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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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?

I don't know if he's heading for a brick wall, but we're going to have new and different sets of winners and losers. I'm guessing real estate developers will be winners. Oil will certainly be a winner. Maybe banks, at least some of them, have a shot at being winners.

He'll try to make manufacturing winners, but it won't work because he's fighting the market. I'm not betting on many winners from tech, biotech or communications.

Which is too bad, because those are the growth industries globally. But for the US, it will be the last Hay Day of the old economy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

Our biggest problem in the banking industry is that most banks are run by idiots and hire idiots. Think of the qualifications of your average loan officer: pretty much bupkus. A smile and a willingness to do what they are told.

Banks' biggest problem is not regulation. Many of them would be lost without being told what to do. Their problem is the average IQ of the banking world.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also because they are scared of him.



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.

I'm willing to fight on these, because it's the right thing to do.

It's also going to brand all the Republicans with these people. When someone runs against Senator X, Senator X is going to have to defend their votes for a pack of extremist idiots. And they should have to do that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

It's true that good risk is hard to find for a lot of small banks. But part of it is that their business models are not nimble enough. Part of that - a big part of it since 2008 - is regulation.

The cycle of lending needs to resume again because to a certain extent, it's self-sustaining. More money on the street creates more work, which creates more spending, which creates more work and more need for capital to expand. Relaxing regs will open a necessary spigot which will create conditions under which community and small banks will not abandon the small to mid business market.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

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.

I'm encouraging all my friends growing up to sign up for the swing congressional district, now Republican, we grew up in. Part of the reason it is red is because we all left.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Our biggest problem in the banking industry is that most banks are run by idiots and hire idiots. Think of the qualifications of your average loan officer: pretty much bupkus. A smile and a willingness to do what they are told.

You understand, probably better than me, that this is again a largely regulation driven problem. Banks traditionally want predictable sorts without much creativity. The industry is characterized by that dullness. But flooding it with rule custodians and compliance twits has only made that problem much worse. The ideal loan officer has become a box checking, blockheaded "no" man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's true that good risk is hard to find for a lot of small banks. But part of it is that their business models are not nimble enough. Part of that - a big part of it since 2008 - is regulation.

The cycle of lending needs to resume again because to a certain extent, it's self-sustaining. More money on the street creates more work, which creates more spending, which creates more work and more need for capital to expand. Relaxing regs will open a necessary spigot which will create conditions under which community and small banks will not abandon the small to mid business market.

I could go much deeper, but will just say that when fintech disintermediates banks in this space, it's not because they don't have to follow government regulations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

We're largely in agreement, only with differing solutions.

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.

I agree 100% with this criticism. Trump's freeze on hiring was silly.

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

That's why I called it a New New Deal. It's 2017, not 1933.

ETA: It's easy to structure royalty and maintenance fees to do projects without toll revenue streams. There's a lot of misinformation out there leading a lot of people to think these things can only be done with toll roads and parking meters. Totally untrue. A developer with adequate financing capability or ability to self-fund could realize decent returns merely on interest on repayment from the government. The model can be applied to any form of infrastructure.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I could go much deeper, but will just say that when fintech disintermediates banks in this space, it's not because they don't have to follow government regulations.

True. But at least give banks a chance, to smooth the gradual shift to fintech.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wrong.

Look, if you can't even follow the numbers, why are you engaging in this discussion? Decemeber non-farm payrolls were at 145.3 million or about 7 million greater than the pre-recession peak. There are more people working today than ever before. And yet you see a hellscape in which no one has a job rather than a deep receission from which we're still recovering but have largely recovered from by any and all employment measures.

We could have achieved a balance.

What amount of protectionism is "balance?" And are you really so naive as to think that had we just imposed tariffs on, say, steel, we'd be able to ward of the tide of woe that is automation? Why?

This is especially rich as you think "handouts" don't do any good, but apparently think a bit of symbolic handout to a small handful of workers would.

Come to think of it, that's pretty consistent with your story-telling view of how markets work. I'm sorry, but if you think economic anxiety is actually a part of the story, you're going to need more than a bit of symbolic protectionism to stem it.

Not if the project is done using private development.

This is a non-sequitor. Was this in response to something else? What about private development makes with like the New Deal?

We're not going to scale back SS.

We shall see. I wouldn't bet on anything right now.

His cabinet did not bankrupt casinos.

Ah, I see. Mnuchin and Tillerson to the rescue, with an assist from Carson.

It's fascinating that you look at this guy and think his cabinet is influential. He's influenced by Fox News, Bannon and his kids. Which of those do you think are so graced with acumen?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Which is too bad, because those are the growth industries globally.

So much this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You understand, probably better than me, that this is again a largely regulation driven problem. Banks traditionally want predictable sorts without much creativity. The industry is characterized by that dullness. But flooding it with rule custodians and compliance twits has only made that problem much worse. The ideal loan officer has become a box checking, blockheaded "no" man.

I think regulations are more a response to the problem than the cause of it. Every time we have a crisis, it generally results from stupid loans. Loan officers are incentived to move loans, and they do, and let the quality of the loan be someone else's problem. Once you give banks access to the Fed window, and they can borrow for next to nothing, you have to set some limits for them, and those limits are regulation - that's what keeps them from spending the Fed's money (that is, your money and my money) foolishly.

If you look at the quality banks in your area, the ones that have performed best for a long period of time and that are safest and where the best borrowers mostly choose to do business, you will see two things about them: (1) they lend off their own base - they have high capital and put their own equity at risk in their loans, they don't just loan Peter money they got from Donald and (2) they hire with a higher IQ, because they're risking their own money and they don't want to trust it to idiots.

By the way, a lot of the regulators are idiots, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

So much this.

I understand that there is a natural conflict between Red State economies and Blue State economies and Purple State economies. But when we look at where our future lies as a country, I think the right answer is to say we want to get all the Blue State economic work we can and spread it out more, not to say, hey, let's do what red states like and embrace the idea that we'll end up looking like Russia and let the Blue state stuff all go to China.

This has been a dynamic of our country since cotton was king in the south and the mills were in the north, but the almost total alignment of the economic divisions and the political ones last happened just before the civil war, and even then probably not as completely as it has now.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

True. But at least give banks a chance, to smooth the gradual shift to fintech.

You've convinced me. I'm going to give banks a chance. I used to be more of a "give peace a chance" kind of guy, and look where that got us. I have a horrible fucking head cold and the pseudoephedrine buzz is not even close to cutting through the molasses reality that surrounds my very essence, so I unfortunately cannot even muster an actual funk tune today. Instead, I will re-post a song and video I posted a while back, which is the song that most perfectly captures how the universe seems to me when filtered through a horrible fucking head cold. The Daily Dose is not technically funk and, according to Adder, it is not even music, but here for your listening and viewing pleasure is Kid Koala's Basin Street Blues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8ys3B2q_2k

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by 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.

My Senators are pussies and don't pick up the phone and escort constituents out of their office if they come without calling for an appointment first.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/dia...e-appointments