texas to Ted Cruz. He points out that Lincoln lost the 1858 Senate election to Douglas, then was elected president two years later. He suggests that the 2020 election will be affected by a plan for Mike Bloomberg to spend $100 million on opposition to Trump. He thinks that it may well be a three way race. Bill Clinton was elected in a three way race in which he got 42% of the vote.

    In the Euronews interview, the “moderator” keeps debating him. Bannon corrects him constantly.

    In both discussions, the populism equals Fascism kept coming up.

    Finally, this Tucker Carlson speech explains a lot of where Trump came from.

     

    14 Responses to “What will happen in 2020 ?”

    1. Brian Says:

      Not quite sure what Bloomberg thinks he can accomplish. I don’t think he’s anywhere near as influential as the NYC/DC media and political establishment thinks. Does he want to spend lots of money on astroturf groups? Does he want to run as a candidate? If so, $100M is off by an order of magnitude on what he would need to spend.
      Bloomberg and Steyer and the Starbucks guy seem to think that Trump was successful because he’s rich. No. He was a national celebrity for 40+ years, he was known for actually producing something tangible, and he exudes sympathy for the little guy. The establishment might not like it, but it’s a fact. None of those are true for any of the Dem billionaires.

    2. Mike K Says:

      One thing I did not put in the post was the issue of 2008, which Bannon brings up early in his Oxford Union talk. He says that the two Goldman Sachs officials in the Bush Administration told the president they needed 1 trillion dollars in cash to bail out the Wall Street types that got into the financial crash. This is an issue about TARP that many have talked about.

      I reviewed Nicole Gelinas book about 2008 here.

      Here is a fair discussion of the TARP.

      When TARP finally passed, it was supposed to jump-start the lifeless credit markets by deploying taxpayer money to help banks shed toxic assets that were crushing their balance sheets.

      The government, however, changed its mind. At this dramatic Monday meeting, TARP morphed into something altogether different — a more direct program in which the Treasury would pump fresh capital into the system by buying preferred shares of individual banks. And in the months that followed, TARP would morph again and again, especially in terms of political perceptions that became a perplexing new hazard for the more than 500 banks, thrifts, and other financial institutions that had signed up for the deal.

      The story is that the money was paid back with interest but it set the stage fr the crony capitalism we live with today,

    3. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      @ MikeK – thank you for this. I keep saying that Bush’s major errors were believing Putin, who soon screwed him over about Iraq, and trying to appease Democrats with Medicare D and NCLB. But his handling of the financial crisis in the final year does dwarf those, and I keep forgetting. He had done well to that point, trying to re-regulate a distorted mortgage industry, supported ny McCain and John Sununu, apparently the only US Senator capable of doing arithmetic in 2006. It failed and the Democrats took over, leading to the 2008 recession. Bush doubled down on bad decisions and reverted to cronyism, as you correctly note. For the record, I fault the Democrats more, but Bush earned the disapproval he got.

      As for Orban, he has real flaws, has real prejudices, and leaps to conclusions. Still, he gets re-elected because Hungarians believe he cares about them rather than his reputation among other European heads of state and they are right. He attracts a lot of bad actors, but liberals, perhaps European liberals in particular fail to understand that the “populists” see through the charade. Yes, the rightists and nationalists can be violent in rhetoric and even action – but those who make excuses for the invaders and enable them are just as violent, and worse. Those just don’t get their own hands dirty, letting others do it for them, tsk, tsk.

    4. MIke L Says:

      Yes AVI, thanks and Bannon gets into some of that in his video interviews. The Tucker Carlson one is the best I’ve seen for explaining where Trump game from.

      As for Orban, he has real flaws, has real prejudices, and leaps to conclusions.

      The same could be said for Trump but he is the only one to offer a solution. I’m not sure he can make it.

      He is very alone in DC which is why I think he keeps his kids around him. They are not always the best advisors, and they were then ones who fired Lewandowski and hired Manafort.

      I know he is not Lincoln but the comparison comes to mind. I read “Team of Rivals” years ago. It is by far the best book she wrote.

    5. Tatyana Says:

      Haven’t listened @ the link, I have no opinion of Bannon’s merit/ argument.
      As to Hungary, I spent there almost 2 weeks of last year vacation.

      A backward country, living off percentage of their glamorous imperial history. Remnants of Soviet bloc past everywhere, from neglected countryside to shabby national railroad to – and what was most striking to me – people’s attitude. Budapest resembles crudely made-up film prop fit for tourist trade: freshly stuccoed and painted buildings in historic center; municipally-organized and paid murals on blind walls and one poster synagogue in former Jewish quarter (naturally, cleansed of Jews), renovated facades and internal courtyards for the curious tourists – and mess, dirt and trash inside the stairwells. “Thai Massage Salons” are everywhere, even next block to famous belle epoque Opera Theater. In short, it’s a Potemkin City.

      Practically nothing new, modern, contemporary is built (except one metro line with amazingly engineered stations). A lot of people told me there is precious little work in the country, certainly none for the young. A popular success model (just like in Portugal and Poland, or in Mexico) is to work as a “gastarbeiter” in other European countries, especially Italy, Austria and Germany, sending money home to save for buying a house or a small business. There are no manufacturing industries to speak of (which is a shame, knowing extremely high reputation of Hungarian engineering used to have even in Soviet times, see Icarus buses f.i.) In short, Hungary made a sad impression.

    6. Mike K Says:

      In short, Hungary made a sad impression.

      All the more reason they don’t want migrants who will drain the welfare system, such as it is.

    7. Bill Brandt Says:

      I am enjoying this interview. It’s funny the main stream media has portrayed Steve Bannon as a radical right wing nut job but he seems pretty rational to me. As far as politically attend a modern-day Lee Atwater.

      Politically at the time I did feel that Brexit and Trump we’re related and ban invalidates that.

    8. Tatyana Says:

      Mike, I applaud Orban’s efforts to safeguard his country from Muslim occupiers, his resistance to pressure from EU (particularly, Germany) and his kicking out Soros university.
      However, as you noted he has been at the top of power structure for 20+ yrs, he is a popular politician; it has been almost 30 yrs since the fall of East European Socialist bloc. And what did the country achieved in all these years? Precious little.

    9. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      @ Tatyana – two of my sons are from Transylvania and I have been in and out of Budapest a bit. It does trade on its previous charm of old, but what else has it got? I don’t know much about the Hungarian economy, but what you describe is true of Romania as well. People work abroad and build a house or small business back home with the money they make there. This gives them a leg up at home, but the pickings are still slim. I remember Romania in the 90s and 00s when the government would go back between essential fascists and essential communists. Some judges are still left over from before the Revolution, and it is hard to get anything done. The communist destruction included a lot of infrastructure, personal character, and culture. I don’t know how they climb out, with very little to sell internationally.

    10. Doug Jones Says:

      I can confidently predict that the phrase “20-20 hindsight” will be utterly done to death.

    11. Tatyana Says:

      AVI,
      And what Japan or Korea had after the War? It was harder for them to “climb out”, develop their product and sell it internationally, but they did it in less than 30 yrs. Besides, let’s look at other small countries, with similar history – f.i., Czechs and Slovaks; for some reason, they have used the time productively. Or look at Baltic countries; or at Slovenia – I went there after Hungary and my, what a contrast.

      Romania should not be compared to Hungary. Hungary is much more developed, historically, and they have much higher intellectual capital, traditions of educated professions and network of high-skilled manufacturing. Romania is still mostly agrarian.

      What I am saying, is best proof is in the pudding. What good is in having a “right-thinking” power structure, if they have very little to show for their efforts?

    12. Mike K Says:

      And what did the country achieved in all these years? Precious little.

      They start from scratch. A friend of mine, a Hungarian refugee from the 1956 revolution, came to California and was an engineer. When the communists fell, he went back. I think he had some family property which was restored. He is retirement age but has plenty of free market skills to help people get an economy going. I kept hoping that Cuba would throw the Castros out but no luck. they seem to have another generation to keep the economy dread

    13. OBloodyHell Says:

      I think the failure worked out with blame about so:

      60% Dems
      25% GOP
      10% Greedy Banks (not all were)
      5% Greedy Home Buyers

      The GOP’s failures were failures of omission. There were things they could have done (esp. until 2006) but did not step up and push solutions.

      The Dem’s failures were utter and absolute failures of commission. They created the problems, then obstructed the solutions.

      This is the Bush era officials attempting to call attention to the problems, and the wide array of dems blowing them off.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzCG80Wz4mg

    14. Mike K Says:

      I had those videos on may own blog at one time and then they expired. That is the story and I don’t want to sound racist but there is a sort of cabal in Congress and the speculative buying of homes with the intention of flipping them by people who had no credit.

      My ex-wife worked in the S&L industry for a while, then for the RTC which resolved a bunch of failed S&L loans in the 80s. The Fannie/Freddie scandal was similar but had more juice in Congress as there was a sort of racial connection between those Congress people and Raines, who its also black.

      Then there was James Johnson, who had no background in the financial industry but lots of politics.

      Johnson worked in the unsuccessful presidential campaigns of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, and George McGovern and 1972.[1]

      From 1977 to 1981 he was executive assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale during the entire Carter Administration.

      In 1981, Johnson co-founded Public Strategies, a private consulting firm, with diplomat Richard Holbrooke.[3] He headed the firm until 1985. During that time, he was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale’s failed 1984 presidential bid. From 1985 to 1990, he was a managing director with Lehman Brothers.

      In 1990, Johnson became vice chairman of Fannie Mae, or the Federal National Mortgage Association, a quasi-public organization that guarantees mortgages for millions of American homeowners.[ In 1991, he was appointed chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae,[3] a position he held until 1998.

      Both GSEs were political creatures and both held the throttle wide open during the housing boom of the 90s, which ended with 2008.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.