Drama At The Oval

Last Friday's Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky was ostensibly intended to discuss peace negotiations concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict and to finalize a natural resources agreement.  However the meeting devolved into a heated exchange with Trump accusing Zelensky of being ungrateful and risking global conflict by not pursuing peace with Russia.  Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for discussing policy matter publicly, leading to an abrupt end to the meeting without a signed agreement.  

Naturally, the incident drew significant attention both here and abroad with numerous world leaders expressing support for Zelensky and criticizing President Trump's approach.  Leaders from countries such as Canada, Norway, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and Moldova condemned Trump's remarks and reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russia's invasion.  

Given the contentious nature of the meeting, the choreographed timing of Vance's entry into the fray gives the appearance of not merely a theatrical performance, but a planned public setup.  The first thing that came to mind was the boardroom scene of the Final Episode following another lame season of The Apprentice.  I digress.

The lack of any substantive outcomes and subsequent international reaction seems to imply that the meeting had significant implications beyond just the political theater.  Precisely what they are remains to be revealed.  Is Trump ten moves ahead in a three dimensional chess match; or is he simply chaotic?  You pick.

Nonetheless, I sort of saw it coming; like a slow moving train wreck.  There were earlier signals from Secretary Hegseth,  the US joining both North Korea and Russia in the vote at the United Nations (China abstained), along with Trump's parroting of Kremlin talking points.  I shared with a couple of pals that I figured Trump was going to orchestrate things in a way that Putin would get the whole shebang in the end.  Time will tell.

Does this suggest we've signaled to the world that we're done with 70+ years of transatlantic alliances; trading all of it for an alliance with a ruthless blood-soaked gangster like Vladimir Putin and his rapidly failing Russian state?

Or was this a garden-variety Mafiosi protection racket?  Listen-up youse.  Give us your raw earth minerals, or your dry-cleaning shop, izza gonna burn down, see.

Why does Trump have a hard-on for Putin? 

Why isn't Putin being held to account?

Does Zelensky understand a bad deal is better than a good war?

Judging from the reaction in the cesspool called Face Book, the base is loving the red meat.  Of course the base has also turned a blind eye, or loves, (you pick) the forcible abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.  Similarly, supporters of Ukraine were quick to post their own collection of cut and paste unoriginal memes.  Although I didn't note anyone volunteering to send their children or grandchildren over there to join the fight.

It's too soon and uncertain to know where this takes us.  Although for the first time this year I watched all the Sunday morning talking heads on both sides as White House spokespeople twisted them selves in convoluted knots in an attempt to explain this is ten moves ahead three dimensional chess and not simply chaos.

What I've learned over the years is that Trump means what he says and he closed the Friday drama with this:

This is going to be great television.  I will say that.

 

Thanks for reading and stay-tuned. Hardly a dull moment nowadays. 

Skin In The Game

So here we are; several months since Joe Biden abdicated the throne and Vice President Harris and Governor Walz have turned the election campaign on it's head.  If you watch the polls the democrats have turned the tables in several battle ground states and possibly reversed the trend in others and nationally.  What I would give to be a fly on the wall in Trump or Harris campaign HQ.  But let's not get over our skis -  is this a sugar high, a honeymoon or an implosion?  No way to know for sure.  Besides,  polls have been sketchy the last couple-three national elections; and I happen to believe that the outcome remains a tossup.  So I want to speak to the subject of gambling, or wagering.  

I've touched-upon this subject from time to time; sometimes from the POV of a financial guy and sometimes outright humor.  Back in the first week of June I took a stab at a topic I had been reading-up on and listening about; a subject that I thought was maybe gonna gain some traction - that of actually wagering on US Elections.  With every passing week it seems to be gaining traction now that we have a real competitive campaign.

For some time government regulators with oversight on Wall Street have been trying to clamp down on growing election wagering in the US.  With a completely reconfigured presidential race a tsunami of trading on this fall's election has taken-off.  At the time of the publication of this post, traders (gamblers) favor Harris over Trump.

PredictIt, formerly a largely academic pursuit and now off-shored was witness in July to its busiest wagering volume reaching roughly 120 million contracts - a spike of more than 500% over June.  $1.1 billion has been bet on crypto-based Polymarket since June, according to Dune Analytics, and 88% of that has been political bets on the U.S. election.

Consequently, this has the increased attention of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) who has proposed rule-making that would expressly outlaw wagering of this sort with scattered support in the US Senate.

As a recovering financial guy with almost forty years in the wealth management biz I've seen more than my share of feeding frenzies in the equity, fixed-income, commodities, futures and other derivatives markets; and market bubbles, more often-than not, end badly.  After-which seasoned veterans, put on their boots, roll-up their sleeves, slip-on their autopsy gloves and sift thru the bloody detritus of mostly novice online traders who got themselves slaughtered chasing phantom profits.

Markets always correct.

Nevertheless, none of this is outlawed or banned.  Financial markets are regulated and there is ample opportunity for the unguided to squander their savings on dreams, brass rings or Pumpkins and Mice.  The CFTC needn't ban wagering on election outcomes as much as they might regulate them with reasonable guardrails just like any other market. 

The UK has grappled with their own tempest in a teapot with the revelation that some conservative members of parliament got caught placing bets on the timing of their recent snap election.  Did it impact the July 4th outcome?  Who knows?  Considering the level of outrage when this got found-out it's entirely possible.  Should politicians be barred from betting on elections?  Or allowed to do so at their own political peril?  

A week and a half ago, a federal judge cleared the way for Americans to place bets on the outcome of congressional elections via a prediction-market startup.  A ruling that may potentially expand further legalized wagers on elections in this country.

Wagering requires bettors to put their money where their mouth is.  Betting markets may be useful when politics are chaotic.  With skin in the game facts displace misinformation.  

We got a game-on folks....

You're Fired!

Last Sunday we got together with a couple of neighbors to grill out before the Graham Nash performance.

Naturally, our conversation touched briefly on politics.  My pal shared this.  He postulated that once the DNC concludes their party convention Trump is going to fire JD Vance. 

 

His theory is that Trump is gonna do something singularly Trumpian to shake up his campaign and retake the initiative from candidate Harris.

 

My response was how long before he fires his campaign team. 

 

Having noodled this around my brain for a few days I’m not so sure about firing the team vs. firing Vance. 

 

Considering the topsy-turvy electoral path of the past month maybe the GOP is poised for a coup and a reset?

 

Convention ends tomorrow.  Stay tuned.....

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

Popularly known as DEI.  In the human resources world this includes any policy or initiatives designed to make employees of various backgrounds feel welcome and ensure they have support to perform to the fullest of their abilities in the workplace.  It is also a pejorative in the MAGA universe.

On small battlefields in the Culture War it is social engineering initiatives such as these that are often used to keep the troops in a constant state of turgid arousal and agitation.  For me, not so much.  DEI doesn't set my teeth on edge or make me want to set my hair on fire.  If a business seeks to be successful the path to that end is a happy workplace and workforce.  From a purely political point of view this sort of stuff cuts both ways.  Allow me to explain.

There's been some chatter that Kamala Harris is where she is (she is not yet the official nominee) as a consequence of her being a person of color.   A child of a Jamaican (African) father and Asian (Indian) mother (both university professors) she has brown skin.  Consequently, culture warriors suggest she skipped the line because she has somehow benefited from DEI and thusly her career advances and rise in politics are not meritorious.

Consider this.  JD Vance has a compelling life story.  Scottish-Irish descent, born to a single mother addicted to drugs, raised by a grandmother in an economically disadvantaged community.  A hillbilly.  His life story is impressive; none which would be remarkable if he was raised by an intact middle class household.  If you read his book, or watch the Hollywood movie you would learn that he went to law school on Yale's scholarship program for the economically disadvantaged.  Yup, an elite university's affirmative action program. 

You might also conclude that his meteoric political rise has been a version of political DEI.  Between you and me I happen to believe all veep candidates are chosen for a reason.  That's just how it goes.  Nevertheless, DEI cuts both ways.  And Speaker Johnson has wisely suggested to some of the members of his caucus that they cool their jets on the subject; it's counter-productive.  Moreover, if you think it is a brilliant strategy to suggest that Kamala Harris slept her way to the top you might as well write-off the suburban woman vote and go home.  But I digress.

For the record, I happen to think JD Vance is a smart guy who merited a scholarship.  He is imminently qualified  I also happen to think that Kamala Harris is a smart woman who won three elections:  District Attorney, Attorney General and Senator.  That is meritorious and as a consequence she is imminently qualified.

The last couple of weeks have certainly brightened my political mood.  Biden's exit from the Democratic ticket has sent a disturbance through The Force.  I bought a case of microwave popcorn from the Boy Scouts and have laid-in a stash of Merlot.  Looks like it's gonna be game-on....