I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the 5+ yrs of economic growth under Obama prior to election season, and then shit on him when the market is spooked during election season.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Trump threatens to "totally destroy" North Korea
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the 5+ yrs of economic growth under Obama prior to election season, and then shit on him when the market is spooked during election season.
I guess the point I was trying to make is that it's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the 5+ yrs of economic growth under Obama prior to election season, and then shit on him when the market is spooked during election season.
Well then tell me how you feel the market would react if Obamacare was repealed? How do you think it would react if taxes were lowered? How do you think it would react if Trump shifted gears to drastically increasing regulations on businesses? What is it that Obama did that was pro business and pro job growth?
Btw Here4Money, I appreciate debating you, your one of the few guys on here who can simply have a debate, thx for the convo!
Also, im curious, how did you end up making out on Bitcoin? I was dead wrong about the top at 3k, but i think its close again at 5k, China banning it is going to start more countries banning it IMO, but i hope you did good on it.
Obama care not much affect on market a month later. The Republican plan is a joke of course. No change other than to make matters even worse by remanding the problems back to the States that are less capable of handing it than the federal government. It's just so the Republicans can say they repealed Obama care. Everyone sees through it. It's not going to do anything to solve the problem of costs too high ; probably make it worse and we will be back to square one with millions with no access except via the emergency room, Pathetic really.Tell me something, just a quick hypothetical, If Obamacare gets repealed tomorrow, which way do you think the market goes, up or down? If tax reform gets passed which way do you think the market goes up or down?
Tax reform? It would depend on what "reform" means. If it means significantly lower taxes focused on the middle class , that would mean big deficits and a tremendous boost to the market. Any time you lower taxes and increase deficits (i.e., you don't decrease gov spending accordingly) when near full employment you get an increase in private sector household savings and a boost to the stock market. If the tax cuts are concentrated in the upper most bracket you'll get a similar, but lesser effect. A good part of the market's boost when you cut late in the business cycle, very near full employment, comes from inflation and devalued currency. Tax cuts need to come early in the cycle during recessions if you want to avoid inflation. This is standard economic stuff. We are probably near mid major cycle right now, a little too close to full employment for really drastic cuts which would definitely be inflationary. Big cuts now would certainly boost the economy in nominal terms and make politicians look good in time for the 2018 elections. The serious inflation would likely set in too late to be a factor in the Congressional elections, Fall 2018, but could be a factor in 2020. I think the Fed is already anticipating a move to cut taxes and increase deficits. They will counter the resulting inflation with boosts in the short term rates, of course, but its an inexact process. The worst that could happen is for Trump to appoint incompetence at the Fed. We need steady, experienced hands there.
Last edited:
Obama care not much affect on market a month later. The Republican plan is a joke of course. No change other than to make matters even worse by remanding the problems back to the States that are less capable of handing it than the federal government. It's just so the Republicans can say they repealed Obama care. Everyone sees through it. It's not going to do anything to solve the problem of costs too high ; probably make it worse and we will be back to square one with millions with no access except via the emergency room, Pathetic really.
Tax reform? It would depend on what "reform" means. If it means significantly lower taxes focused on the middle class , that would mean big deficits and a tremendous boost to the market. Any time you lower taxes and increase deficits (i.e., you don't decrease gov spending accordingly) when near full employment you get an increase in private sector household savings and a boost to the stock market. If the tax cuts are concentrated in the upper most bracket you'll get a similar, but lesser effect. A good part of the market's boost when you cut late in the business cycle, very near full employment, comes from inflation and devalued currency. Tax cuts need to come early in the cycle during recessions if you want to avoid inflation. This is standard economic stuff. We are probably near mid major cycle right now, a little too close to full employment for really drastic cuts which would definitely be inflationary. Big cuts now would certainly boost the economy in nominal terms and make politicians look good in time for the 2018 elections. The serious inflation would likely set in too late to be a factor in the Congressional elections, Fall 2018, but could be a factor in 2020. I think the Fed is already anticipating a move to cut taxes and increase deficits. They will counter the resulting inflation with boosts in the short term rates, of course, but its an inexact process. The worst that could happen is for Trump to appoint incompetence at the Fed. We need steady, experienced hands there.
"Obama care not much affect on market a month later. "
Really? so the employer mandate over 50 employees had no effect on business practices?
"A good part of the market's boost when you cut late in the business cycle, very near full employment, comes from inflation and devalued currency. Tax cuts need to come early in the cycle during recessions if you want to avoid inflation. This is standard economic stuff. "
Then why did Obama not only raise taxes, but throw an employer mandate at the businesses right at the start of the business cycle? Why do you think the Fed had to offset Obamas activities for 8 years with artificially low rates and they are now only able to aggressively raise them under Trumps proposals? How do you think you unwind the so called "government stimulus" where rates stayed artificially low for 8 years under Obama? Someone has to pick up the torch for the fed when the rate increases come, it sure wasnt going to be new businesses under Obama.
"If you want to avoid inflation" Give me a break, inflation under Obama has been out of control, wages didnt go up for 8 years, the only thing that went up was the cost of food, and the cost of housing, the cost of assets. The fed tried to compensate for Obama piling it on and what we ended up with was the worst of all worlds, businesses were not hiring at a typical rate when coming out of a recession, and wages went nowhere, while housing, food, and everything people need to pay for in every day life skyrocketed, all because of of onerous regulations and "taxes" (I say that meaning Obamacare as well which was a gigantic "tax" on small businesses)
I think the Fed is already anticipating a move to cut taxes and increase deficits. They will counter the resulting inflation with boosts in the short term rates, of course
I will honestly fly to your house and shine your shoes if even 1 of Trumps deficits comes in at over half of Obama's biggest one, the reason that they are able to raise rates now is because Trump is taking the burden off of businesses, by eliminating massive amounts of regulations and through the potential of tax cuts, and tax simplification. (You just admitted it)
He is also helping out every single worker in the states by slowing down immigration and illegal immigration which only adds more supply to the labor market.
Do you think, do you think it would be healthy to live in Obamaland for another 8 years with rates at 0 pumping billions into the economy, and inflating assets while middle class wages, never grew and retirees slowly got bled out of all their life savings through inflation? Is that the ticket to a thriving economy?
Someone had to take the burden off the fed, otherwise we would end up with Q.E. infinity, and rates never go up while people like Bernie Sanders just keep piling it on.
The worst that could happen is for Trump to appoint incompetence at the Fed. We need steady, experienced hands there
Come on man this is a parody in and of itself, who do you think was the last competent person at the fed? Was Allan bubble Greenspan competent? Was Bernanke? Is Yellen?
The last competent person we had at the fed was probably Volcker, he aggressively raised rates when it was necessary, these days they would just close their eyes and say it wasnt happening, it scares me to think of what would happen if we ever saw that kind of inflation under one of these pro market goofs in modern times. If we really wanted to raise rates the time to do it and set the economy into a recession would have been four years ago, there would have been a minor pullback then the market would have recovered.
But now instead we have blown the market into such a massive bubble that the only soft landing is if the private sector takes it off the feds back, they know it and so does anyone else who is paying attention. If the fed had to aggressively raise rates tomorrow we would see everybody pile straight out of the market and straight into bonds. They already let it go too far, and now the only chance we have at a soft landing is if the private sector carries the torch for them from this point foreword, any blip in the radar and this thing is toast, and now we dont even have anything we can do because rates are already close to zero, and the fed was asleep at the switch again bailing out the market, and bailing out Obama.
Last edited:
Right now we have consumers that are confident in the future but have no extra cash due to $300/month premiums and $3000 deductibles with their Obamacare. Republicans are proving to be just the Democrat followers that they always have been and that makes sense in light of the fact that all politicians answer to the same money... and we still have 3% growth under Trump!
Look. I'm dead set against the employer mandate because I'm dead set against employment linked healthcare! Obama care looked promising to me when first proposed because the Democrats had added the public option to what was otherwise a rather thoroughly Republican/Heritage Foundation proposal. Also, there was initially the prospect of McCarran-Ferguson being repealed to bring insurance under Dept of Commerce Regs. These prospects quickly faded. Once the Republicans and a handful of "democrats", chiefly Mr. Baucus, were satisfied that the offending portions of the bill had been removed or neutered, the Congress passed what was left -- unaccountably, not a single Republicans voted for the wreck they helped create. Nevertheless we got some tremendously useful things out of an otherwise bad Bill. Expansion of Medicaid was the primary good!, where it wasn't blocked by Republican Governors in acts of supreme political malpractice. And, of course, taking care of the pre-existing condition problem was another huge accomplishment, BIGLY! Obama care is horrible, but better than what we had before.Really? so the employer mandate over 50 employees had no effect on business practices?
The employer mandate stuff has no detectable immediate effect on the stock market . It's there, but so diffuse in effect, compared to the impact of the entire healthcare sector on the economy it's like the effect of a fly swatter at a picnic featuring road kill.
Why do you think the Fed had to offset Obamas activities for 8 years with artificially low rates and they are now only able to aggressively raise them under Trumps proposals?
You have a strange view of history. But to each his own I say.
It seems you are not much interested in my opinion, but I am happy to give it to you anyway. Both Bernanke and Yellen are highly qualified, by training and experience, and have shown themselves to be well beyond merely capable as Fed Chairs. Particularly that is true of Bernanke. Neither Volcker nor Greenspan were well-qualified when they were appointed. In particular, Greenspan lacked the necessary qualifications to be a good Fed Chair. He was a political appointee. So I am rather impressed with the, by and large, competent job he did as Chair. However he had two serious flaws. He wasn't able to resist letting his politics influence some key decisions, and he was terribly opaque when it came to communicating Fed policy. I have learned from experience that a lack of sufficient knowledge often lies at the root of opacity. When the subject is complex, deep understanding is required to speak clearly. I think he knew he wasn't qualified in the beginning. He had to learn on the job. Both Yellen and Bernanke have run a far more transparent Fed and both are better suited to the job than Greenspan was.Come on man this is a parody in and of itself, who do you think was the last competent person at the fed? Was Allan bubble Greenspan competent? Was Bernanke? Is Yellen?
Of course Greenspan's tragic error, engendered by his Ayn Rand-like Objectivism, was his belief in market equilibrium theory, which he knew, according to his textbooks, required "free markets" to operate*, so naturally he was an enthusiastic supporter of "The Financial Modernization Act".
As fate would have it, market forces played a cruel trick on the poor man. Because of his steadfast faith that, if left alone, market forces would spontaneously self-correct excesses, and despite being the chief regulator, he declined to regulate. He was a chief regulator who did not believe in regulation!** He had been repeatedly informed of excesses and abuses in mortgage lending and CDOs, but his unshakable faith kept him on a steadfast course of full speed ahead. And of course he turned out to be uncanny in the accuracy of his prediction that eventually Market Forces would correct "irrational exuberance" without human intervention. Sadly, those same Market Forces, when they finally did step in, threatened to bring down the finances of the world. So, in the end, and quite sadly for poor Alan, mankind's institutions were forced to step in and take charge anyway. Alan was one hell of a sax player though!
I guess I should warn you, if I turn out to be particularly clear, you've probably misunderstood what I've said. -- Alan Greenspan
_________________________
* Equilibrium theory is inherently flawed and doesn't hold even for "Free Markets".
**Here we can recognize Mr. Greenspan as a sort of "Pioneer" so to speak. There are present day parallels to Mr. Greenspan's, "the regulator", non-regulation. In our Dept. of Education we have a Secretary who does not believe in Public Education; in our Environmental Protection Agency we have an Agency Head who does not believe in Protecting the Environment; in our Dept. of Commerce we have a Secretary who does not believe in Regulating Commerce, etc. It seems there is nothing new here. It's been done before! Thank you Mr. Greenspan for blazing the trail.
Last edited: