I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not sure what you meant by this, but worth reading Martin Wolf about the huge damage Trump and Republicans are about to do. (Later Republicans will blame Trump for not being conservative or Republican enough, but it's on them.)



FT

Not a ton of emphasis on the second-order political effects, but they will be enormous.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The Republicans gave us this country.

No. You and I gave us this country. Because we supported a system in which the underclasses could only survive via redistribution, which is an unsound system on every conceivable level.

People do not want redistribution. They want work. They want to feel like they can fend for themselves. Sure, some are handout junkies ("Hands off my Medicare!" sorts). But most don't want a handout from our table. They want a chance to have a seat at it.

Are they deluded? Sure. But they have the vote. So you and I would have been better served to have placated them a bit in the past, with some protectionism. I didn't want to, so I'll take blame for it. You're ducking your own by saying you'd have happily given them some crumbs from your growing wealth. We all like a system where we who are doing alright succeed and the masses can be kept happy via redistribution. But it's impossible. Your argument is as selfish and realistic as the GOP's, "Fuck it. Globalization's inevitable. Take your medicine and shut up, little guy" position.

The case for free trade is that the country benefits as a whole, and the government can do x, y and z to spread the benefits and ease the pain.

See above.

Republicans are philosophically opposed to spreading the benefits and easing the pain -- they will not vote to tax people with money, or to redistribute.

Irrelevant. See above.

So the benefits of free trade are captured by your 15%. Populism is just a step before a return to government that tries to improve the lives of most people, just as Calvin Coolidge gave way to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

We're already there. The infrastructure plan is a New New Deal. The GOP Congress, however, is too fucking stupid and tied to its austerity religion to understand the economics behind it. And Trump isn't smart enough to explain that a lot of it can be done with private money in public/private partnerships, with a fantastic multiplier effect and limited govt debt. And let's not forget the fools on the Democratic side who hear "public/private" and immediately flip into fits of hysteria about privatization (which these projects are not).

WE could do a New New Deal and really help this country. But I don't see the warring factions of imbeciles in both parties and the administration getting it done. It takes way too much forward thinking and actual business acumen. Trump's people could figure it out, but they'll never sell it to the politicians.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?

It's a good question. Financial stocks have been doing very well, out of an expectation that Congress is going to deregulate. More generally, I think a lot of people in the business world don't quite take Trump at his word, and take the benefits of the current system for granted.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/...or-first-time/
if the guy is so clearly heading us at a brick wall why does the market not react?

We are war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

The market has climbed a wall of worry and sustained itself on buybacks, consumer cannibalizing labor cost-cutting, and financial alchemy since 2008. The market will always climb a wall of worry and sustain itself on buybacks, consumer cannibalizing labor cost-cutting, and financial alchemy.

If it ever actually does start crashing, they're going to have to halt trading for a week. "Everybody knows," as Mr. Cohen sang. They "stand hand in hand," as Melville wrote, in the realization of our fragility, and once it can no longer be stifled or pretended away, that "shock of recognition will run the whole circle round." Like lightning.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's a good thing that only one of those numbers is at all accurate.

You don't want discussion. You just want to repeat your nonsense.

You want to read to me from econ 101 textbooks from 1978. You still think it's an empirical science.

I'm not wasting my time advising you of the stats on what percentage of our labor force will likely be automated in the next two decades, how many US households are one job loss from insolvency, how many live paycheck to paycheck, why retraining and education are feel good bullshit fixes, how wage stagnation has persisted since the 80s, why U3 unemployment is as relevant as the comics section of the paper, or why my 85/15 split is actually generous to those holding your views.

But I will talk about a guaranteed wage if you'd like.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They want work.

You realize that there are more people working today than ever before, right?

So you and I would have been better served to have placated them a bit in the past, with some protectionism.

We should have placated them with policies that would put more of them out of work. Okay.

The GOP Congress, however, is too fucking stupid and tied to its austerity religion to understand the economics behind it.

So there are some facts that penetrate your psyche. Interesting.

And Trump isn't smart enough to explain that a lot of it can be done with private money in public/private partnerships

This should actually scare you. There is going to be massive corruption if it's done your way.

WE could do a New New Deal and really help this country.

New Deal is the wrong comparison. The comparison is Reagan. We're going to get massive fiscal stimulus in the form of huge tax cuts for the rich, increased defense spending and maybe a bit of infrastructure thrown in.

Meanwhile, we're going to at minimum scale back if not eliminate entirely the New Deal (and New Deal legacy) programs that helped make sure that everyone benefits.

It takes way too much forward thinking and actual business acumen.

I'm not sure why you think "let's build useful stuff" takes forward thinking or business acumen. None of the multiplier stuff you're talking about requires PPP.

Trump's people could figure it out, but they'll never sell it to the politicians.

No idea why you think they have much in the way of business acumen. His people bankrupted casinos.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's a good question. Financial stocks have been doing very well, out of an expectation that Congress is going to deregulate. More generally, I think a lot of people in the business world don't quite take Trump at his word, and take the benefits of the current system for granted.

Under either Clinton or Trump, easing of regulation on banks was coming. I think that's been priced in for some time. The Trump bump, I'm guessing, is a factor of the delta between the anticipated rollback under HRC and the more significant rollback we'll get under DJT. Also, as Trump was a surprise win, this icing on the cake wasn't priced in previously.

The current bank system is, at least for small businesses and consumers, a fucking disaster. Loan officers are now of the mindset, compliance first, profit second. Trump's going to be excellent for small to mid business lending. I've got a couple situations where clients can't give personal guarantees (for other regulatory reasons). Last year, that required one to go into the private lending market. This year, banks are asking for a few months time, at which point their compliance department expects to be able to much more liberally negotiate terms.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

why U3 unemployment is as relevant as the comics section of the paper

Please use any measure of employment you would like that actually supports your story.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Please use any measure of employment you would like that actually supports your story.

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

http://www.epi.org/publication/chart...ge-stagnation/

Now, you go along and cherry pick those for an argument. You have thirty minutes. Clock starts... now!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. You and I gave us this country. Because we supported a system in which the underclasses could only survive via redistribution, which is an unsound system on every conceivable level.

If redistribution meant the government takes money from a rich person and gives it to a poor person, maybe so. But that's not what I mean. The government does all sorts of things that create value in the economy and are paid for by taxes: building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, education, health care, national parks, and so on. To the extent that this spending benefits everyone, it pulls up the bottom and has a redistributive effect.

You say that people don't want redistribution, they want work. Well, they want things like jobs building roads and airports and train tracks, and better jobs than an education gets you, and jobs in health care and at businesses near national parks.

Republicans have worked very hard to cripple the government's ability to supply these things.

The infrastructure plan is a New New Deal. The GOP Congress, however, is too fucking stupid and tied to its austerity religion to understand the economics behind it. And Trump isn't smart enough to explain that a lot of it can be done with private money in public/private partnerships, with a fantastic multiplier effect and limited govt debt. And let's not forget the fools on the Democratic side who hear "public/private" and immediately flip into fits of hysteria about privatization (which these projects are not).

His infrastructure plan is nothing like a New Deal. It has some upside, but also serious limitations.

[Not Bob]

Ok, I think I'm going to take my talents to the Fashion Board (as I promised my imaginary little sister some time ago). But before I do leave, I give you this:

1. Go to swingleft.org to help change control of the House in 2018. A GOP controlled Congress is enabling and protecting Trump because they are getting everything they want re social and fiscal policy. We are in the Pence Administration with a veneer of Trumpism.

2. Call - don't email - your senators to urge that they reject confirmation of (at least!) DeVos and Sessions.

3. March. Protest. Bodies on the street count.

4. Don't be a purist. So the woman who organized the big Women's March in DC has views on the Mideast that suck. So what? I didn't see any "Zionism is Racism" signs. Heck, the Catholic parish I occasionally attend sent a huge group of mostly anti abortion women to DC. Why? Because there is no litmus test in opposing fascism. Yes, there were lots of people complaining in all directions about the politics of the attendees and the concept of marching with white women, trans women, etc. Get over it. I could have said "these chicks are crazy" when I read the intersectionality arguments, but I didn't. Instead, I marched in my town.

4. Keep reminding yourself that this is Not Normal.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

http://portalseven.com/employment/un...nt_rate_u6.jsp

What are you seeing here? Because I'm seeing a measure that spiked during the 2009 recession and has steadily fallen back down to normal levels. Not quite back down to the pre-recession levels, but not far above them. And, by the way, below mid-90s rates.

You'll get no argument about wage stagnation and income inequality, but we just elected a governemnt that intends to do all it can to make those issues worse.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The current bank system is, at least for small businesses and consumers, a fucking disaster. Loan officers are now of the mindset, compliance first, profit second. [Trump's going to be excellent for small to mid business lending.] I've got a couple situations where clients can't give personal guarantees (for other regulatory reasons). Last year, that required one to go into the private lending market. This year, banks are asking for a few months time, at which point their compliance department expects to be able to much more liberally negotiate terms.

Mostly true, but government and Trump don't have much to do with it. Banks cannot make their business models work for small businesses and most consumers, and essentially are abandoning the field. They complain about regulation all the time because their core competency, as with telcos, is working their regulators. This is the business landscape that creates the opportunity for fintech.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

A GOP controlled Congress is enabling and protecting Trump because they are getting everything they want re social and fiscal policy.

Also because they are scared of him.

2. Call - don't email - your senators to urge that they reject confirmation of (at least!) DeVos and Sessions.

Not clear why the confirmation of DeVos is so consequential. Picking fights over the confirmation of his cabinet is a loser, because (see above) every GOP Senator is more scared right now of picking a fight with Trump than of the voters.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You realize that there are more people working today than ever before, right?

Wrong. U6.

We should have placated them with policies that would put more of them out of work. Okay.

We could have achieved a balance.

So there are some facts that penetrate your psyche. Interesting.

Of course, when I get political and slam Rs, you're my ally.

This should actually scare you. There is going to be massive corruption if it's done your way.

Less corruption than traditional govt contracting? Are you for real? Also, the savings are so huge that even allowing for graft, the projects still beat traditional contracting by 20%.

New Deal is the wrong comparison. The comparison is Reagan. We're going to get massive fiscal stimulus in the form of huge tax cuts for the rich, increased defense spending and maybe a bit of infrastructure thrown in.

Not if the project is done using private development.

Meanwhile, we're going to at minimum scale back if not eliminate entirely the New Deal (and New Deal legacy) programs that helped make sure that everyone benefits.

We're not going to scale back SS. Perhaps SSDI. But even there, not by much.

I'm not sure why you think "let's build useful stuff" takes forward thinking or business acumen. None of the multiplier stuff you're talking about requires PPP.

You prefer to do it at 20-33% increase in cost you'll find with traditional govt contracting? Good on you. That's excellent business acumen.

No idea why you think they have much in the way of business acumen. His people bankrupted casinos.

His cabinet did not bankrupt casinos.