Political Roundtable Part XVII

[nate33]

Socialist thinking. You seem to think that government has the right to all the property of the citizens and any morsel they allow citizens to keep is somehow a grant from a generous government.

Right! Because that's exactly what I said. A right to all the property of citizens? Those poor billionaires and their morsels. I'm pretty sure they analogize well with the mouse in How The Grinch Stole Christmas. You know I didn't say that at all, and in fact you're actually coming closer to suggesting that workers should be that way to their employers than anything I said analogizes there.

Yes, I summarized your opinion about as accurately as you summarize mine when you stated that I viewed tax cuts as a permanent bailout/subsidy for failing businesses.

How does it feel?

[payitforward]

Yeah, the markets clearly think Trump has no idea what he is doing on economic issues.

Oh, come on, nate.... Markets don't think, & you know it.

Moreover, I'd say it's very hard to know right now what this bull market means or how long it will last. Don't get me wrong -- I like it. But, I wouldn't advise going whole hog into stocks right now, nate, just b/c you think well of Donald Trump!!

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

B.S. (...why do I let myself get pulled back into this thread!?!)

Markets also don't "believe" anything. Markets do "react" to (or, maybe better, "reflect") what people believe -- not about whether the future is "bright" or dim, but about what they think stock prices will do.

Thus, for example, if people think a President will do something "good" for publicly traded corporations they are quite likely to buy more stock, pushing the market up.

But, they will do that -- & be smart to do it -- even if they also think those same policies will be "bad" for other entities or even bad overall.

Now, the above has to be nuanced (shd be "more people" vs. "fewer people" for example), but it has no entailments in any realm other than that. I.e. it's the classic "rational actor" model in economics. Period.

[nate33]

Oh, come on, nate.... Markets don't think, & you know it.

Moreover, I'd say it's very hard to know right now what this bull market means or how long it will last. Don't get me wrong -- I like it. But, I wouldn't advise going whole hog into stocks right now, nate, just b/c you think well of Donald Trump!!

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

B.S. (...why do I let myself get pulled back into this thread!?!)

Markets also don't "believe" anything. Markets do "react" to (or, maybe better, "reflect") what people believe -- not about whether the future is "bright" or dim, but about what they think stock prices will do.

Thus, for example, if people think a President will do something "good" for publicly traded corporations they are quite likely to buy more stock, pushing the market up.

But, they will do that -- & be smart to do it -- even if they also think those same policies will be "bad" for other entities or even bad overall.

Now, the above has to be nuanced (shd be "more people" vs. "fewer people" for example), but it has no entailments in any realm other than that. I.e. it's the classic "rational actor" model in economics. Period.

Markets are a reflection of the mood of investors, mostly institutional investors. Institutional investors tend to be smart at managing money, though certainly not infallible. A rapidly rising stock market is an indication that smart money managers think that investing in companies will offer a better return now than they used to.

Remember, I posted this in response to Pointgod's assertion that Trump is a bumbling-stumbling Alzheimer's-riddled idiot who has no idea what he is doing on economics. My point is that, apparently, thousands of very smart money managers seem to agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far. Either they're all bumbling-stumbling Alzheimer's-riddled idiots, or maybe Trump has some slight idea what he is doing.

[gtn130]

Yeah, the markets clearly think Trump has no idea what he is doing on economic issues.

Oh, come on, nate.... Markets don't think, & you know it.

Moreover, I'd say it's very hard to know right now what this bull market means or how long it will last. Don't get me wrong -- I like it. But, I wouldn't advise going whole hog into stocks right now, nate, just b/c you think well of Donald Trump!!

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

LOL Nate what a world you live in.






All thanks to Overlord Trump, guys!

[nate33]

Oh, come on, nate.... Markets don't think, & you know it.

Moreover, I'd say it's very hard to know right now what this bull market means or how long it will last. Don't get me wrong -- I like it. But, I wouldn't advise going whole hog into stocks right now, nate, just b/c you think well of Donald Trump!!

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

LOL Nate what a world you live in.

All thanks to Overlord Trump, guys!

Whatever dude. Why don't you use graphs that start in 2001 so you can catch Bush's boom years?

Also, markets are predictive. Those red and blue marks should start on Election Day, not Inauguration Day.

[gtn130]

Whatever dude. Why don't you use graphs that start in 2001 so you can catch Bush's boom years?

Lol is this serious? What do you think brought on those boom years?

Also, markets are predictive. Those red and blue marks should start on Election Day, not Inauguration Day.

The markets would be performing better with a non-Trump Republican, my guy. Your take goes far off the rails when you somehow attribute a bull market to Trump's intelligence lmao

[gtn130]

Imagine thinking Trump is a genius in 2018

[cammac]

So I guess in your fantasy world, these tax cuts are what caused Kimberly-Clark to cut jobs. It couldn't possibly be that their profitability issue was already a problem prior to the tax cuts but the tax cuts at least gave them some wiggle room to restructure without an even greater loss of jobs.

Ah! So you see the tax cuts as a variation on a long-term continuous bailout to a failing industries and businesses? I suppose you were in favor of bailouts to the failing automakers and financial sectors, too?

Socialist thinking. You seem to think that government has the right to all the property of the citizens and any morsel they allow citizens to keep is somehow a grant from a generous government.

Nate about fantasy world! Somethings well oiled governments do much better than the Private Market! Healthcare, social services all you have to do is look at the developed Western Democracies. You live in a fantasy world yes a average Canadian does pay slightly higher taxes but they get healthcare, social benefits, well funded government pensions. Right now I can only speak of Canada they encourage free market and expansion of industry with lower corporate tax rates than the USA.

[payitforward]

In all the basketball threads, people call me a curmudgeon. In this thread, the tone of exchanges is so non-rational that I look like Mr. sweetness-&-light.

I hate that, I'm not going to stand for it, ok?

I *like* being a curmudgeon, & I can't risk having my reputation sullied -- I mean cleansed -- by visiting here too often. I'm going to have to bow out again....

Don't take it personally, ok, whoever you are? Even though it's all your fault.

[closg00]

NY post joins Fox. when will main stream jump all in.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/23/evidence-suggests-a-massive-scandal-is-brewing-at-the-fbi/

Wow! When the New York Post and Fox News agree on a story, you know it must be true!

montestewart, you really should look into this. It's not some wacko conspiracy theory. There are A LOT of facts to support it and the timeline is highly suspect.

I would bet my house that this is nothing more than the "alternative facts" crowd writing their own script about the Russia investigation. 100% of their entire narrative is about the investigators, and 0% is about what has actually been uncovered and admitted to, truly Orwellian.

[closg00]

Imagine thinking Trump is a genius in 2018

A married man having unprotected sex with a porn star, and he call himself a "stable genius"

[nate33]

Wow! When the New York Post and Fox News agree on a story, you know it must be true!

montestewart, you really should look into this. It's not some wacko conspiracy theory. There are A LOT of facts to support it and the timeline is highly suspect.

I would bet my house that this is nothing more than the "alternative facts" crowd writing their own script about the Russia investigation. 100% of their entire narrative is about the investigators, and 0% is about what has actually been uncovered and admitted to, truly Orwellian.

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

[Zonkerbl]

To the extent that markets work at all, the various participants incorporate all the information available at any given moment in time, including expectations of the future. And the US stock market is one of the most efficient markets we know of. So it is accurate to say "the market believes x," especially because it's possible to just go out and interview some of the main participants.

[gtn130]

montestewart, you really should look into this. It's not some wacko conspiracy theory. There are A LOT of facts to support it and the timeline is highly suspect.

I would bet my house that this is nothing more than the "alternative facts" crowd writing their own script about the Russia investigation. 100% of their entire narrative is about the investigators, and 0% is about what has actually been uncovered and admitted to, truly Orwellian.

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

[gtn130]

In all the basketball threads, people call me a curmudgeon. In this thread, the tone of exchanges is so non-rational that I look like Mr. sweetness-&-light.

I hate that, I'm not going to stand for it, ok?

I *like* being a curmudgeon, & I can't risk having my reputation sullied -- I mean cleansed -- by visiting here too often. I'm going to have to bow out again....

Don't take it personally, ok, whoever you are? Even though it's all your fault.

Who cares about tone? Not gonna catch me complaining about anyone's tone

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

I would bet my house that this is nothing more than the "alternative facts" crowd writing their own script about the Russia investigation. 100% of their entire narrative is about the investigators, and 0% is about what has actually been uncovered and admitted to, truly Orwellian.

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

[Zonkerbl]

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

Ugh, how many times do we have to repeat this in this thread? Can we just all agree that Trump is under investigation for serious crimes related to his public invitation of Russia to illegally hack Hillary Clinton's emails, that this is all Trump's own damn fault, that if he or his employees, whose behavior he is responsible for, cooperated with Russian government officials to coordinate the release of Hillary's emails, which had statistically measurable effects on the outcome of a very close election in which we agree the Russians were trying to influence the outcome, in exchange for the lifting of sanctions, then he is guilty of felonious interference with free elections in collaboration with foreign governments in exchange for political favors, which is ILLEGAL.

I don't want to hear ANY MORE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS. Trump brought it on himself, and no matter how innocent he ends up being in the end, he has no one to blame for this investigation but himself. Be less of an ahole next time and we won't have to investigate you. The issue is SETTLED. Argue about something else!

[gtn130]

What, exactly, has been "uncovered and admitted to". That some no name hanger-on Papadapoulus was willing to listen to some Russians feeding him information about Clinton and then never even met with Trump about it? That's not a crime. The problem is, it's not enough for a FISA warrant and for a massive surveillance program against a political opponent.

Or maybe you're referring to the "Logan Act violation" when Flynn, DURING THE TRANSITION PERIOD AFTER TRUMP WAS ELECTED, spoke to Russians about last-minute sanctions imposed by Obama two weeks before he left office. What a joke.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.

A lot of lying going on around the Trump campaign/transition/admin for everyone being so innocent! Why was Flynn fired again?

That's it?

Flynn was interviewed with no warning, with no declaration that the interview was part of the investigation, without a lawyer present, by an agent with a documented agenda against Trump, and all they got was an inconsistency with a previous statement.

Now, they're trying to get Trump for obstruction of justice because he is allegedly obstructing the investigation of crime that doesn't exist.

Again, what is the initial crime allegedly committed by Trump or his administration?

This is a concise description of the run-up to the Mueller investigation:

A year ago today, President Donald Trump’s newly sworn–in national security adviser, Michael Flynn, met privately in his West Wing office with FBI investigators interested in his communications with Russia's ambassador, without a lawyer or the knowledge of the president and other top White House officials, according to people familiar with the matter.

Flynn's FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, set in motion an extraordinary sequence of events unparalleled for the first year of a U.S. presidency. Flynn was fired as national security adviser after 24 days on the job, the acting attorney general was fired 10 days after the president took office, the FBI director was allegedly pressured by the president to let go of an investigation into Flynn, and then eventually fired himself.

The attorney general recused himself from a federal investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with the sitting president's campaign, and a special counsel was appointed.

The developments ensnared the president in an obstruction of justice inquiry, which resulted in his top intelligence and law enforcement chiefs cooperating in some form with that probe.

Explain where this is wrong or bad. Explain why there shouldn't be a special investigation.

[stilldropin20]

The markets do think. They clearly believe that the future is bright under a Trump administration. That doesn't make them right, but it is what they think.

B.S. (...why do I let myself get pulled back into this thread!?!)

Markets also don't "believe" anything. Markets do "react" to (or, maybe better, "reflect") what people believe -- not about whether the future is "bright" or dim, but about what they think stock prices will do.

Thus, for example, if people think a President will do something "good" for publicly traded corporations they are quite likely to buy more stock, pushing the market up.

But, they will do that -- & be smart to do it -- even if they also think those same policies will be "bad" for other entities or even bad overall.

Now, the above has to be nuanced (shd be "more people" vs. "fewer people" for example), but it has no entailments in any realm other than that. I.e. it's the classic "rational actor" model in economics. Period.

Markets are a reflection of the mood of investors, mostly institutional investors. Institutional investors tend to be smart at managing money, though certainly not infallible. A rapidly rising stock market is an indication that smart money managers think that investing in companies will offer a better return now than they used to.

Remember, I posted this in response to Pointgod's assertion that Trump is a bumbling-stumbling Alzheimer's-riddled idiot who has no idea what he is doing on economics. My point is that, apparently, thousands of very smart money managers seem to agree with the decisions that Trump has made so far. Either they're all bumbling-stumbling Alzheimer's-riddled idiots, or maybe Trump has some slight idea what he is doing.

count me in the group that says, presidents matter.

Read on Twitter