RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://us7.campaign-archive.com/?e=a9fdc67db9&u=9d011a88d8fe324cae8c084c5&id=f3d8e605f3

With a radical far-leftist in serious contention for the presidency in our upcoming election, it is worthwhile to check in on the record of leftism and socialism in other countries.

It so happens that pretty much every country to our South in the Western Hemisphere has a long history of some variety of leftist/socialist politics. With a few exceptions here and there, when there has been an election in Latin America in my lifetime, the winning strategy has been to run against the “Yanqui imperialists” and advance a program of “social justice” and redistribution. Particular policies vary from country to country, but the usual playbook includes such things as massive government intervention in the economy, government ownership of major companies (starting with the energy industry), central planning, requirements of multiple licenses and permits to start any business, and many more such.

Recent elections have continued or returned leftists to power in all but one of the most important countries — Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Chile. (The exception is Argentina, which elected a non-leftist President in late 2023; it is too early there to see any meaningful economic results, so I will leave it out of this discussion.) The next tier of countries has it as bad or worse. In Venezuela the current head of a 25 year old socialist regime apparently just lost an election by a 2-1 margin, but he refuses to release the vote tallies, and hangs on to power while his opponent has fled into exile. In Bolivia a socialist party (MAS) has hung on since 2006 through a disputed election and getting the courts to abolish term limits. There are many other such examples from smaller countries. And then, of course, there is Cuba.

How has all of this worked out?

Overall, the countries of Latin America have a shockingly bad and indeed inexcusable record of economic failure.

https://vinnews.com/2024/09/16/screenshots-of-alleged-affidavit-of-abc-whistleblower-revealed-accusing-moderators-of-rigging-debate/

Journalist Kyle Becker, a former Fox News producer, re-posted screenshots of a document on X, claiming to be an alleged affidavit signed by a whistleblower ABC employee.

According to the images (see below) shared by Becker and several other online reporters and Trump supporters, the whistleblower is accusing Kamala Harris’ campaign of ‘instructing’ the ABC debate moderators to ask and avoid certain questions, and there was an agreement that they would fact-check only Trump but not Kamala.

Here are the allegations:

1. Kamala Harris allegedly received sample or similar questions in advance of the debate.
2. The Harris administration allegedly prevented ABC from questioning Joe Biden’s health.
3. They reportedly blocked inquiries into allegations against Kamala Harris’s brother-in-law, accused of embezzling billions in taxpayer money.
4. ABC employees are said to be fearful of potential retribution from Trump.
5. The whistleblower claims to have secret recordings proving the Harris administration pressured moderators to fact-check Trump.
6. ABC was allegedly instructed on which questions to avoid during the debate with Kamala Harris.

According to Becker’s post, the “ABC News whistleblower swears under penalty of perjury that the Kamala Harris campaign dictated the terms of the questions during the presidential debate.

“Furthermore, the Harris campaign insisted upon live “fact checking” of Donald Trump during the debate. ABC News “fact checked” Trump at least five times and did not fact check Harris once, despite the Democratic candidate telling provable lies, such as the “fine people hoax” and the ‘bloodbath’ hoax.”

“The whistleblower signed the affidavit in New York and has sent a copy to Speaker Mike Johnson, the notarized document states.

“The unnamed individual states that he or she is in possession of secret recordings that will prove that ABC News rigged the presidential debate.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4878880-recession-october-surprise-election

Could a recession be the October surprise that changes the election outlook?  

It would be bad news for Kamala Harris. The economy, as always, is the top issue for voters, and a further jump in unemployment, which has already bounced up to 4.2 percent from 3.7 percent this year, would not help her chances of winning.  

It would certainly be a surprise, because investors and economists today are almost unanimous believing we are in for a “soft landing.” The betting is that the Federal Reserve will manage to bring interest rates down and continue the push to reduce inflation, all while avoiding a recession.

The problem is that that has almost never happened. 

Even ISI Evercore’s Ed Hyman, who has been warning of a downturn for more than a year, has thrown in the towel. Over the last couple of years, Hyman has been on the lookout for a recession, citing an inverted yield curve, declining leading indicators and, of course, rising interest rates.   

Hyman has been ranked the No.1 economist by Wall Street for 43 of the last 48 years. He has earned that astonishing distinction by being right more than wrong, and also by responding to incoming data by updating his forecasts. That is what he is doing now, and he is doing so reluctantly. 

Hyman recently wrote to clients: “History and experience say to stick with a hard landing outlook. However, the hard math that our team has reviewed says flip to a soft landing outlook.” But he doesn’t sound entirely convinced: “To say this is a difficult decision is an understatement. It feels like a bold moment to go soft landing.”