Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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!

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

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

You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Wrong. U6.

We could have achieved a balance.

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

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%.

Not if the project is done using private development.

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

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.

His cabinet did not bankrupt casinos.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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

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

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

So much this.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

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.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

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

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

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

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

Hey! I can post from work again.

Although the legal landscape may be worse, I am still betting on marijuana stocks as winners under Trump.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

Really, Ty? DeVos is consequential because she's a Jesus Freak (NTTAWWT) who doesn't believe in public education. Which is bad enough, but that kind of disqualifies her from being Secretary of Education, no?

Losing fights still need to be waged so that our elected representatives know that we know that this is all Not Normal. And those of us who are Democrats should tell our Democratic senators that we are paying attention. Kind of a way to say "oh, hello Elizabeth Warren! By the way, oh heroine of the progressives, we saw your "yes" votes and will remember them. Know who hasn't voted "yes" yet? Corporate lackey Kirsten Gillibrand. We will remember her "no" votes."

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

I can say anecdotally (friends of friends) that unprescribed therapeutic use has skyrocketed since November. Or at least I think it has. My memory is a little hazy and that seems like a long, long time ago.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

I have an Uncle who was big in the teacher's union & politics out here. He worked in a school. Once when the Rs were talking about closing Dept of Educ I asked him what it actually does, "I'm not sure, I think it monitors that Federal standards are met?" There has got to be someone appointed to something more important who is a better nomination to fight.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

It's definitely a target-rich environment, but I guess my thought is that they're not going to be getting a scalp, and Dems ought to be picking fights to frame the issues that are going to matter to swing voters in two years. As terrible an appointee as DeVos is, I don't think going after her advances that ball so much.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

Depends. Sessions left to his own devices is the worst imaginable Atty General for that industry. But Trump may stay that shitty old bigot's hand on the issue because: States' rights, and, We need every new industry we can get, however niche.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I followed your numbers. And they're for shit.

Right there. That's why they're for shit. You know what else we have more of than we have at any other time?

People.

So... No shit more of them are working than at any other time in the past!

Now look at the percentage of people working on that graph.

Can you say, "Today we have a higher percentage of people working than at any other time in the past?" Right.

Why would it ever be useful to cite a measurement as meaningless as the one you did?

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

True. Only Blue State work isn't plentiful enough to spread around that much. There's not even enough of it to fill most blue states these days. Tech work, by its nature, by its very design and intent, lessens the need for more work, of almost all kinds.

No Mason Dixon line today. The Trumpkin could be next door, the Progressive across the street. And they agree on a number of things!

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

Actually, we have severe shortages of employees around here. I think our California colleagues will report the same.

A good example of how red states shun our work: There was a multi-billion dollar federal program set up to develop clean energy technology spin-outs; it was specifically envisioned as a way to generate replacement jobs for placing losing them. The University of West Virginia was solicited to participate - a good chance to fund a couple professorships with full labs and to fund several tech spin-outs. West Virginia doesn't believe in clean energy, and didn't want the work - there wasn't a place on the faculty for those folks. MIT got two major grants for new technologies it is spinning out - Massachusetts (and New Hampshire) will get several hundred more jobs.

Re: You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
 

She is going to do some really bad stuff. And when running for reelection, Republicans are going to have to defend supporting her. Sometimes, you just go on record as to where you stand, whether or not you win the issue.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

You work? I thought you were a full-time wandering vagabond.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Yes, and you said, "people want work" (paraphrase). People have work.

We've looked at a variety of those measure too and they're all in the range of historical norms.

Actually, that's not really true. They're in the range of historical norms since 1990. Over a longer term a greater percentage of people are working today than did in the past.

Re: Dead Cat Bounce
 

You really have to start reading more/better sources. Jesus man. Blue areas are having a hard time finding workers.

But it's time you started living.
 

Nope. Fight all of them. Burn the motherfucker down.

And so Not Bob ends his discussion on the Politics Board for at least a while (never say never, amirite?) and starts living. So, in honor of the late* Mary Tyler Moore, he gives you Joan Jett singing "Love Is All Around" live on David Letterman.

* Poor Atticus.**

** It was him with the Laura Petrie fetish (NTTAWWT), right?

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

Quote from my sister after reading another horrifying news article: "A friend of mine said that this feels like being a passenger in a car driven by a drunk driver. Feels more like a plane driven by a drunk driver."