Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • O-Trap
    gut;1839472 wrote:
    “The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does."

    jesus he really is a cretin.
    Why get an aged New York strip if you're going to do that to it?

    Still ...
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839520 wrote:Why get an aged New York strip if you're going to do that to it?

    Still ...
    Might as well just chop it up into a hamburger.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1839559 wrote:Might as well just chop it up into a hamburger.
    No wonder Trump Steaks did so poorly.

    I did get a kick out of this, though. The guy draws an AWFUL lot out of how he eats steak. But it's good for some humor:
    http://www.eater.com/2017/2/28/14753248/trump-steak-well-done-ketchup-personality
  • justincredible
    O-Trap;1839519 wrote: Would you consider Greenspan an economist? I would submit he has a very similar pedigree to Bernanke.

    I know George Mason has two faculty members in the Economics department who have won the Nobel Prize (both in Econ Sciences, I believe), both of whom I believe espouse a commodity-backed currency. Do they count?
    I did see that Greenspan recently spoke up in favor of the gold standard.

    George Mason has a great econ department. I enjoying following Walter Williams, Lawrence White and Donald Boudreaux on various channels. Who are the nobel winners?
  • like_that
    justincredible;1839582 wrote:I did see that Greenspan recently spoke up in favor of the gold standard.

    George Mason has a great econ department. I enjoying following Walter Williams, Lawrence White and Donald Boudreaux on various channels. Who are the nobel winners?
    Great follow.
  • justincredible
    Indeed. He and Thomas Sowell are my favorites.
  • QuakerOats
    justincredible;1839590 wrote:Indeed. He and Thomas Sowell are my favorites.

    Ditto !!
  • Spock
    gut;1839472 wrote:
    “The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does."

    jesus he really is a cretin.
    Wow

    Now I am not voting for him next time. Seasoned steak almost rare with no A-1 or ketchup is the only way to go.

    Ketchup is for little kids
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839519 wrote: Would you consider Greenspan an economist? I would submit he has a very similar pedigree to Bernanke.
    "Greenspan also had some colorful comments at the conference on gold, including this gem: "The gold standard is not possible in a welfare state."

    Try again. Last I checked pretty much every major economy has significant social welfare/entitlements....so, like I said, it's not remotely a practical idea.

    And the same guy who gave us the dot.com bubble and housing bubble is in the minority of of economists fearing hyperinflation when most other economists are trying to figure out how to deal with deflation.

    Here's another good quote:
    "What emerges is a powerful figure conflicted between the practical manager charged with operating within the current fiat monetary system and the philosopher-academic with a "nostalgia," as he puts it, for the days of the gold standard."

    There was a Univ. of Chicago economic forum a few years ago - 40 out of 40 top economists thought the gold standard was a bad idea. That's 100%, by the way....although only 1/3 merely disagreed with the idea (the rest strongly disagreed).
  • O-Trap
    gut;1839609 wrote:"Greenspan also had some colorful comments at the conference on gold, including this gem: "The gold standard is not possible in a welfare state."

    Try again. Last I checked pretty much every major economy has significant social welfare/entitlements....so, like I said, it's not remotely a practical idea.
    I'm not suggesting that it's practical with all other elements remaining the same. In fact, I suggested as much. My exact words:

    "When it comes to a return to a commodity-backed standard, I think it's a moot discussion. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and I think trying to amass a singular commodity in reserve would be difficult to impossible. Beyond this, it doesn't fix the deficit problem as it exists today. Returning to it with the current views on spending at the federal level could leave us looking like pre-2000 Russia ... which did have a fixed currency, as I recall reading."

    We're at a point in which several other parts of our federal budgeting, spending, etc. would have to change in order for a commodity-backed currency to be feasible, and I can't see them being reigned in to that degree.
    gut;1839609 wrote:And the same guy who gave us the dot.com bubble and housing bubble is in the minority of of economists fearing hyperinflation when most other economists are trying to figure out how to deal with deflation.
    Long-term, it doesn't appear as though deflation is as consistent a problem, or at least that hasn't appeared to be the case over the last few decades. In short spurts, sure, but even still, you're talking about correction through arbitrary manipulation of interest rates which can have been an indirect cause of the need to do so in the first place.

    Again, I'm not suggesting it's functional at this point. The toothpaste is out of the tube.
    gut;1839609 wrote:Here's another good quote:
    "What emerges is a powerful figure conflicted between the practical manager charged with operating within the current fiat monetary system and the philosopher-academic with a "nostalgia," as he puts it, for the days of the gold standard."
    A quote about an exchange between Greenspan years ago and Ron Paul? When Paul himself asked Greenspan whether or not he still believed his own writings from his "Gold and Economic Freedom" days, he affirmed as much.

    Forgive me for saying, but I don't think such a third-party quote really does much except outline an onlooker's thoughts ... not address the views of the actual people within the discussion, or at least not to as reliable a degree.
    gut;1839609 wrote:There was a Univ. of Chicago economic forum a few years ago - 40 out of 40 top economists thought the gold standard was a bad idea. That's 100%, by the way....although only 1/3 merely disagreed with the idea (the rest strongly disagreed).
    They oppose it in a vacuum? Under current circumstances? Was there a prior conversation or a preface? Who were they, and by what means do we determine them as forty of the "top" economists?

    Beyond this, 40 is hardly a notable sample size.

    And finally, asking financial minds this amounts to asking whether or not they believe in the responsibility required to make use of the flexibility of a non-backed currency without falling into the dangers of it, it's not hard to imagine them answering in the affirmative. They acknowledge the ethics and discipline for doing so.

    Under our current circumstances, I don't advocate for a gold standard to be implemented with all other things remaining the same. As I stated before, we'd end up seeing something similar to pre-2000 Russia.

    But as a principle itself, having something to anchor the value of your currency and something to which you can appeal objectively as the value for the note provides stability, regardless of whether or not it lets you do everything you want to do at the federal level.
  • QuakerOats
    Bloomberg News (3/6, Carroll) reports, “The 11 new chemical, refining and LNG projects on the Gulf Coast will create 45,000 jobs, many of which will pay an average of $100,000 a year, Woods said.” He added, “These projects are export machines, generating products that high-growth nations need to support larger populations with higher standards of living.” The Dallas Morning News (3/6) reports the plans “answer a call by President Donald Trump for American companies to boost the number of U.S.-based jobs at a time when Trump is pushing for lesser regulation for the energy industry.”
    The Hill (3/6, Henry) reports that Trump said in a statement that Exxon’s plans are “exactly the kind of investment, economic development and job creation that will help put Americans back to work.” He said, “Many of the products that will be manufactured here in the United States by American workers will be exported to other countries, improving our balance of trade,” adding, “This is a true American success story.”



    Another win.

    Change we can [really] believe in ...
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839665 wrote:They oppose it in a vacuum? Under current circumstances? Was there a prior conversation or a preface? Who were they, and by what means do we determine them as forty of the "top" economists?

    Beyond this, 40 is hardly a notable sample size.
    The specific question, I believe, was "would a commodity backed currency improve price stability or employment outcomes for the average American". Here's the article - a second question notes many factors beside inflation influence the dollar price of gold (which is why they so strongly believe the gold standard is bad for price stability).

    http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/gold-standard
    It's not some random survey of 40 economists - it's a University of Chicago Economic summit, and almost all the participants are economists from Chicago, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, Berkley and MIT. And it was 40 out of 40.
  • QuakerOats
    In a story that was not covered by the network news broadcasts, the Washington Times (3/8, Boyer) reports that the payroll firm ADP reported Wednesday that new jobs “surged” in February as employers hired about 298,000 workers, exceeding economists’ predictions “by nearly one-third.” The report represents “the first data on President Trump’s first full month in office.” CNBC (3/8) reports the total “shattered market expectations of 190,000,” with “a notable shift away from the service-sector positions that have dominated hiring for years,” according to the report. The AP (3/8, Rugaber) says construction jobs increased by 66,000, the most in 11 years, and manufacturing jobs increased by 32,000, the most in five years, while mining and natural resources jobs were up 8,000.



    We will see tomorrow what the govt. reports.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1840514 wrote:In a story that was not covered by the network news broadcasts, the Washington Times (3/8, Boyer) reports that the payroll firm ADP reported Wednesday that new jobs “surged” in February as employers hired about 298,000 workers, exceeding economists’ predictions “by nearly one-third.” The report represents “the first data on President Trump’s first full month in office.” CNBC (3/8) reports the total “shattered market expectations of 190,000,” with “a notable shift away from the service-sector positions that have dominated hiring for years,” according to the report. The AP (3/8, Rugaber) says construction jobs increased by 66,000, the most in 11 years, and manufacturing jobs increased by 32,000, the most in five years, while mining and natural resources jobs were up 8,000.



    We will see tomorrow what the govt. reports.
    I heard about it last night on the news...so it was reported.

    I wonder, so you now trust the unemployment numbers that will be reported by the Gov?
    Seems like during the Obama years, some on here scoffed at the numbers.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1840530 wrote:I heard about it last night on the news...so it was reported.

    I wonder, so you now trust the unemployment numbers that will be reported by the Gov?
    Seems like during the Obama years, some on here scoffed at the numbers.

    The employment numbers never have recovered after the recession from people who've dropped out of the workforce, the historically low labor participation rates (which is what more and more people have been focusing on).

    The job numbers have always been the job numbers. You need to create like 145k jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, or your labor participation rate will be going lower.

    Since 2010, we averaged about 185k jobs a month. In that time, just 7 times did we add more than 298k jobs in a month, and you have to go back to Nov'14 to find job growth in excess of 300k.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1840535 wrote:The employment numbers never have recovered after the recession from people who've dropped out of the workforce, the historically low labor participation rates (which is what more and more people have been focusing on).

    The job numbers have always been the job numbers. You need to create like 145k jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, or your labor participation rate will be going lower.

    Since 2010, we averaged about 185k jobs a month.
    Right agreed. So, I wonder if the numbers stay about the same, with a rate about 4.8% will Trump be all like, "see we are making America great!"
    Or, will he instruct the Labor Dept. to start and really report the full numbers and explain the participation rate and use that as a metric?
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1840538 wrote: Or, will he instruct the Labor Dept. to start and really report the full numbers and explain the participation rate and use that as a metric?
    The labor department has always reported numerous different indicators, but the media has traditionally focused only on the unemployment rate. When people are discouraged or have given up, they drop out of the unemployment rate and go into the "non-participation" pool.

  • rocketalum
    I'm not trying to suggest that the economy had nothing to do with the decline in participation but we also have to keep in mind that the largest generation in the workforce, boomers, are reaching retirement age.
  • gut
    rocketalum;1840560 wrote:but we also have to keep in mind that the largest generation in the workforce, boomers, are reaching retirement age.
    That and other demographic changes is about half the decline. And a good number of jobs created the past 8 years have been low-paying service, or even part-time jobs. Whether or not that trend continues remains to be seen. But for most of America, the recovery has been mediocre to non-existent.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    gut;1840564 wrote:That and other demographic changes is about half the decline. And a good number of jobs created the past 8 years have been low-paying service, or even part-time jobs. Whether or not that trend continues remains to be seen. But for most of America, the recovery has been mediocre to non-existent.
    I completely agree and to me, the only measure for success for Trump will be if he gets the labor participation rate up and if he gets the wages for the lower and middle class to increase as well. (That means more full time and better paying jobs)
    Otherwise, it is just meh.
  • gut
    ptown_trojans_1;1840572 wrote:I completely agree and to me, the only measure for success for Trump will be if he gets the labor participation rate up and if he gets the wages for the lower and middle class to increase as well. (That means more full time and better paying jobs)
    Otherwise, it is just meh.
    That, and growth in the 3-4% range. If you're creating jobs and growing the economy, wages SHOULD follow. Without talking about the structure of jobs created under Obama, IMO we are probably 3M jobs behind where we need to be. Need about 2 years of 300k new jobs month after month to get really healthy.

    Not sure what the long-run participation rate looks like with the demographic trends mentioned...but it has ticked-up from a low several months ago and is mostly flat over about the past two years.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1840530 wrote:I heard about it last night on the news...so it was reported.

    I wonder, so you now trust the unemployment numbers that will be reported by the Gov?
    Seems like during the Obama years, some on here scoffed at the numbers.
    Kinda hard to trust government, for anything. How many jobs are being created that will impact the labor participation rate, and grow wages will be the key. It will all hinge on economic growth, and that is largely dependent on taxation and regulation. If we can fix our tax system and eliminate the administrative state, we will be well on our way to long-term growth.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1840618 wrote:Kinda hard to trust government, for anything. How many jobs are being created that will impact the labor participation rate, and grow wages will be the key. It will all hinge on economic growth, and that is largely dependent on taxation and regulation. If we can fix our tax system and eliminate the administrative state, we will be well on our way to long-term growth.
    Wait, those statements contradict each other.
    The metrics for success are put out by the Government, ie jobs created, participation rate, wage growth etc. So, you do not believe those numbers still?
    Also, way to use the Bannon phrase "administrative state." You do just spew boiler plate language.
  • QuakerOats
    From time to time the government redefines how they will calculate certain statistics. Also, touting the unemployment rate during a time when other statistics are much more telling of the true economic picture is quite phony.

    As for the administrative state, there are boatloads of smart people lashing out at the BIG bureaucratic, and autocratic, federal government we've been saddled with. The power that they have assumed is ridiculous, and entirely inappropriate for our form of government.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445293/steve-bannon-cpac-speech-hit-something-important
  • Spock
    ptown_trojans_1;1840530 wrote:I heard about it last night on the news...so it was reported.

    I wonder, so you now trust the unemployment numbers that will be reported by the Gov?
    Seems like during the Obama years, some on here scoffed at the numbers.
    yes

    maybe the government will actually report the true numbers.