Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • like_that
    I have a hard time taking the unemployment numbers seriously when we still have an all time high welfare rate. Color me unimpressed.
  • gut
    like_that;1865526 wrote:I have a hard time taking the unemployment numbers seriously when we still have an all time high welfare rate. Color me unimpressed.
    True. We literally "bought" people out of the workforce....Go take a 6 year vacation with student loans you'll never pack back. Then move on to sucking the gubmit teet.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1865390 wrote:The $1T stimulus was largely determined to be a flop, crony capitalism at its best.

    Like I said, the heavy looking and pretty much all the work was done before Obama took office. TARP was the key play, given the recession was a financial one. That was all the Bush administration.

    This is, again, just lowering the bar for a mediocre and divisive POTUS. Personally, I think that's racist - the classic bigotry of lowered expectations.

    Or if you want a sports analogy....Obama didn't inherit a mess, he inherited a layup. And he blew it.
    While I will acknowledge that my views on economics and public policy are to the "left" of the mainstream - Gut's opinions are also out of the mainstream. The Chicago Booth School of Business - a conservative institution founded by David G. Booth who is a prominent donor to Republicans - has put together a panel of economic experts that they regularly survey and a majority on the panel agrees that the American Recovery and Reinvestment reduced unemployment and that its benefits exceeded its costs.










    But hey - this is the kind of opinion that Gut will ignore while he will selectively endorse Obama Administration arguments official when they comport with his worldview e.g. Clapper saying no evidence yet of collusion - and then - in the face of evidence of collusion leaked to the press - will conclude that it is clearly a cover-up despite no solid evidence to that effect.



    Moreover, Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart - not progressives by any means who have also shared and prominently argued for Gut's view that large sovereign debt balances reduce growth - presented research that recoveries from financial crises will necessarily be slower than recovers from more conventional recessions e.g. one's caused by the Fed raising rates, etc. in This Time its Different.


    This is how they summarize it in the face of people who claim there should have been a rapid "v-shaped" recovery:

    The recent op-eds focus on GDP growth immediately following the trough (usually 4 quarters). For a normal recession, the restoration of positive growth is typically a signal event. In a v-shaped recovery, the old peak level of GDP is quickly reached, and the economy returns to trend within a year or two. In Reinhart and Rogoff (2009), we examine both levels and rates of change of per capita GDP; recovery is defined by the time it takes for per capita GDP to “recover” or return to its pre-crisis peak level. Taylor’s chart shows the recovery from the Great Depression as the strongest in the history of the United States, even though (as we show in our book) it took about a decade for the US to reach the same level of per capita income as its starting point in 1929. For post-WWII systemic crises it took about 4½ years to regain lost ground; in 14 Great Depression episodes around the world (including the US) it took 10 years on average. A focus on levels is a more robust way to capture the trajectory of an economy where the recovery is more U or nearly L-shaped than V-shaped. It also avoids exaggerating the strength of the recovery when after a deep recession there is a large cumulative decline in the level GDP. An 8 percent decline followed by a subsequent 8 percent increase does not bring the economy back to its starting point.
    Gut is happy to refer to their work when they claim debt overhang is harmful to an economy but ignores their similar work on why recoveries are slow following financial crises - My guess is because one supports his belief that Obama and the Democrats are terrible while another doesn't.


    (My own view is that a proper public policy response could make the financial crisis irrelevant and a strong recovery could occur in any case and "debt overhang" is not a problem for monetarily sovereign nation's like the United States but is for monetarily non-sovereign nations like Greece, France, Illinois, etc. which use another sovereign's currency but I digress).

    In the mean-time we can be entertained as Gut will acknowledge that Trump's Big Government Republicanism promises have had a positive impression on the markets which have expected (perhaps erroneously if Trump can't get anything done) massive deficits spending via tax cuts (Corporate, individual and Obamcare tax-cuts) and a $1 trillion spending bill which the Fed has given no expectation of offsetting with rapidly rising rate hikes - and he doesn't even see the inconsistency in his thinking.
  • BoatShoes
    like_that;1865526 wrote:I have a hard time taking the unemployment numbers seriously when we still have an all time high welfare rate. Color me unimpressed.
    Congrats on being consistent at least. When the economy added 255,000 jobs in July of 2016 under Obama the same people giving Donald Trump credit pointed to the historically law labor force participation rate, complained about the types of jobs and Donald Trump himself called the numbers fake/rigged.

    Funny enough, Drudge no longer links to the labor force participation rate every jobs report and I bet the CCRunner's who commented on this thread last year are singing a different tune for God Emperor Trump.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-creates-255000-jobs-in-july-unemployment-49-2016-08-05
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1865473 wrote:It would also help if 50% of job applicants would not be failing drug tests.
    Or Big Government should stop making Worker's Compensation give a fuck if people use their free will to consume marijuana in their free time off the clock -- among other policies that reduce the flexibility and supply of labor for drugs use for which there is no evidence that they reduce productivity.

    #ButMuhFakeBeliefInSmallGubmintOnlyWhenItSuitsMe
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1865541 wrote:Or Big Government should stop making Worker's Compensation give a fuck if people use their free will to consume marijuana in their free time off the clock -- among other policies that reduce the flexibility and supply of labor for drugs use for which there is no evidence that they reduce productivity.

    #ButMuhFakeBeliefInSmallGubmintOnlyWhenItSuitsMe
    Having been many different companies in many different states, I will say that I notice much more on-the-job marijuana use. Alcohol you see rarely, because people are usually shitcanned as soon as anyone smells it (unless they have a union!).

    So, yeah, if I was hiring someone I would test as it seems to me there is a culture where it's ok to smoke a joint a few times a day at work (basically where alcohol was 30-40 years ago). Doesn't affect productivty? LOL you can't be serious.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1865538 wrote:While I will acknowledge that my views on economics and public policy are to the "left" of the mainstream - Gut's opinions are also out of the mainstream. The Chicago Booth School of Business - a conservative institution founded by David G. Booth who is a prominent donor to Republicans - has put together a panel of economic experts that they regularly survey and a majority on the panel agrees that the American Recovery and Reinvestment reduced unemployment and that its benefits exceeded its costs.
    LFMAO.....just stop. Where do you think I got my economics degree from? Even you might be able to figure this one out. My views are mainstream, your views are just ignorant and reflect a lack of education. Little to no long-run effect is not negative and not nothing, and not disproven by economists opinions of its effects in 2010. I think I remember reading a Goldman study that estimated 0.25 points of GDP from nearly $1T in stimulus. YUGGGE!

    David Booth is not the "founder" of the Chicago business school, much less the Chicago school of economics . He wrote a big check 10 years ago and they re-named their Business School. You can't even get something as simple as that right.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1865541 wrote:Or Big Government should stop making Worker's Compensation give a fuck if people use their free will to consume marijuana in their free time off the clock -- among other policies that reduce the flexibility and supply of labor for drugs use for which there is no evidence that they reduce productivity.

    #ButMuhFakeBeliefInSmallGubmintOnlyWhenItSuitsMe

    Psychotic post
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1865538 wrote:While I will acknowledge that my views on economics and public policy are to the "left" of the mainstream - Gut's opinions are also out of the mainstream. The Chicago Booth School of Business - a conservative institution founded by David G. Booth who is a prominent donor to Republicans - has put together a panel of economic experts that they regularly survey and a majority on the panel agrees that the American Recovery and Reinvestment reduced unemployment and that its benefits exceeded its costs.


    When lawyers try to do accounting and finance, look out.


    In the 4 years prior to the financial crisis (brough about by liberal policy forced upon lenders), the US federal spending averaged $2.7 trillion per year. In the 4 years following the crisis, US spending averaged $3.53 trillion, and even higher in the 4 years thereafter. We did not have a 'one year stimulus of $1 trillion'; that extra $1 trillion never went away. We have spent nearly $1 trillion more per year, every year since the crisis, than we averaged prior to the crisis. Hence, we have spent nearly $8 trillion extra over obama's 8 years, and got shit for it, except for a massive dependency class, which is now the next crisis we face.


    Once again, BIG federal government is the root of our problems.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1865473 wrote:It would also help if 50% of job applicants would not be failing drug tests.
    I've seen a few articles talking about this, especially in the midwest.
    The Washington Post has done a series of article on the issue, most recently about the use of robots in more and more places simply due to the fact people cannot hold a job.
    The jobs are there, but people are either too lazy or fail drug tests.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/rise-of-the-machines/2017/08/05/631e20ba-76df-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

    They have also done really interesting articles on disability and how even if the jobs are there, people may be more willing to stay on disability.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/06/02/generations-disabled/?utm_term=.4f8eb9d9a5b8
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/07/21/how-disability-benefits-divided-this-rural-community-between-those-who-work-and-those-who-dont/?utm_term=.cb4f89044e2f


    gut;1865529 wrote:True. We literally "bought" people out of the workforce....Go take a 6 year vacation with student loans you'll never pack back. Then move on to sucking the gubmit teet.
    That may be a little too general.
    I'd agree that some students take on private loan debt not knowing the full terms and conditions.
    BoatShoes;1865541 wrote:Or Big Government should stop making Worker's Compensation give a fuck if people use their free will to consume marijuana in their free time off the clock -- among other policies that reduce the flexibility and supply of labor for drugs use for which there is no evidence that they reduce productivity.

    #ButMuhFakeBeliefInSmallGubmintOnlyWhenItSuitsMe
    Here I will agree with some others on here. Sure, smoking weed in your spare time is fine, but some jobs require heavy machines. I don't think they should be allowing workers that are high to work them. Drug tests for now, are the only ways to limit liability.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1865545 wrote:Having been many different companies in many different states, I will say that I notice much more on-the-job marijuana use. Alcohol you see rarely, because people are usually shitcanned as soon as anyone smells it (unless they have a union!).

    So, yeah, if I was hiring someone I would test as it seems to me there is a culture where it's ok to smoke a joint a few times a day at work (basically where alcohol was 30-40 years ago). Doesn't affect productivty? LOL you can't be serious.
    I've worked for six different companies since college. Five were cool with drinking at work.

    As for a joint. My go-to programming contractor smokes while he works. I won't speak to what it does to him overall, but his code does get better when he's high.
  • QuakerOats




    Change we can [really] believe in...
  • gut
    I continue to prefer the labor participation rate until the unemployment number has truly "reset". Year-over-year, labor participation is up a whopping 0.1%. Probably almost 1.5% (or about 3.5M jobs IN EXCESS of 150k jobs a month to keep up with population growth) below what would truly reflect fully employment.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1865473 wrote:It would also help if 50% of job applicants would not be failing drug tests.
    It's funny how this is a defense now, but it wouldn't constitute a possible defense if a Democrat was in office.

    Oh, and a citation, if you would?
    QuakerOats;1865677 wrote:




    Change we can [really] believe in...


    And ...?
  • QuakerOats
    A Publication of the National Association of Manufacturers
    August 7, 2017
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1865690 wrote:
    A Publication of the National Association of Manufacturers
    August 7, 2017
    WTF did you try to do here? Sweet Moses ...
  • QuakerOats
    You wanted a source for the info it appeared.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1865708 wrote:You wanted a source for the info it appeared.
    SOMEthing appeared. I'll give you that.

  • Heretic
    O-Trap;1865713 wrote:SOMEthing appeared. I'll give you that.

    There doesn't seem to be a single part of that thing that you can click on to get linked to a story, study, report etc. Which, in truth, makes it more valid than most of his links, but still...
  • O-Trap
    Heretic;1865721 wrote:There doesn't seem to be a single part of that thing that you can click on to get linked to a story, study, report etc. Which, in truth, makes it more valid than most of his links, but still...
    No fake news is good fake news.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    The President tweeted this out this AM. This is where I am confused on what is a leak.
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/07/us-spy-satellites-detect-north-korea-moving-anti-ship-cruise-missiles-to-patrol-boat.html

    "Despite the United States' insistence that North Korea halt its missile tests, U.S. spy agencies detected the rogue communist regime loading two anti-ship cruise missiles on a patrol boat on the country’s east coast just days ago.
    It's the first time these missiles have been deployed on this type of platform since 2014, U.S. officials with knowledge of the latest intelligence in the region told Fox News on Monday."
    That's an anonymous source "leaking" information to the press.

    It is those types of citations that Trump and the White House scream about leakers. Yet, if it something they want to push or their friendly news outlet, Fox, it is fine. You can't have it both ways.
  • QuakerOats
    [h=2]More than 1.1 million Americans dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Trump took office in January 2017, according to the latest U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) statistics on food stamp enrollment.[/h]Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dropped to 41,496,255 in May 2017, the most recent data available from the USDA, from 42,691,363 in January 2017 when Trump took office.
    According to the latest data, SNAP enrollment during the first few months of Trump’s presidency decreased by 2.79 percent.
    Food stamp participation on average in 2017 has dropped to its lowest level since 2010, and the latest numbers show that this trend is continuing.
    Trump proposed cuts to SNAP in his 2018 budget proposal, suggesting that states match up to 20 percent of federal money allotted for the food stamp program and expand work requirements for able-bodied adults receiving food stamps.
    Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration has also prompted many immigrants, both legal and illegal, to cancel their food stamps over concerns that they might be denied citizenship or deported.
    Federal lawmakers are also working on legislation that would seek to expand food stamp work requirements and put time limits on how long those enrolled in the food stamp program can receive benefits.
    At the state level, food stamp enrollment dropped significantly in places such as Georgiaand Alabama once they instituted work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive food stamps. Both states fully implemented work requirements for food stamp recipients in 2016-2017.




    A trend we can [really] believe in ....
  • QuakerOats
    Heretic;1865721 wrote:There doesn't seem to be a single part of that thing that you can click on to get linked to a story, study, report etc. Which, in truth, makes it more valid than most of his links, but still...

    Call Chad and let him know you want to be included in the weekly briefing; education is a wonderful thing.


    Chad Moutray, Ph.D., CBE
    Chief Economist
    National Association of Manufacturers

    Contact Chief Economist Chad Moutray at [email protected].
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1865773 wrote:Call Chad and let him know you want to be included in the weekly briefing; indoctrination is a wonderful thing.


    Chad Moutray, Ph.D., CBE
    Chief Economist
    National Association of Manufacturers

    Contact Chief Economist Chad Moutray at [email protected].
    FIFY

    Except that weird box that keeps showing up in your posts. I'm not going to mess with that. It's kinda funny that it keeps showing up in place of content. I'm assuming you tried to copy and paste something?
  • QuakerOats
    If you want to label factual statistics as indoctrination, that is your prerogative.


    Good luck.