Name:   CRD - Subject:   Come on GF Date:   10/23/2016 11:51:27 AM

Fish and Archie,

It Trump's platform is critical of our past and present global trade agreements, ie NAFTA, TPP, to the point of stating that he will work with Congress to revise, renegotiate,  or actually eliminate agreements that are hurtful to the American worker, just what effect would you two say a Trump victory might have on foreign exchange markets?  The currencies of Mexico, Canada, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand all rose in this scenario.  And rightly so.  They are all partners in US Free Trade agreements, those same agreements that Trump has so soundly criticized.  I assume from your posts that you two see nothing wrong with our current trade agreements and how significantly lopsided (not in our favor) they are.  But how would you know where Hillary stands, because she says NOTHING when debating Trump about any of our trade policies.  Even one that her husband championed.

I would tend to agree that in the SHORT TERM, domestic and international economies might be healthier under Clinton than Trump, simply because of Trump's platform for dramatic changes in our trade strategies, tax and monetary policy.  Changes always translate to some degree of market uncertainty.  HRC proposes no dramatic changes from where things have been for the past 8 years.  Common sense would dictate that the lack of immediate uncertainty might very well translate into better numbers for the equity markets.  However, there is nothing in this mass of graphs, formulas and conjecture that project how temporary this affect would be.  I challenge you two to find it.  They base their argument on following a certain set of economic parameters over a very short time period, immediately after the first debate.  Are you kidding me?  That is similar to saying we followed economic numbers immediately following each NFL playoff game involving the Steelers, and finding that they rose with each Steeler victory, can predict that a Steeler Super Bowl victory would lead to domestic and international economic bliss.  Cause and effect?  As much as I would like to believe it, this would be economically debatable.  

As I recall there were 3 debates, ie events, which in my mind CL, may or may not have painted the same picture based upon their identical analysis of the equity market, foreign exchange markets, futures markets etc.  We, at this point, do not know because it has not been published.  But to arrive at your post conclusion that a Trump victory would crush global markets is just not supported in this limited study analyzing market behavior between 9 and 11 pm during ONE presidential debate,  hence my request to pick a conclusion paragraph that is consistent with that view or describes the effects as "crushing".  

One last item CL and Archie.  How do you two reconcile this statement in the conclusion  "...the interests of the owners of large, publicly listed firms are better represented by the Democratic Party".   I thought that these guys were, according to HRC, the ones not paying taxes, the ones not paying their "fair share", the villains who HRC will go after in order to pay for all of her freebies.  So on one hand, she can go out to her sheeple (which I include you two) and say she will fight for the middle class, stick it to those greedy corporations, and then go to those same companies she has derided and say her party represents their interests better than the Republican party.  Which is it?  Truly, her positions publically and privately do differ.  How can you support a chameleon?