We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, dude.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Ty's suggesting getting rid of the electoral college, it seems a lot of people are getting materially hurt now, doesn't it?

What if I was just sharing a tweet that I found funny?

eta: I don't think that Democrats should spend any time trying to change the composition of the Senate and the Electoral College. I do think they should propose a constitutional right to vote and spending on polling stations and technology to make it convenient and easy to vote.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Why not just eliminate the Senate and go unicameral?

Small government, dude.

I own 5x the percentage of my firm that some of these knuckleheads own- but we each get 1 vote? NWTAF? The problem though isn't to hate on the firm's constituting documents- my problem is that we voted "small potato" a partner when he was destined to not own so much- you're pissed that Wyoming has two Senators go get angry at the people that said it could be a state- with what i know now I'd say, "fuck Wyoming, you don't justify statehood." But it is too late{sad face}

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Why Sebby is wrong about media bias.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama, but since you did, I find this provides a more complete picture than that graph (which by the way, when taken in whole, averaging peaks and toughs, isn't making the case you think it is):

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oming-economy/

Critical of Trump: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-by-gdp-growth

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4...omy-whos-right

I've seen a much more bullish business atmosphere in the past year and a half. The first six months were everybody holding their breath, but after people absorbed that Trump was not a doomsday event, bullish sentiment has surged. Is it sustainable? I don't know. Beyond my pay grade. But it is interesting that, despite all the cycle indicators that traditionally suggest we've peaked and are about to roll over, we haven't done so yet.

Like I said, I'm baffled. But what I thought would be economically awful has proven to be pretty good. YMMV, of course, depending on what you do and where you do it.

As to the rest of his Presidency, the degradation of the office, and the general ugliness of things, all criticisms of Trump hold true.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Deleted because I don't give enough of a shit to discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I wasn't comparing Trump to Obama, but since you did, I find this provides a more complete picture than that graph (which by the way, when taken in whole, averaging peaks and toughs, isn't making the case you think it is):

https://www.investors.com/politics/e...oming-economy/

Critical of Trump: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-by-gdp-growth

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/4...omy-whos-right

I've seen a much more bullish business atmosphere in the past year and a half. The first six months were everybody holding their breath, but after people absorbed that Trump was not a doomsday event, bullish sentiment has surged. Is it sustainable? I don't know. Beyond my pay grade. But it is interesting that, despite all the cycle indicators that traditionally suggest we've peaked and are about to roll over, we haven't done so yet.

Like I said, I'm baffled. But what I thought would be economically awful has proven to be pretty good. YMMV, of course, depending on what you do and where you do it.

As to the rest of his Presidency, the degradation of the office, and the general ugliness of things, all criticisms of Trump hold true.

We have been in a long expansion that started under Obama and has never stopped. If you perceive a much more bullish atmosphere, that says more about your perceptions than anything else. For example, if you have been expecting the party to end and instead it keeps going, it certainly is outperforming your expectations.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We have been in a long expansion that started under Obama and has never stopped. If you perceive a much more bullish atmosphere, that says more about your perceptions than anything else. For example, if you have been expecting the party to end and instead it keeps going, it certainly is outperforming your expectations.

Actually, your own graph shows the economy slowing pre-Trump.

And given how fast you replied, you read 0% of what I sent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why Sebby is wrong about media bias.

Of course the Right has more hacks. I've actually attacked friends on the Right for lying. Sent them Snopes articles refuting their "facts." But if you ask them why they send knowingly false items, they'll admit, "If it helps my side, I don't care."

The Left values being seen as thoughtful. The Right Does. Not. Care.

Oh, and somewhat related: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...re-immigration

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, your own graph shows the economy slowing pre-Trump.

And given how fast you replied, you read 0% of what I sent.

My own graph shows things speeding up and slowing down before Trump, and after Trump. I read all of what you say. I think your views suffer heavily from a form of attribution fallacy. It's certainly possible that people around you are more bullish -- polling shows that the way Republicans described the economy changed quite a bit before and after the election, despite little change in the facts. I don't think Trump has had much effect on the economy. We are now running big deficits, which should help keep the party going for a while (but will also make it harder to help when the next recession comes, as it will). His trade moves haven't had a lot of effects yet.

I get that your basic game here is to be provocative. You wanted to get a rise out of people by saying something nice about Trump -- so, nicely done, you did.

The Trump government and Republicans in general are much more interested in winning zero-sum games -- re-allocating government taxes and spending, political power and social status to themselves -- than they are in fostering growth. That much is plain to see. So you wouldn't expect much change in the near term from what they've done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Of course the Right has more hacks. I've actually attacked friends on the Right for lying. Sent them Snopes articles refuting their "facts." But if you ask them why they send knowingly false items, they'll admit, "If it helps my side, I don't care."

The Left values being seen as thoughtful. The Right Does. Not. Care.

I don't disagree, but the article is about how the media behaves, so what you say above, while true, also largely misses the point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My own graph shows things speeding up and slowing down before Trump, and after Trump. I read all of what you say. I think your views suffer heavily from a form of attribution fallacy. It's certainly possible that people around you are more bullish -- polling shows that the way Republicans described the economy changed quite a bit before and after the election, despite little change in the facts. I don't think Trump has had much effect on the economy. We are now running big deficits, which should help keep the party going for a while (but will also make it harder to help when the next recession comes, as it will). His trade moves haven't had a lot of effects yet.

I get that your basic game here is to be provocative. You wanted to get a rise out of people by saying something nice about Trump -- so, nicely done, you did.

The Trump government and Republicans in general are much more interested in winning zero-sum games -- re-allocating government taxes and spending, political power and social status to themselves -- than they are in fostering growth. That much is plain to see. So you wouldn't expect much change in the near term from what they've done.

Actually, your graph shows things slowing down before Trump and then picking up after Trump. And the articles I provided showed that under numerous measures, Obama's tenure was similar in terms of growth to both Bushes, all three of them at the low end.

I'm not being provocative. I'm citing articles. Perhaps those authors are being provocative. But I generally find Bloomberg uncontroversial.

The growth I'm seeing is in small to mid-sized businesses. I'm also seeing enhanced consumer spending. Revenues in a family business directly exposed to middle class consumers is up considerably. I'm unable to tease out any reason for this but for people in that sector having more money in their pockets. (It's one of those businesses that almost without fail tracks the health of the middle class economy 1:1.)

ETA: I'm also seeing an uptick in commercial property development. I don't know why exactly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Actually, your graph shows things slowing down before Trump and then picking up after Trump.

My graph shows that Obama's second-to-last quarter was better than the prior quarter, and his last quarter was worse. It shows that Trump's first quarter was worse than the one before it, and his second quarter was better. In the space of only that year, it show things picking up *and* slowing down under *both* presidents.

I'm not being provocative.

No, but you're trying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

My graph shows that Obama's second-to-last quarter was better than the prior quarter, and his last quarter was worse. It shows that Trump's first quarter was worse than the one before it, and his second quarter was better. In the space of only that year, it show things picking up *and* slowing down under *both* presidents.



No, but you're trying.

Obama owns close to 1/3 of Q1 2017. More like the whole thing, as Trump was just getting established during it, but I wash that against the fear of Trump that contributed to Q4 16 and Q1 17 drops versus previous quarters. Seems unfair to put that entirely at Obama’s feet.

Re playing provocateur, is the rule here that any attempt to credit Trump, even partial, even for accidental success, even for success in one small area while recognizing his bad behavior elsewhere is “provocation”? So then the affirmative rule would be, the only valid comment on Trump is criticism, anger, disgust, or [insert negative reaction]. Interesting. You’re the Left analogue of Obama’s Right Wing critics, on a continuum of thought with McConnell, who sought to undermine Obama on every single policy, regardless of merits.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Obama owns close to 1/3 of Q1 2017. More like the whole thing, as Trump was just getting established during it, but I wash that against the fear of Trump that contributed to Q4 16 and Q1 17 drops versus previous quarters. Seems unfair to put that entirely at Obama’s feet.

I just picked one year to illustrate my point. Step back. We have been in a long expansion which started early in the Obama Administration and has continued to the present. If you want to make a case for Trump, go nuts, but the obvious story is that he inherited a good economy from Obama and hasn't fucked it up. The two big things he has done that plausibly would make a difference are the tax cut, which is unnecessary stimulus, and trade policy, which is not helping but hasn't blown things up (yet).

Look, you know what sector I'm in. Are folks happy that the federal government isn't pretty to regulate? Sure. Does it really help businesses grow? I am skeptical.

Re playing provocateur, is the rule here that any attempt to credit Trump, even partial, even for accidental success, even for success in one small area while recognizing his bad behavior elsewhere is “provocation”?

No. But (a) you do like playing the provocateur, and (b) the story you've told is missing the part where you explain how collecting the underpants leads to PROFITS.