Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-08-2018, 05:47 PM
Ike Bana Ike Bana is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Name calling again. Tiresome, and not worth any more of my time.
Good...one less dimwit to deal with. The most pathetic part is how you can simultaneously be so witless and so arrogant.

Last edited by Ike Bana; 01-08-2018 at 05:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-08-2018, 06:10 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Second time the subject of my balls have come up again in this thread.

Yeah, I did Bob. Its funny to watch you get all indignant about it too. In case you didn't notice, I just did what I usually do. I dared to post something relevant in this thread - including a link that supports it. And then folks like you do what they usually do: ignore it, so that they can get on with their rants and other lunacy.

Glad you like my work, though.
Typical dishonest deflection from this guy. I find it amusing that you blame others for the rancor engendered by your 'fearless leader' and his precious conservative snowflake defenders like yourself.

Keep those blinders screwed down tight and cover all the mirrors in your house, bro. It's going to be a bumpy ride going into the midterms for y'all.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:23 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post
Typical dishonest deflection from this guy. I find it amusing that you blame others for the rancor engendered by your 'fearless leader' and his precious conservative snowflake defenders like yourself.

Keep those blinders screwed down tight and cover all the mirrors in your house, bro. It's going to be a bumpy ride going into the midterms for y'all.
Nothing dishonest about it, Bob. Unless, of course, you define "dishonest" as someone who doesn't agree with you.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-09-2018, 07:47 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks View Post
IOW, you agree with Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman that, unlike Zero’s assertion, Donny had nothing to do with last year’s market performance.

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-...market-2017-12
No, Krugman is not correct, nor would he even try to be in the context of an interview like this since he's a cheerleader for economic policies that would be unlikely to find daylight in a Trump administration. That's why - around the 19 second mark in the video - the interviewer laughs when Krugman makes his "essentially zero" remark.

Krugman goes on to be even less correct seconds later when he says that that "there have been no policies, right?". In fact, at the point that the interview was being taped, the Repub tax reform bill was being voted on in the House and Senate, and was largely expected to pass as of the date the interview was conducted. Its commentary like this that has prompted me to regard Krugman's musings as - by and large - intellectually dishonest.

But even discounting that, a very significant EO - largely ignored by Trump critics - was Executive Order 13771 which cut two regulations for every new one promulgated. This signaled a significant shift in the regulatory environment in Washington, and one element often cited in a rising stock market is the expectation of a more favorable regulatory and tax environment.

Couple that with the gross domestic product which is rising beyond expectations, consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, and you have the ingredients for a significant rise in expectations for the economy which is reflected in stock prices.

Look, I wouldn't expect the "anti-Trump" crowd to give the guy any credit for rising stock prices. On the other hand, I suspect that Krugman and other anti-Trump types would be the first to blame Trump and the Republicans for "driving the economy into a ditch" if there were any retreat in stock prices. Its the nature of politics. But political forums make lousy places to get to the truth about what's happening in the economy.

Does Trump get to take all the credit? No, certainly not. Can some of the rise in stock prices be tied to expectations about a more favorable tax and regulatory environment for business, and are those expectations attributable to this administrations stated goals and policies? Absolutely, and I think we've seen that. Is some of the growth a natural part of cyclical economic trends that would occur regardless of who sits in the Oval Office? Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:34 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is offline
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post

Krugman goes on to be even less correct seconds later when he says that that "there have been no policies, right?". In fact, at the point that the interview was being taped, the Repub tax reform bill was being voted on in the House and Senate, and was largely expected to pass as of the date the interview was conducted. Its commentary like this that has prompted me to regard Krugman's musings as - by and large - intellectually dishonest.

But even discounting that, a very significant EO - largely ignored by Trump critics - was Executive Order 13771 which cut two regulations for every new one promulgated. This signaled a significant shift in the regulatory environment in Washington, and one element often cited in a rising stock market is the expectation of a more favorable regulatory and tax environment.

Couple that with the gross domestic product which is rising beyond expectations, consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, and you have the ingredients for a significant rise in expectations for the economy which is reflected in stock prices.

Look, I wouldn't expect the "anti-Trump" crowd to give the guy any credit for rising stock prices. On the other hand, I suspect that Krugman and other anti-Trump types would be the first to blame Trump and the Republicans for "driving the economy into a ditch" if there were any retreat in stock prices. Its the nature of politics. But political forums make lousy places to get to the truth about what's happening in the economy.

Does Trump get to take all the credit? No, certainly not. Can some of the rise in stock prices be tied to expectations about a more favorable tax and regulatory environment for business, and are those expectations attributable to this administrations stated goals and policies? Absolutely, and I think we've seen that. Is some of the growth a natural part of cyclical economic trends that would occur regardless of who sits in the Oval Office? Yes.
Indeed!
While I do not agree with some of these tax and regulation policies, I cannot deny their effect on the bullish expectation of industry.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-09-2018, 08:35 AM
Chicks Chicks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 13,285
So you know more about economics than a Nobel prize winning economist. Got it. So typical of Trumpists - dis the real experts.
__________________
"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -
George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:01 AM
Dondilion's Avatar
Dondilion Dondilion is offline
Jigsawed
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,557
"Experts" in Economics often differ wildly on any particular issue.

Here, I believe Krugman is trying hard to downplay the strong effect of lax regulation and much reduce taxation on the rosy expectation of the business class.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-09-2018, 09:30 AM
Chicks Chicks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 13,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroJunk View Post
Meanwhile the GDP is taking off, 401K's are taking off, people are going to have more money in their pocket next month.

It is a shame we couldn't have had eight more years of the SOS.
More on this ignorant comment. The median 401K for people close to retirement is a measly $12,000.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ugly-...150542070.html

That won’t even last a year. Meanwhile, Repubes are targeting the remaining social security programs (private pensions, long a leg of the 3-legged stool, are nearly extinct). The huge deficits the Repubes will cause with this dreadful tax bill will lead them to cut back on Social Security and Medicare spending, something conservatives have wanted to do for decades.

So tell me, with $12,000 in their 401K, drastic cutbacks in social programs, and no pension, what will retirees do? Just F off and die? Repubes will be happy with this outcome?
__________________
"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -
George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-09-2018, 10:49 AM
whell's Avatar
whell whell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicks View Post
So you know more about economics than a Nobel prize winning economist. Got it. So typical of Trumpists - dis the real experts.
Your response above is a good example of why its hard to have a constructive discussion about economics in a political forum. Mischaracterize my post so you can make it into your own pet straw dog.

Did I say I knew more that Krugman? No.

Did I say I listened to his answer and found it disingenuous, particularly given the additional facts I presented above? Yes.

Economics is not a religion with accompanying dogma or high priests (such as Krugman). There's room for disagreement. There's also room for folks like Krugman to play fast and loose with the facts in order to make their (political) points.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-09-2018, 11:16 AM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell View Post
Nothing dishonest about it, Bob. Unless, of course, you define "dishonest" as someone who doesn't agree with you.
Right, the old 'I'm rubber, you're glue' response. Yawn.

If you are really interested in reducing the rancor in this forum, I suggest you start with your own self, Mike.
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:52 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.