As we head into the final stages of the the US 2016 presidential election, one has to wonder: Does it matter at all who wins? And what are the implications for equities and gold?
James Grant discusses election and equity questions Fed is Now Hostage to Wall Street.
James Grant, Wall Street expert and editor of the investment newsletter Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, warns of a crash in sovereign debt, is puzzled over the actions of the Swiss National Bank and bets on gold.
Mr. Grant warns of today’s reckless hunt for yield and spots one of the biggest risks in government debt. He’s also scratching his head over the massive investments which the Swiss National Bank undertakes in the US stock market.
Interview Snips
Question: For more than three decades Grant’s has been observing interest rates. Is there anything left to be observed with rates this low?
Grant: Interest rates may be almost invisible but there is still plenty to observe. I observe that they are shrinking and that the shrinkage is causing a lot of turmoil because people in need of income are in full hot pursuit of what little of yields remains.
Question: What are the consequences of that?
Grant: It reminds me of the great Victorian English journalist Walter Bagehot. He once said that John Law can stand anything but he can’t stand 2%, meaning that very low interest rates induced speculation and reckless investing and misallocation of capital. So I think Bagehot’s epigraph is very timely today.
Question: John Law was mainly responsible for the great Mississippi bubble which caused a chaotic economic collapse in France in the early 18th century. How is the story going to end this time?
Grant: It will turn out to be very bad for many people. If Swiss insurance and reinsurance executives are reading this right now they might be rolling their eyes and they might be frustrated to hear an American scolding from a distance of 3000 miles about the risk of chasing yield. After all, if you’re in the business of matching long term liabilities with long term assets you have little choice but to wish for a better, more sensible world. But you have to take the world as it is and today’s world is barren of interest income. The fact is, that these are very risk fraught times
Question: Where do you see the biggest risks?
Grant: Sovereign debt is my nomination for the number one overvalued market around the world. You are earning nothing or less than nothing for the privilege of lending your money to a government that has pledged to depreciate the currency that you’re investing in. The central banks of the world are striving to achieve a rate of inflation of 2% or more and you are lending certainly at much less than 2% and in many cases at less than nominal 0%. The experience of losing money is common in investing. But where is the certitude of loss even before your check clears? That’s the situation with sovereign debt right now.
Question: It’s now already two years ago since the ECB was the first major central bank to introduce negative rates.
Grant: There are some other historical settings: In Europe, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, this 500 and plus year old bank in Italy, is struggling and as broke as you can be without being legally broke. Monte dei Paschi has survived for half a millennium and now it is on the ropes. Meanwhile, the Bank of England is doing things today that it has never done in its history which is 300 plus years. So I suggest that these are at least interesting times and in many respects unprecedented ones.
Question: So what’s the true meaning of all this?
Grant: In finance, mostly nothing is ever new. Human behavior doesn’t change and money is a very old institution and so are our markets. Of course, techniques evolve, but mostly nothing is really new. However, with respect to interest rates and monetary policy we are truly breaking new ground.
Question:Now central bankers are even talking openly about helicopter money. Will they really go for it?
Grant: I already hear the telltale of beating rotor blades in the sky. I also hear the tom-toms of fiscal policy being pounded. There seems to be some kind of a growing consensus that monetary policy has done what it can do and that what me must do now – so say the «wise ones» – is to tax and spend and spend and spend. That seems to be the new big idea in policy. In any case, it is not good for bondholders.
Question: Interestingly, nobody seems to be talking about the growing government debt anymore. Also, budget politics are just a side note in the ongoing presidential elections.
Grant: The trouble with this election is that somebody has to win it. I have no use for Donald Trump but I have equally no use for Hillary Clinton. The point is that one of those two is going to win. That is the tragedy! So we at Grant’s regret that one of them is going to win.
Question: So what are investors supposed to do in these bizarre financial markets?
Grant: I’m very bullish on gold and I’m very bullish on gold mining shares. That’s because I think that the world will lose faith in the PhD standard in monetary management. Gold is by no means the best investment. Gold is money and money is sterile, as Aristotle would remind us. It does not pay dividends or earn income. So keep in mind that gold is not a conventional investment. That’s why I don’t want to suggest that it is the one and only thing that people should have their money in. But to me, gold is a very timely way to invest in monetary disorder.
Monetary Disorder
Put me in the bullish on gold camp.
As Grant says, someone must win. Unfortunately, there is no choice for “none of the above’.
Better yet would be a choice “no one at all!”
Finally, please pay particular attention to Grant’s final interview statement: “But to me, gold is a very timely way to invest in monetary disorder.”
That has been my position for decades.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
“The trouble with this election is that somebody has to win it. I have no use for Donald Trump but I have equally no use for Hillary Clinton.”
Equally? Really? “No use” for a candidate is one thing but to have “no use” for a serial criminal running a massive shakedown racket out of the State Dept. is quite a bit different.
As much has I have had tremendous respect for Mr. Grant over the decades, I found this remark a cop out – almost delusional.
My fear in reading this is that he indeed afraid of telling the truth because unlike Trump, getting on Hitlery’s bad side could be a “swims with the fishy’s” moment.
BTW Did you see the headline that the FBI Vince Foster files held at the National Archives have disappeared? The files reportedly document how Hitlery drove the man (or should I say her consigliere?) over the edge with her crass rantings.
People have forgot to ask the obvious, where was Sandy Burglar at the time of the disappearance? (Another Clinton elitist who missed jail time.)
“BTW Did you see the headline that the FBI Vince Foster files held at the National Archives have disappeared?”
A few months ago Trump said the VF suicide was “fishy”. So, I decided to do some checking. Trump was right. Something was “fishy” about it … and I’m referring to the investigation. Do you realize there was an appendix to the Starr report? Well, it seems the lead investigator (now a US Attorney) didn’t arrive at the same conclusion as Starr. Starr fought to not include the appendix, but a federal 3 judge panel said had to include.
Had trouble finding the appendix …. plenty of sources (including Washington Post) had the original report, but no appendix (wtf?). Found it online through Michigan State University.
Read the entire appendix. Basically, refuted the entire Starr report.
Here’s the link:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293012495986
Very interesting. However, from what I’ve read on this issue, my impression is that the Clintons would have no motive even remotely serious enough to have him killed nor would they even dare to do so. According to Vince Foster’s family and friends, his mood had changed for the worse after getting publicly humiliated by the Hildabeast.
I suspect that Foster was visiting the park perhaps for the same reason that the witness was visiting the park (just because the witness has a girlfriend proves nothing about his sexuality), that reason being something other than “relieving his bladder” and was killed there. Or, perhaps, Foster was killed elsewhere while involved in the same sort of activity, was moved to the park by someone who would know that that sort of activity took place there, who then tried to make it look like a suicide or a murder in the park. Veteran crime reporter Dan Moldea’s investigation revealed that, “Foster had some blond hair and carpet fibers on his suit jacket, and he had semen in his underwear.”
The FBI would be not only be attempting to cover that up but, primarily, any association with Hildabeast’s treatment of him since this really looks like a murder and not a suicide. It’s was the time proximity of Foster’s dressing down by the Hildabeast and his murder that they’re trying to hide, not because the Clintons had anything to do with it, but that it would be presented by some as them having it done.
That’s what I think having first read anything in detail about this issue only this morning, so I could easily be drawing the wrong conclusions. Bottom line though, from what little I do know, I don’t see anything remotely serious enough for anyone to kill Vince Foster, let alone the Clintons.
I think the quote from Hillary may be appropriate for this election, i.e., “What difference at this point does it make?”.
You could elect Ludwig Von Mises and it would not help, with a worldwide debt supercycle reaching (or beyond) the point of full extension.
What can be done about it?
Probably nothing except inflate the problem away (good case for having some gold).
Or, equally likely, a global monetary reset (as suggested as a high probability by Jim Rickards in his book “The Death of Money”) … (also a good case for having some gold).
And, with a “deep state” of entrenched bureaucrats, along with a congress full of the best politicians that money can buy, it will more than likely not matter who is elected … neither one will be able to offer any real solutions (with the hope of getting them passed, anyway).
Hillary will likely make things worse. Trump is an unknown quantity.
“Trump is an unknown quantity.”
But he does have a 50 year track record in business, the majority of which have been successful – including international ventures which require a high degree of acumen and political discretion to pull off. (Who BTW only became a “racist” when he decided to run against a Democrat. ie he was not an unknown quantity in race relations, he was well liked for his efforts and minority job creation.)
On the flip-side, we have a serial lying criminal who clearly used her office a Sec’t of State as a shakedown racket that would make the mafia envious.
The dichotomy is so extreme: A globalist, bankster supported, Criminal, mob boss or reputable businessman, author, entertainer, father etc who is outspoken and abrasive when he wants to be often to drive a point and he pushing up the globalist agenda that has raped the US economy. Perot’s “giant sucking sound.”
And yes we are insolvent…if GAPP accounted on forward liabilities – worse. Trump can use the “bully-pulpit” to rollover Washington just as he did to all of his Republican opponents like a surgeon using a baseball bat.
Major structural changes are needed… Crisis does not have to be the forced solution.
You’re parroting the media’s meme.
The Old Testament states that in 600 BC, during the rein of King Nebuchadnezzar’s, a loaf of bread was worth 350 loafs of bread to one ounce of gold.
This is still valid here in Oslo, Norway. NOK 31 for a quality loaf of bread worthy our king Harald. So one ounce of gold gives you 350 loafs of bread at your bakery here in Oslo.
Interest rates are so tiny that the brilliant Mr Grant can´t observe them any longer.
The problems are there for everybody to see, yet the “élite” wants more of the same.
George Carlin;“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
George Carlin;“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” – Lars
Quote of the day
That should be the median person. Half the people might not be less intelligent than the average person.
Yes, it could be worse than we can imagine.
Will it get better? The creator of Idiocracy recently said his movie was not meant to be a documentary.
The scene sums things up – consistent with your point…
I’m for Trump all the way, but economically I don’t see a difference between Trump and Hil. There is political consensus for extend and pretend and that is what we shall have.
I am slowly coming to the conclusion the crisis will not be in the sov debt markets, but just in the currency markets, and frankly that’s what CBs want. With CBs backstopping the sov debt market how can it collapse ? That’s why the JGB short trade has been the widowmaker for the last decade or so.
Just take a look at what happened after the Brexit vote. GBP dropped 10-15%. The only real losers so far have been fx-unhedged foreign owners of UK treasuries.
The only reason to buy negative interest rate treasuries is either because you are so fearful of leaving your money in a bank that you are happy to pay for the privilege; or because you are a foreign trade surplus creating country with a fixed exchange rate and need to hold down your currency (China/Saudi/Germany….).
The SNB policy actually seems a pretty sensible one, and is better than the costly euro bonds they previously bought to try and stem the appreciation of the CHF. Frankly I have previously suggested they should have been printing and importing foreign owned Gold to halt this insanity, and global currency manipulation, but buying Apple shares with conjured money seems just as sensible.
The crisis happened in 2008. It will be another 70 years before we see the next one.
The problem today is that there is no way to get free money. I can’t just trade federal reserve notes for Treasury bonds and get free federal reserve notes.
“Investing” today is just a roll of the dice in a casino. The only way to make money is to take enormous risks. And very, very few people are willing to do that in a deflationary economy.
What we are seeing with Trump and Sanders is a reflection of this situation. Hope is deflating. Folks don’t have confidence their children will live better than they did. Folks don’t have confidence their pensions will be there.
That’s a possibility, but actually they tend to come once a generation. Also, they last much longer than a single year. The crash of 1929 was followed by about 13 years that were not good, with the stock market low coming 4 years later. A generation later the stock market peaked on an inflation-adjusted basis in 1966, and didn’t hit bottom until 1982, a period of 16 years. On an inflation adjusted basis, this time the peak came in 2000, and we are at year 16 now. The worst may be over, or we may yet have one more bottom to make before it’s over.
In either case, there is always a crisis, i.e. a crash, when a generation hits their 40 or so, though it tends to be getting later. For the baby boom of 1890, the crisis came at age 39, in 1929. For the boom of 1920 the peak came when they hit 46. For the boom that peaked in 1958, the peak came when they hit 42 (and i think came a bit early because of the y2k situation). By extrapolation, when the baby boom of 1991 hits 44 or so, we should see the next one, or about 2035.
Interesting information. Thanks.
I wonder how many people are now in this market that really do not belong in it due to being unable to get any return on savings. I think that’s going to be the most tragic aspect of this market melting down, people are going to lose money they should of never invested in the first place
Yes, and some who were afraid to invest in stocks after seeing what happened in 2008, are instead invested in junk bonds because the safe Treasuries and CDs etc., are yielding nearly zero.
But the ending for those poor bastards is going to be the same as investing in stocks… 🙁
“I wonder how many people are now in this market that really do not belong in it due to being unable to get any return on savings.”
I wonder how much pension funds will lose in major any major market correction.
The World’s Biggest Pension Fund Is Switching to Stocks
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-15/biggest-pension-fund-has-reasons-to-buy-japan-stocks-sell-bonds
China’s pension fund may start buying stocks this year, China Daily reports
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/27/chinas-pension-fund-may-start-buying-stocks-this-year-china-daily-reports.html
Seems like the world economy is setting up for the “perfect storm”.
It would seem that govt desperation goes hand in hand with monetary disorder, which could also mean bail-ins and confiscation of gold (again), no?
The great distraction to financial chaos used by the psychos in power has always been WAR. The Rothschild history is replete with examples. So it really doesn’t matter if Trump or Hillary wins, WAR is already baked into the cake. The drumbeat of anti-Putin propaganda is stark evidence, as is the latest round of “the hackers must be Russian” to cast blame on the cyber warfare directed at the DNC and many government institutions.
So, gold will rise, and rise dramatically; just don’t sell at the beginning; you’ll be truly pissed if you sold at $5k and it goes to $200k. You will need to wait for the inevitable currency reset to provide the monetary benchmark.
“So it really doesn’t matter if Trump or Hillary wins, ”
Yes it does matter, and very much so. The Hildebeast is the War Party candidate, while Donald would sit down and work things out with Putin. Without US & Russia warring against each other there would be no world war, and they might even work together to put down the small wars. Present US (democrat party & neo-con) foreign policy is insane.
There will be monetary reform by the time gold gets to $5K. Going much above this level will be highly unlikely.
Anyone who says they are bullish on gold is just code phrasing that instability and world crisis events are on the way. So what else is new.
Shouldn’t it be obvious that the more important votes cast are for senators and representatives?
Yes, but states are so gerrymandered these days that it is almost impossible to vote out an incumbent.
“Shouldn’t it be obvious that the more important votes cast are for senators and representatives?”
It should be, but congress doesn’t represent the people- it represents Mylan Pharmaceuticals. Mylan CEO Heather Bresch is the daughter of Senator Joe Manchin.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-24/congress-prepares-crackdown-epipen-price-increases-problem-has-emerged
Seems more like shorting CB/govt credibility than investing in monetary disorder – tactically an important distinction. Not sure why – perhaps because everyone’s been herded into a corner and now realizing they’re trapped.
The louder prominent financial people in MSM beat the “buy gold” drums, the faster you should run in the other direction.
On the one hand Steve Keen says gold is not money it is a speculative asset. On the other hand I look at a chart like SSRI and I’m damn tempted to join the speculators. Fear and Greed are powerful emotions.
Steve Keen is right. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a great investment in times of crisis, if only because a lot of well-heeled people think it is. But like everything, it is subject to timing.
Steve Keen is an idiot. I’m not sure why Mish seems to like the guy; apart from the agreement on some issues concerning debt, the two have nothing in common.
Keen is a hard-core socialist, for whom the obvious solution to everything is more government intervention. He was also one of the very few economists who wrote an open letter to the Australian government back in 2008, praising the politicians for their “stimulus package”, which blew massive amounts of money on, amongst other things, $900 cheques to everybody, including many residents of cemeteries, and ridiculously overpriced and badly managed housing insulation program, which resulted in the burning down of over 200 houses and the deaths of several people.
As I say, Keen is a an academic high IQ moron, and best ignored.
I like some of the Keen but his theory on money has giant holes in it. He’s stuck on the idea the supply must expand, i.e. debase, to support economic growth. Specie has been money for a very long time, without the need to debase. Makes you think economics was popularized as a way to sell debasement as good for the health. Funding wars is what debasement is actually quite good at. He also dismisses the importance of establishing trust in order for a double entry accounting system to operate as money. Trust is established with the ability to freely redeem in a debasement resistant form.
As a math modeler Keen correctly IMO models the system we have now. Most economists by comparison get the model horribly wrong. What comes out of that correct model is interesting complex behavior very similar to what we have seen historically. It’s also revealed that private debt is very important as a macroeconomic variable. What is missing from the model so far is detailed intervention by government. Also missing so far is any detailed description of how bank lending can be both wise and idiotic and how it matters which behavior we encourage. But Keen’s models reveal that just the constraints of double entry book keeping plus the simplest and quite reasonable assumptions about how banks and firms behave produces vast complexity of system behavior that smells correct qualitatively. Many here want to adopt new versions of capitalism than the one we have now like 100% reserve banking and so on. I think Keen’s view on those is: Ok state the new rules of such a new economy and he can run a simulation of that too. He’s done that for 100% reserve banking and such an economy cannot grow without constant capital injection from govt deficit spending. Since new risk capital has to come from somewhere (it cannot come from savings in aggregate) and there is only two places it can come from, govt deficits or lending by private banks, our choices are simple. IMO this is Keen’s contribution. He has replaced nonsensical emotional arguments over policy with a more rational approach much better moored in reality. He has his personal opinions about paths foward seasoned by his own concepts of fairness but really he is quite circumspect about this. His frustration is status quo economists refuse to adopt his basic rational approach to dynamical analysis. Me too.
Keen believes that he, not the free market knows what GDP and money supply targets ought to be. He doesn’t. His debt jubilee fixes no fundamental problems in either the US or Europe. His view on unions is complete silliness.
Mish
I don’t see where he says anything about setting GDP or money supply policy targets once we get out of this mess. I do agree he doesn’t think markets will automatically correct once private debt reaches crisis proportions. We then need intervention by government to reduce total private debt. I think he says once that’s accomplished just keep total private debt around 80% of GDP and prevent banks from lending to asset flippers and price speculators and we can expect pretty good rates of wealth creation by free market capitalism. Seems reasonable and very Mish like to me. So the issue remains how to reduce total private debt. I say get it over with aggressively now rather than have lost generations and I choose jubilee type currency debasement over truly devastating austerity and bankruptcy.
I should elaborate on why new societal venture capital cannot come from private savings. It was Schumpeter who said: Hmmm. You have firms, you have banks, and you have labor. Each of these sectors has a balance sheet and between sectors money flows net to zero. That is, one man’s income is another man’s expense, and in aggregate firms income comes from spending by labor and income of labor is an expense of firms. So all the money flows are fully accounted for in this balance sheet economy. Question: how does anything new ever get built or funded? Schumpeter concluded that for something new to get created someone had to “go first” and fund that activity, and that person or sector had to have the power to cheat the rules of double entry accounting. Because he was a banker Schumpeter realized that agent in practice was the banks who he knew were lending new money they did not have in deposits into existence as funding for entrepreneurs to undertake risky new ventures. I ask everyone here to cogitate on this and realize it’s true and correct. I think this will help move the debate forward on how our system really works, how our economy really grows, how it gets into trouble with bank credit, and what we should do about it.
Synopsis false.
It implies the wheel would never have been invented.
Oh. Keen makes it very clear it was a bad idea to get ourselves in the current massive debt overhang situation we are trapped in. Keen does not advocate relentless currency dilution. Far from it, he advocates stable moderate total private debt and credit creation by private banks sufficient to expand real economic output at least sufficient to give stable prices. I really can’t see how this makes him a crank.
The wheel was not invented under our version of capitalism. What was the rate of growth of real wealth under that system? Pretty darn slow compared to post capitalist era. You’re making my point. Credit based capitalism was itself a game changing innovation.
Duh, Gary Johnson is the obvious “none of the above” candidate. It saddens me that he gets no attention from the media (or even this blog, since Mish has been such a big Libertarian supporter in the past).
That is true about Gary, but if you really want to vote against Donald or the Hildebeast you have to vote for the other. No question in my mind as to which candidate is the worst.
Voting for Gary Johnson is a vote against the current two party system. Which is a fair vote. I could not in good conscience vote for either Trump or Clinton. But I’m deeply opposed to Libertarian ideology so I can’t vote for Johnson either. I’m stuck with Jill Stein. Though there is a lot of wackiness there too.
I am curious as to which parts of Libertarian ideology you are deeply opposed to.
Are you opposed to ~
Reducing the size of government?
Restoring personal responsibility/liberty? (they go together)
The anti-aggression/anti-war part?
Ending the War on (some) Drugs?
Full on with the anti-war and anti-war on drugs. Best parts of the Libertarian doctrine.
However, where Libertarians go off-base is confusing liberty with license. The fact that I can do something doesn’t mean I should. Because I can increase the price of an Epi-Pen to $600 doesn’t mean I should. Government has a very specific role, and that is to protect the commons. That includes air, water, land and health for the future.
And here is my argument against Libertarianism: You might agree with everything I just said, and say Libertarianism isn’t in opposition to any of it. However, actual Libertarian policies must always result in the opposite. That’s because John Galt doesn’t really exist. Unfettered capitalism (liberty) must end in a race to the bottom. And government is the only force that can oppose that.
However, Libertarian opposition to any government regulation (interference with liberty) must lead to the degradation of society over the generations. Which, in large part, is why we are where we are today. Outsourced manufacturing, busted unions, stagnating wages.
Couple of extra thoughts:
1. Humans did not evolve as rugged individualists. Humans evolved to work together in relatively small groups (tribes) and to share the load and rewards.
2. Libertarians rail against government but property is purely a creation of government. You cannot have private property without government. You cannot secure private property without handing government the right to violence. Therefore, Libertarianism is logically self-contradictory. And I don’t like that.
I could go on ad-nauseum. But I am a big believer in personal responsibility also. Though I see that as a fundamental of conservatism, not Libertarianism.
Jon, like most people opposed to Libertrianism, you do not understand it. They are not against most of the things you think they are against. If people want to work in groups that is their right. Of course the government must protect property, Libertarians completely agree, as well as punishing criminals. Libertarians are absolutely not against all government regulations, some regs are necessary to prevent harm to others which is a basic tenant of Libertarianism. I’ll bet you would agree that we have way too many regulations.
I cannot count the times I have found that people confuse anarchism with Libertarianism.
BTW followers of Ayn Rand philosophy are called Objectivists. They are similar but not the same. We could discuss this at length but I don’t like real long commentaries.
CJ,
I understand Libertarianism. I also understand Objectivism. I also understand that some government regs are ridiculous.
I also understand that some gov regs are fundamentally necessary to the proper operation of a capitalist society that works in the best interests of the “General Welfare” and not just the liberty (license) of the few.
Regardless, I’ve appreciated your thoughtful comments on Mish’s site here. I am happy to agree to disagree.
Based on your last comment, it seemed to me like we are more in agreement. There may be a minor disagreement about how many regs are necessary for a free capitalist society to function, but that is something Libertarians debate constantly.
Yesterday on Fox, Johnson basically said he is for open boarders, saying anyone that wants to come here should be allowed to, as they are only doing what we would do. Sounds like Merkel, who is destroying Europe.
He also believes global warming is man made and their should be a fee on carbon – http://www.infowars.com/dear-gary-johnson-there-is-no-free-market-carbon-tax/. Sounds like looney Bernie.
Worst of all, he has no plan for the biggest govt spending problem – healthcare. Absolutely nothing on his website.
I do like his call for term limits, but CONgress, a house full of career politicians, will never vote for it, which is exactly why de facto term limits is needed (vote out EVERY incumbent and anyone that has ever held office before, every election).
I have voted for Libertarian candidates a few times but I don’t like G. Johnson very much. In defense of his stance to have government force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for nazi’s celebrating Hitler’s birthday he said, “but the baker would not be forced to decorate it”. His number one issue is the War On Some Drugs. I think he’s toked one doobie too many.
I have made serious money trading gold especially in presidential election years. This changed in 2008 and currently I am out of gold. Some years I doubled my money investing in election years.
I cashed out at the last high 1371 I believe. I am still bullish up to the elections. I will cash out just before. Do not take my advice I a not a professional investor. The markets just seem crazy and I feel they are keeping this boat afloat until the elections are over. Then all bets are off. If you look republicans traditionally get a recession handed to them.
Personally call me crazy or a nut job but this election may well cause some serious chaos wither way it goes. Personally I think it will be Clinton as the media is beating Trump to death and he cannot keep his mouth shut. I just cannot vote for Hillary she is a frigging criminal and should be indicted for lying and using a personal server, 3 actually but two were destroyed. She handed over one.
I will most likely vote for local issues and state reps. The presidential election is the laughing stock of the planet especially in most modern industrialized countries. Sad actually.
But there is a “None of the Above” option… http://www.notaparty.net