Anyone think 2016 will see a major market crash?

[Octavian]

It means the are incentived to go out and loan every last spare dollar and then some.

One thing I have noticed is some Austrians say that loose monetary policy never led to inflation because the banks never lent the dollars (velocity was not there). The reality is that the reason all the things like QE and negative rates are being tried is because the velocity is not there. Weird measures were used because the traditional tools where not there.

I actually don't recall the Austrians saying that. I recall them claiming that expanding the monetary base would lead to hyper inflation. Except, they misunderstood the QE mechanism and how it's a 1 for 1 exchange of financial assets. The most impacting swaps were of bonds that were getting really hurt during the crisis; in that situation it relieved some ugly bonds and in others it actually just relieved the banks of unfairly impaired assets, thereby getting their capital bases back within acceptable levels... but when its tsys for dollars, it's not a very powerful transformation because banks exchange tsys as collateral all day, every day. Remember - never reserve constrained, only capital constrained.

So, I kind of object to the whole "money printing" thing people throw out there - the Fed actually made profit on QE and TARP, so in effect it soaked up capital out of the economy in one sense. They did however inject investable cash into the banks and it in turn went into equities because of the attractive return potential comparatively.

If Austrians have actually accepted the velocity aspect of inflation then its news to me and it shows at least some sort of a metamorphasis in the understanding of fiat currency.

Negative rates are a terrible idea - especially in Europe where the wider economy is so banking centric. If they're literally paying to have reserves yet not charging their deposit base, they're getting squashed in the middle and can't sweep up the interest left over for holding solid yielding sov bonds.

 

[Gandhi]

I actually don't recall the Austrians saying that. I recall them claiming that expanding the monetary base would lead to hyper inflation. Except, they misunderstood the QE mechanism and how it's a 1 for 1 exchange of financial assets. The most impacting swaps were of bonds that were getting really hurt during the crisis; in that situation it relieved some ugly bonds and in others it actually just relieved the banks of unfairly impaired assets, thereby getting their capital bases back within acceptable levels... but when its tsys for dollars, it's not a very powerful transformation because banks exchange tsys as collateral all day, every day. Remember - never reserve constrained, only capital constrained.

So, I kind of object to the whole "money printing" thing people throw out there - the Fed actually made profit on QE and TARP, so in effect it soaked up capital out of the economy in one sense. They did however inject investable cash into the banks and it in turn went into equities because of the attractive return potential comparatively.

If Austrians have actually accepted the velocity aspect of inflation then its news to me and it shows at least some sort of a metamorphasis in the understanding of fiat currency.

Negative rates are a terrible idea - especially in Europe where the wider economy is so banking centric. If they're literally paying to have reserves yet not charging their deposit base, they're getting squashed in the middle and can't sweep up the interest left over for holding solid yielding sov bonds.

I think you are missing my chronology, it was used as an excuse after their predictions did not come true. i.e. QE and other measures did not result in inflation so the fall back was "yes but that is because the banks never lent any of the fund, it sat on their balance sheet as reserves". When the reality is that many of these measures were being used because of hesitancy of the banks to lend these reserves out. I saw this type of thing in "zero hedge", facebook, etc. all the time.

On the negative interest why could they not just buy USA paper for any excess of reserves they can not find reasonable loans for?

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

No. Donald Trump is going to make America great, and by extension the world after he is elected president.

 

[dza76wutang]

Whats the answer, buy put LEAPS?

 

[Octavian]

I think you are missing my chronology, it was used as an excuse after their predictions did not come true. i.e. QE and other measures did not result in inflation so the fall back was "yes but that is because the banks never lent any of the fund, it sat on their balance sheet as reserves". When the reality is that many of these measures were being used because of hesitancy of the banks to lend these reserves out. I saw this type of thing in "zero hedge", facebook, etc. all the time.

Yeah... my understanding was always that the Austrian-school of thought was that expanding the monetary supply was in effect inflation itself... which gets us into the whole definition of inflation issue.

On the negative interest why could they not just buy USA paper for any excess of reserves they can not find reasonable loans for?

Excess reserves are the equivalent inside a bank as excess capital in addition to whatever their coverage is for the various tiers and regulations by the ECB. Really they're just investing whatever fluid capital they have wherever they can. If they've got enough capital in cash equivalents like tsys to satisfy capital requirements, they're likely to park it in higher yielding securities. So to answer you quesiton - yes, they're probably gobbling up higher yielding investment grade paper when they don't have the necessary loan demand. Before negative rates, they were making interest on holding core capital and weren't being charged interest on their reserves - this is a rock and a hard place. Banks make money in higher rate environments because they can expand the lending margin more AND scoop interest off reserves and core capital securities like a 10 year bund.

But remember, it's not that the ECB credits more and more reserves to these banks for no reason or just in excess. The ECB marks a reserve in the banks account at the central bank for the equivalent capital that the bank has on its balance sheet. Otherwise, no bank would ever go out of business because the ECB would just give them more reserves - banks don't lend reserves, they lend capital that's their own or from depositors.

So there's no real money creation here - that only happens when nations implement fiscal stimulus, issue a ton of bonds, get lent money, and then have the ECB or Fed exchange cash to those banks for the bonds. They then of course remit the interest from those bonds back to the central treasuries... quite a nifty process actually. The other little detail here is that one thing that reserve systems do is prevent banks from committing fraud and pretending that there are a few extra zeroes in their capital accounts - if a central bank wasn't there with an equivalent in reserves on the other side of the accounting equation, you'd have a serious problem with your banks.

Again... this problem isn't too far away from the genesis of the Austrians original misunderstanding. This is an aggregate demand issue from the consumer side. The ECB would literally be better off by just dropping off anonymous bags of 10M here and 20M there at train stations for people to happen upon and then spend.... that'd get inflation off the floor faster than negative rates.

 

[Gandhi]

Yeah... my understanding was always that the Austrian-school of thought was that expanding the monetary supply was in effect inflation itself... which gets us into the whole definition of inflation issue.



Excess reserves are the equivalent inside a bank as excess capital in addition to whatever their coverage is for the various tiers and regulations by the ECB. Really they're just investing whatever fluid capital they have wherever they can. If they've got enough capital in cash equivalents like tsys to satisfy capital requirements, they're likely to park it in higher yielding securities. So to answer you quesiton - yes, they're probably gobbling up higher yielding investment grade paper when they don't have the necessary loan demand. Before negative rates, they were making interest on holding core capital and weren't being charged interest on their reserves - this is a rock and a hard place. Banks make money in higher rate environments because they can expand the lending margin more AND scoop interest off reserves and core capital securities like a 10 year bund.

But remember, it's not that the ECB credits more and more reserves to these banks for no reason or just in excess. The ECB marks a reserve in the banks account at the central bank for the equivalent capital that the bank has on its balance sheet. Otherwise, no bank would ever go out of business because the ECB would just give them more reserves - banks don't lend reserves, they lend capital that's their own or from depositors.

So there's no real money creation here - that only happens when nations implement fiscal stimulus, issue a ton of bonds, get lent money, and then have the ECB or Fed exchange cash to those banks for the bonds. They then of course remit the interest from those bonds back to the central treasuries... quite a nifty process actually. The other little detail here is that one thing that reserve systems do is prevent banks from committing fraud and pretending that there are a few extra zeroes in their capital accounts - if a central bank wasn't there with an equivalent in reserves on the other side of the accounting equation, you'd have a serious problem with your banks.

Again... this problem isn't too far away from the genesis of the Austrians original misunderstanding. This is an aggregate demand issue from the consumer side. The ECB would literally be better off by just dropping off anonymous bags of 10M here and 20M there at train stations for people to happen upon and then spend.... that'd get inflation off the floor faster than negative rates.

Lol actually on para one you are correct, it is the reason they give why prices never shot up like they predicted, but yes I have run across this definitional problem as well, it's so silly.


I see where you are coming from on para two, especially with regards to demand. I would paraphrase as you can't force the banks to lend.

Although I would say we do have a systemic issue that can bubble up with banks, in that banks lend and then look for reserves later, they don't wait for deposits and lend then, the simply go the discount window and borrow what they need from the central bank. In that sense reserve requirements are not as effective, Combined with collateral rules for central banking they have some constraint on borrowing bunch much less than the classical model multiplier might imply.

This is of course not to say a system with no central bank would be more stable, it would not be. The idea that no regulation is better than imperfect regulation has always been an Australian fantasy.

 

[Ruprecht]

This is of course not to say a system with no central bank would be more stable, it would not be. The idea that no regulation is better than imperfect regulation has always been an Australian fantasy.

 

[Bloodworth]

Sadly but yes.

 

[Greoric]

Cheers!

We're not all that differentiated in terms of leverage to the big European nations and half as leveraged as Japan. So actually, if you consider it from a balance sheet perspective, the US is not only running similar leverage but has a much more healthy economy... AND you're telling me you can clip 200+ bps over those other developed nations? The US also has incredible national wealth to draw from if revenue is indeed an actual issue (as long as the GOP doesn't get its wish to drown the Govt. in a bathtub). What you're actually telling me right now with prices is that a good bit of European debt and Japanese debt is actually more valuable right now than tsys - that's just nonsense. Frankly, there's still tremendous demand for tsys on the secondary market and zero evidence that the market is sick of them. Pensions, foundations, endowments, insurance companies...etc. all need allocation to highly rated, highly liquid sov. debt - the greenback is basically cash with yield that keeps up with inflation and it's traded as such.

I'm not saying that debt wouldn't reach an unreasonable level of yearly outlays... that would obviously squelch critical investment from public into private and in support of critical social systems that do indeed greatly aid the productivity and financial soundness of millions of Americans. But again - we're not talking about blowing up our debt, but gradually paying it down.

Correct:

But there's actually a more nuanced way to look at it and yes - the above is a good trend and somewhat high by historical standard but this isn't about historical standard as much as it is about the direction and rate. Take for example this - part of what's happening is also that people are generally making more money while also deleveraging

The first is a measure of total household debt to GDP but the immediate above is more indicative of how much more flexible households are comparatively.

Private outstanding debt to GDP has also been falling and looks a lot like Household debt to GDP even with lower interest rates. We definitely saw a debt binge by the frackers and they will no doubt get hammered and have been getting hammered by lower oil prices but oil will eventually go back up a little and lots of shale oil will come back online.

Disagree... there definitely was and has been a fundamental recovery. I'm sure you'll chalk that up to expansion of the Fed's balance sheet but again, there's no lack of demand for the USD or tsys and why wouldn't the Fed expand its balance sheet in a time of crisis when everyone is starving for tsys?

As Warren Buffet recently pointed out in his annual letter, the US economy is better than ever... it's robust, vibrant, more free than most, has highly favorable tax treatment for large corporations, is incredibly innovative, growing in real and nominal terms, has low unemployment and has come through a full on financial calamity all the while, household and private debt have been falling. Clearly, there's going to be a need to slow things down, quell a little inflation, let things flush out and then lower rates again:

Regarding oil though.. my reference was more of a historical one. Typically oil lags stocks and bonds in the cycle... however, more recent developments have complicated it. Oil is very much a financial asset, traded and speculated upon more than ever at this point. It's also highly affected by real physical developments around the world regarding drilling and extraction techniques. That fundamental change in the supply and demand balance has thrown things and they're trying to find a balance. One thing that's lesser known is that inflation adjusted oil back in the 80's and 90's isn't that much higher than current prices... if you lay oil against CPI ex-energy and food, it's clear that while adjusted, oil may be lower than historical mean but it's not nearly as dramatic as it appears. Sorry I don't have the figures in front of me but the inflation adjusted average back to 86' is something like $45 a barrel.

Those developments in oil can hurt our fracking industry but it's more of a disaster for EM nations who are losing their power as a result.... again, the US wins out because of its flexibility, diversification and vibrance - shale can turn right back on at $55-$60 a barrel and once against push oil lower. In the meantime, the US is continuing to increase energy independence and lowering private and household debt - count me in on that.

A couple of short things:

In so far as the household debt goes, it reads like we're quickly becoming a debate over semantics here. You say rate of deleverage. I say absolute amount. Does rate really matter though? If we're in a recession, debts are being called in, margin calls are being made, and the companies/ households don't have the inflows to meet their payments then we're up shit's creek. At that point it wouldn't matter what rate they were deleveraging.


In fact we're seeing the problem accelerate before our eyes...

To boot, the debt is only a portion of the financial problem. The counter party risk in terms of derivatives on banks far exceeds anything we've ever seen before to the tune of $1Quadrilion world wide. If just a small portion of these ventures go under that are on the other side of these bets, we're going to be in for a whirlwind of bank insolvency.

All this is just kind of supplementary to the larger problem though. Outside the 1's and 0's of the financial sector this has greater implications onto the allocation of real resources. The oil industry, and more specifically the commodity sector is going to be dead for a decade and its all a consequence of mispriced credit. Anyone who's seen this unfold and isn't a complete disingenuous twat understands that shit goes wrong when you hold rates at zero or near zero for eight years! (I know you're not, I've seen you at least mention that this is the "new normal"). Demand was pulled from the future with a ridiculous credit price and real resources and capital were misallocated to such an extravagant amount we're going to pay the piper maybe for generations this time depending on the reaction we get from big brother.

And by the way, this problem isn't contained to the EM markets. We have a globalized economy with our hands sufficiently deep in these sectors, so we're not coming out of this unscathed by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Greoric]

I think you are missing my chronology, it was used as an excuse after their predictions did not come true. i.e. QE and other measures did not result in inflation so the fall back was "yes but that is because the banks never lent any of the fund, it sat on their balance sheet as reserves". When the reality is that many of these measures were being used because of hesitancy of the banks to lend these reserves out. I saw this type of thing in "zero hedge", facebook, etc. all the time.

On the negative interest why could they not just buy USA paper for any excess of reserves they can not find reasonable loans for?

The inflation is there, we just don't have the velocity to see it on mainstreet. Posters like Lee we're right on the money about hyper inflation. All that has to happen is for the banks to forfeit their 0.25% interest they get on reserves to liquidate some of their defaults and voila, we going the way of Venezuela.

 

[Greoric]

No. Donald Trump is going to make America great, and by extension the world after he is elected president.

It's not really going to matter who becomes president, when this problem starts to become cognizant among the population. You have your choice between an authoritarian like Trump or a financial loony tune like Sanders and Clinton.

 

[Gandhi]

The inflation is there, we just don't have the velocity to see it on mainstreet. Posters like Lee we're right on the money about hyper inflation. All that has to happen is for the banks to forfeit their 0.25% interest they get on reserves to liquidate some of their defaults and voila, we going the way of Venezuela.

So is it massive inflation, unemployment, or both you are predicting and when?

 

[Octavian]

A couple of short things:

In so far as the household debt goes, it reads like we're quickly becoming a debate over semantics here. You say rate of deleverage. I say absolute amount. Does rate really matter though? If we're in a recession, debts are being called in, margin calls are being made, and the companies/ households don't have the inflows to meet their payments then we're up shit's creek. At that point it wouldn't matter what rate they were deleveraging.


In fact we're seeing the problem accelerate before our eyes...

To boot, the debt is only a portion of the financial problem. The counter party risk in terms of derivatives on banks far exceeds anything we've ever seen before to the tune of $1Quadrilion world wide. If just a small portion of these ventures go under that are on the other side of these bets, we're going to be in for a whirlwind of bank insolvency.

All this is just kind of supplementary to the larger problem though. Outside the 1's and 0's of the financial sector this has greater implications onto the allocation of real resources. The oil industry, and more specifically the commodity sector is going to be dead for a decade and its all a consequence of mispriced credit. Anyone who's seen this unfold and isn't a complete disingenuous twat understands that shit goes wrong when you hold rates at zero or near zero for eight years! (I know you're not, I've seen you at least mention that this is the "new normal"). Demand was pulled from the future with a ridiculous credit price and real resources and capital were misallocated to such an extravagant amount we're going to pay the piper maybe for generations this time depending on the reaction we get from big brother.

And by the way, this problem isn't contained to the EM markets. We have a globalized economy with our hands sufficiently deep in these sectors, so we're not coming out of this unscathed by any stretch of the imagination.

Thanks for the reply... Regarding the increasing corporate defaults, that's mostly the result of EP companies going bust with cheap oil. That's not to discount it as a negative sign but it's not an indication that the US consumer is unhealthy but instead that a leveraged sector is getting boiled down. If we were seeing something really dramatic in terms of consumer leverage and defaulting on personal debts, then I'd say we had a much deeper problem in the economy.... but we're not.

You're worried about the absolute household and corporate debt amounts and yes, they're high overall and on a historical basis but it is going down - that's not semantics and I also showed you that household's are significantly more flexible on a debt to income level than before. So let's not get too wrapped up in the gloom and doom stuff here. The US economy is a remarkably resilient thing - easily the most resilient in the world actually and even in the face of a financial calamity that did entail brutal household level pain, we still pulled through it and are now engaging in much healthier activity.

I'm not saying we're not due for a recession... might even be a good cleansing process where asset prices get reset back to enticing levels. Again, there's a truly critical difference between a bear market and a recession, a recession and a credit crisis that leads to a protracted recession - even depression and deflationary spiral.

Regarding derivative exposure, that's definitely a concern because it's a zero sum game until a really large financial institution has trouble and then all hell can break loose... but capital requirements are stricter now than in the past and the NFA and CTFC watch notional and overall exposure levels closely.

I'd also argue that even with moderately higher rates, the fracking boom would have commences regardless. When oil started dipping, the general concensus was that the fracking break even was around $60-$70 a barrel. It's proven to be much lower and the industry in general was more efficient than first thought. Fracking can also be turned back on pretty fast. It's not entirely fracking's fault either but a confluence of things coming together. E&P is a highly capital intensive process and projections are made 5-7 years out. There was a real misunderstanding of Chinese demand as well as overall global production - it doesn't take much to through the supply and demand curve out of balance.

 

[Octavian]

The inflation is there, we just don't have the velocity to see it on mainstreet. Posters like Lee we're right on the money about hyper inflation. All that has to happen is for the banks to forfeit their 0.25% interest they get on reserves to liquidate some of their defaults and voila, we going the way of Venezuela.

Uh-oh... not this again. The inflation is not the monetary base - period. And from your other posts, it seems that you're worried about the rate of expenditure and capital allocation via cheap credit that's been going on. So, it's a little confusing between the two points because on one hand, we're saying that spending has been out of control because of low rates but at the same time, inflation is out there but hasn't been realized yet because the cheap money hasn't been spinning through the economy at a fast enough rate. Equities probably reached their peak much earlier in the business cycle than usual because of the unattractive prospect of bonds... and as we've already covered, households have been deleveraging - that trend promises to continue as peoples' memories of the GFC are still fresh and frankly, the deleveraging is a welcomed reality. Even with all of that leveraging and credit..etc. over the past 15 years, we're still not seeing runaway inflation in the US.... and actually, a little inflation right now and devaluation of the USD might help trade competitiveness and current debts be diminished.

 

[Greoric]

Thanks for the reply... Regarding the increasing corporate defaults, that's mostly the result of EP companies going bust with cheap oil. That's not to discount it as a negative sign but it's not an indication that the US consumer is unhealthy but instead that a leveraged sector is getting boiled down. If we were seeing something really dramatic in terms of consumer leverage and defaulting on personal debts, then I'd say we had a much deeper problem in the economy.... but we're not.

You're worried about the absolute household and corporate debt amounts and yes, they're high overall and on a historical basis but it is going down - that's not semantics and I also showed you that household's are significantly more flexible on a debt to income level than before. So let's not get too wrapped up in the gloom and doom stuff here. The US economy is a remarkably resilient thing - easily the most resilient in the world actually and even in the face of a financial calamity that did entail brutal household level pain, we still pulled through it and are now engaging in much healthier activity.

I'm not saying we're not due for a recession... might even be a good cleansing process where asset prices get reset back to enticing levels. Again, there's a truly critical difference between a bear market and a recession, a recession and a credit crisis that leads to a protracted recession - even depression and deflationary spiral.

Regarding derivative exposure, that's definitely a concern because it's a zero sum game until a really large financial institution has trouble and then all hell can break loose... but capital requirements are stricter now than in the past and the NFA and CTFC watch notional and overall exposure levels closely.

I'd also argue that even with moderately higher rates, the fracking boom would have commences regardless. When oil started dipping, the general concensus was that the fracking break even was around $60-$70 a barrel. It's proven to be much lower and the industry in general was more efficient than first thought. Fracking can also be turned back on pretty fast. It's not entirely fracking's fault either but a confluence of things coming together. E&P is a highly capital intensive process and projections are made 5-7 years out. There was a real misunderstanding of Chinese demand as well as overall global production - it doesn't take much to through the supply and demand curve out of balance.

Yeah I got you. I just don't see any way this isn't a deflationary debt spiral with the leverage still at these levels, and the resources misallocated to the degree that they have been. I also don't see that there would have been any way for this oil or commodities glut would have ever taken off without that fed put. Those are sectors notorious for responding to low interest rates, and we had the most absurdly low rates of all time!

Though, the point you hit on about the US's resiliency I completely agree with actually. The problem I see is that we never get to see that resiliency because we have these guys on capitol hill stepping in to liquidate every time the market tries to restructure. Never let a crisis go to waste as it were...

 

[Greoric]

Uh-oh... not this again. The inflation is not the monetary base - period. And from your other posts, it seems that you're worried about the rate of expenditure and capital allocation via cheap credit that's been going on. So, it's a little confusing between the two points because on one hand, we're saying that spending has been out of control because of low rates but at the same time, inflation is out there but hasn't been realized yet because the cheap money hasn't been spinning through the economy at a fast enough rate. Equities probably reached their peak much earlier in the business cycle than usual because of the unattractive prospect of bonds... and as we've already covered, households have been deleveraging - that trend promises to continue as peoples' memories of the GFC are still fresh and frankly, the deleveraging is a welcomed reality. Even with all of that leveraging and credit..etc. over the past 15 years, we're still not seeing runaway inflation in the US.... and actually, a little inflation right now and devaluation of the USD might help trade competitiveness and current debts be diminished.

Well right. The ZIRP incentivized ventures like oil exploration and mining, but that doesn't necessarily mean velocity for mainstreet has picked up. Start ups haven't been able to get any uncollateralized loans since the GFC. Take a look. I'm sure you're aware of it...

Now, why aren't the banks not making any of those loans necessary for more growth and production? Because they're paid not to! The fed has been paying them 0.25% to just park the money as reserves... Hence no inflation.

In fact the only inflation that we see has been in terms of asset appreciation. It's a little convenient this happened, wouldn't you say?

 

[Octavian]

Yeah I got you. I just don't see any way this isn't a deflationary debt spiral with the leverage still at these levels, and the resources misallocated to the degree that they have been. I also don't see that there would have been any way for this oil or commodities glut would have ever taken off without that fed put. Those are sectors notorious for responding to low interest rates, and we had the most absurdly low rates of all time!

Though, the point you hit on about the US's resiliency I completely agree with actually. The problem I see is that we never get to see that resiliency because we have these guys on capitol hill stepping in to liquidate every time the market tries to restructure. Never let a crisis go to waste as it were...

Ok... if we're looking at a deflationary cycle, then yes - that's a major problem. At least we're in a better place now and every year over the past handful of years to deal with that from a corporate and household perspective. Deflationary cycles are horribly destructive and can put you in a pit that's really hard to get out of, especially as competing nations outpace you from a global and stature standpoint.

Politicians shouldn't only be stepping in with radical measures when there's some major financial crisis... jumping in, ala the PBOC and China's central Communist party in the A-share market, every time there's a major drawdown in equities is a joke. Then again, our government isn't really THAT reactionary by comparison. The Fed primarily targets inflation and attempts to target employment but that's only because the assholes on Capitol Hill don't do shit from a rational fiscal standpoint. For example, we could use a major infrastructure overhaul right now, especially with such lower rates and craving of tsys. It's better to spend a trillion now than be FORCED to spend 10 trillion 15 years from now AND lose productivity as a result.... but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Ruprecht]

Seems like this thread is in agreement with Trumponmics.

Republican Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump has confounded economists and market watchers alike by declaring the US is on the brink of a "massive recession".
...
In an interview with the Washington Post, Mr Trump told reporters the US stock market was sitting on a financial bubble and could go into a "massive recession".
The billionaire property tycoon went on to deliver his own stock tips, saying now was a terrible time to invest.

He also said something which might actually hurt him in the polls...

Mr Trump followed up his bold prediction with a promise to tone down his rhetoric and become "boring", if he wins the Republican nomination.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Seems like this thread is in agreement with Trumponmics.

Wouldn't surprise me if Trump gets his economic ideas from the same dumb sources as some WR posters (specifically, ZH).

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Wouldn't surprise me if Trump gets his economic ideas from the same dumb sources as some WR posters (specifically, ZH).

Not too long ago Space praised Trump for getting ideas from the internet. Lol