Author Topic: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)  (Read 22622 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26558
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #455 on: January 05, 2018, 09:53:08 AM »
(Adami, I think you're here)

The only things I'm in are your head and your heart.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 881
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #456 on: January 05, 2018, 10:32:32 AM »
Right, I thought my post made that clear.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #457 on: January 05, 2018, 10:54:27 AM »
And I still maintain that the flaw in your reasoning is that Grabby was elected precisely because he intended to upset the apple cart. Obama made very clear what he intended to do. Trump did as well. What it comes down to isn't certainty, but certainty you'll get what you want.

In the several years I've known you now, I don't think I've ever ONCE said or even implied that you don't know what you're talking about, and I want to take care that I don't start now.
If the MP.com forum didn't suck so massively hard I'd hunt down the post where you told me exactly that. In those very words. With an exclamation point!   :rollin

In any case, there are plenty of fields where you're welcome to tell me so, and macroeconomics is certainly one of them. But in this case I think the uncertainty you describe is always present. And doesn't constantly implementing and then revoking rules and regs qualify as uncertainty? I think where I and others run into a problem is that in your model it necessarily comes down to democrats tank the economy and republicans are the ones who make it great again.

Haha, yeah, maybe there was one time.  I don't know, I was drunk at the time.  :)

But yes, implementing and revoking rules does qualify as "uncertainty".  No one said there was NONE; that's what "interest" is for ("interest" or "profit" is another word for "risk factor" and accounts for that).  You know this inherently if you gamble; betting on "black" pays less because the risk is less than, say, betting on "20". 

And no, it doesn't boil down to "dems tank the economy and republicans are the ones that make it great again".    More often than not that seems to be true, but there are exceptions.   Bill Clinton - a Democrat true and true - understood the notion of "economic certainty" more than most Republicans to be honest, and the economy did just fine under him.   I don't think some of you (not you, el Barto, because we've talked about this) quite comprehend the level of economic impact something like the ACA has.  Even if at the end it zero's out, the impacts in between are where the uncertainty lies.  Every business that now may or may not have to supply healthcare, and for uncertain plans.  What  are the tax implications?  What are the liability implications?  Accounting implications (with reserves and what not).  We're talking billions of dollars that we don't know where they'll be allocated.    Some of this is the cost of doing business - we can account for, say, hurricanes or dead beat payers because of past history and put a factor in - but most of this is not.   And even if it is, the best mitigation for the risk is not a "risk factor", but rather, sitting on your money and waiting for a better investment opportunity.  Remember, there's no obligation to play.
I think where you run into a problem is that Trump and his payed minions have been playing the uncertainty card quite a bit. Did he just forget to explain what he'd be doing with cost sharing reductions in ACA for 10 months? No, he repeatedly said "we'll see," grinning tauntingly. Tremendous undermining of the program. Legal dope is a 40 billion dollar industry (not to mention the illegal variety, a fungible component of commerce according to Antonin Scalia, worth 140 more), which now has no fucking clue what's going to happen because of Trump's flakiness. Uncertainty that was ruled out when he was running. Didn't ATT/Time Warner have every reason to think they'd have no trouble moving forward, only to be sucker-punched by the DOJ? By pulling out of the Paris Accords and gutting the EPA, after American industry had moved forward for many years, didn't he pull the rug out from under companies that now have to compete with startups that now get to play on an uneven field?

This is to you and Jingle.  It's not "uncertainty" in the lay sense of the word.  It's specifically "economic uncertainty" in the form of changing guidelines, rules and boundaries, primarily legislatively.    Every company on the planet deals with "uncertainty" on a daily basis.  They balance existing cash streams with new products, they balance competitors, they balance external factors like wars and weather calamities... but to some degree they are mitigatable, forecastable (from a probability perspective), and, not insignificantly, insurable.  Right now, the weed industry is by necessity a local one.  The dispensary in Fort Collins, CO doesn't care about what happens in Cali or Connecticut or Cansas.  Their AG as said "business as usual; we've already incorporated these guidelines".  In the future?  Sure, this could be big for the marijuana producers.   But it's not a "NYSE wide change".  This is specific industry uncertainty, with little impact to other industries. The previous uncertainty around the ACA was pan-industry.   The current uncertainty around the ACA doesn't really impact corporations at this point; Trump's only been fucking with the mandate and the personal subsidies.   Those receiving the subsidies are not the primary funders of the market to begin with (no judgment there, just a reality) so why would getting rid of the subsidies impact business on a grand scale?   

The EPA issue is a good one (and one I can speak to with experience, given that I was EHS - Environmental Health and Safety - Counsel for a Fortune 10 company for a good number of years).   Rollbacks are not a problem for a number of reasons.  One, an upstart isn't going to just start manufacturing billion dollar turbine systems tomorrow.   But more importantly, those types of regulations hit businesses on both sides:   GE.    They have a SIGNIFICANT infrastructure out there that now does not need to be massively overhauled and upgraded on someone else's timeframe (another HUGE part of the problem; corporations manage earnings, and when someone else tells them they have to do something on their timeframe, it fucks with that.   Stock price is a measure of future earnings, and if that can't be forecasted, the stock price goes down).  GE also SELLS stuff to companies with an existing infrastructure.   If that base doesn't have to change, GE's good; if the Feds pass sweeping environmental regulation that drastically cuts emissions, say, or demands a certain percentage of energy from a particular source, that's a huge problem.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20559
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #458 on: January 05, 2018, 12:22:46 PM »
The pot market is not local. What happens in Cansas matters a great deal to the folk in Cali. It matters much more to the investors, and while it hasn't hit the NYSE yet, there's a tremendous amount of action going on, with far more yet to come. Who's going to invest in the next Seagrams, Phillip Morris, or Ben E. Keith if the future of the industry is subject to the fanatical whims of an 80 year old throwback?

Also, the cost sharing subsidies fucked with the insurers. It had nothing to do with the consumers other than to increase their premiums. A great deal of the blame for the rate increases was uncertainty about what the would or would not be reimbursed. This is clearly the economic uncertainty you deride, and it is a pan-industry problem.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24016
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #459 on: January 05, 2018, 01:26:00 PM »
I'm just going to re-quote this so you can read it again Bill.

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.

...

The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.   

As it relates to the ACA, Trump was promising to blow it up.  As it relates to a few other industries (energy, environment, manufacturing come to mind), Trump was promising to make radical changes.  According to your argument, that should've had the opposite effect of what is actually happening, and should've started way back in August/September on the "possibility" of that radical change - since that's when the shit hit the fan in '08 under the end of Bush, and the possibility of Obama (or McCain).
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #460 on: January 05, 2018, 04:06:34 PM »
The pot market is not local. What happens in Cansas matters a great deal to the folk in Cali. It matters much more to the investors, and while it hasn't hit the NYSE yet, there's a tremendous amount of action going on, with far more yet to come. Who's going to invest in the next Seagrams, Phillip Morris, or Ben E. Keith if the future of the industry is subject to the fanatical whims of an 80 year old throwback?

I want to ask you why you don't think it's "local", but to stay on topic:  they won't invest.   But that's an industry call.  None of this is intended to remove risk or to guarantee returns in any specific industry.  There are always going to be industries that are promoted or not based on other criteria.   For example, I'm not at all asking for "no laws" so that we can all invest radically in coal.  It's a dead industry.  I have no doubt that the stock market has already factored that in.    I also have little doubt that the stock market has factored in the dichotomy between Fed law and state law.   

Quote
Also, the cost sharing subsidies fucked with the insurers. It had nothing to do with the consumers other than to increase their premiums. A great deal of the blame for the rate increases was uncertainty about what the would or would not be reimbursed. This is clearly the economic uncertainty you deride, and it is a pan-industry problem.

I'm not following you; removing the subsidies fucked with insurers, but they've been fucked with since day one of the ACA, and with the mandate gone, they can manage the impacts.  It's not a pan-industry problem, though, because - pick an industry - energy producers are not impacted by that.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #461 on: January 06, 2018, 08:25:16 AM »
I'm just going to re-quote this so you can read it again Bill.

Businesses care about ONE THING:  consistency.  In the most simplistic sense, they want to know that if they invest dollar 1 today with the idea that they will reap $10 two years from now, that - to the extent possible - the ground rules of that investment won't change.

...

The market is up not because Trump is Trump, not "because" Trump is President, not because he's an economic wizard, but ONLY because the people pouring money INTO the stock market know full well that he - or his administration - will not do ANYTHING to upset that apple cart.   

As it relates to the ACA, Trump was promising to blow it up.  As it relates to a few other industries (energy, environment, manufacturing come to mind), Trump was promising to make radical changes.  According to your argument, that should've had the opposite effect of what is actually happening, and should've started way back in August/September on the "possibility" of that radical change - since that's when the shit hit the fan in '08 under the end of Bush, and the possibility of Obama (or McCain).

YES!  And that's a good thing for business.  Look, I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining this.   "Certainty" isn't "lack of change" (and vice versa; "change" doesn't mean "lack of certainty").   Change is fine if it can be managed, forecasted, reserved for, insured for.   Change in the right direction is not only not a problem, but welcome.   The changes Trump was promising were almost all pro-business and designed - to the extent there was design - to increase the landscape for possibility of return. 

It's like... sports.  You train.  You work out.  You game plan.  But you still have to play the game, right?  And anything can happen.   Someone could get hurt.  But you plan for that, with backups, or try to minimize the hits on your star player.  Both teams forecast for weather.  There are spare cleats, gloves, etc.   But what would happen if at the coin flip, the refs say "Oh, and by the way, we're going to outlaw forward passes".  Or "ANY contact, of any kind, even incidental, will be considered pass interference, first down at the spot of the foul."  Or "we're not going to use footballs, we're going to use badminton shuttlecocks instead."   

"Economic certainty" is not the absence of change or risk.  It's the absence of systemic, pan-industry singularities that in a moment change EVERYTHING about your business.  GE again;  they have around 250,000 employees.  Across the board, their two largest spends are fuel and healthcare.   Everything else is business-specific or procurable (meaning it can be had cheaper in bulk or in volume).  When a law is passed that DOUBLES their healthcare spend - across the board, for their Train division, their Plastics division, their Healthcare (products) division, their Capital division, AND that stock is a bellwether stock in the Dow Jones (meaning it's purchased both individually and in indexes and mutual funds) it changes the investment profile of the market.   

 

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24016
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #462 on: January 06, 2018, 09:22:12 AM »
Look, I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining this. 

On this, we agree.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #463 on: January 06, 2018, 10:46:00 AM »
I was being humble.  Don't gloat!   There are two sides to the "delivery" and "receipt" of information.  :). :). :)

For what it's worth, I just had the opposite argument with my Dad:  he said something along the lines of "Donald Trump has done more for the economy than Obama, Clinton and Carter combined".   And I said exactly what I said here:  HE himself didn't do anything for the economy, but his policies and outlook on the economy have set the playing field for people to be confident that their investments were not subject to arbitrary whims of government policies that have no concern for the economy.

Also, what say you on these bets:   A steak dinner that Trump was not President as of January 6, 2019, and an Italian dinner that Hillary OR Comey would not see any jail time? 

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11508
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #464 on: January 06, 2018, 11:38:57 AM »
Quote
I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
"I'm so smart I forgot about my first campaign!"

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18104
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #465 on: January 06, 2018, 11:42:45 AM »
Quote
I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!
"I'm so smart I forgot about my first campaign!"

lol said the same thing to my gf when we read his tweets this morning

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24016
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #466 on: January 06, 2018, 11:51:32 AM »
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26558
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #467 on: January 06, 2018, 11:56:43 AM »
I don't think Trump is the worst president.

I'll admit it's mostly just a matter of me not agreeing with many of his decisions since I'm not a capitalist, or conservative, or a strict individualist, or evangelical.

I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing), but mostly the dude is just embarrassing. I can't think of too many people who are more embarrassing to the American public.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6246
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #468 on: January 06, 2018, 12:27:49 PM »
I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing)...

As someone with more of a personal interest in this topic, can you elucidate your thoughts for me? Ok to do via PM. Middle Eastern relations and politics is something I am very (unintentionally) ignorant of.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26558
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #469 on: January 06, 2018, 12:32:21 PM »
I can say some of his decisions are really really bad (like the Jerusalem thing)...

As someone with more of a personal interest in this topic, can you elucidate your thoughts for me? Ok to do via PM. Middle Eastern relations and politics is something I am very (unintentionally) ignorant of.

Yea, I'll shoot you a PM in a bit with my thoughts. Always happy to talk about that region.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20559
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #470 on: January 06, 2018, 01:18:39 PM »
I wasn't asked, but I'll chime in anyway. The Jerusalem thing accomplishes no purpose insofar as Israel goes. Everybody knows we were on their cock before and we remain so now. It accomplished two things for Grabby, though. It pandered to the evangelicals who, for reasons completely baffling to me, have a hard-on for Israel. And, like so many other things he's done, gave a middle finger and hearty Fuck You to the rest of the world. The latter is a recurring theme for his presidency. Do stuff that serves no actual purpose but shows complete disregard for convention, no matter how reasonable that convention might be.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6246
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #471 on: January 06, 2018, 01:42:02 PM »
That was my high-level assessment as well. I don't see it as much of an FU as much of a "Hey, we're doing our own thing here, deal with it." That could be perceived as an FU though, so I get your point. I like the notion of not following convention just because it is there, but concede it shouldn't be trampled with no reason other than to trample it.

I know there is a thread about Israel so didn't want to make it a big topic in this one. Will carry this via PM with you and Adami if necessary, or move to the other thread.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #472 on: January 06, 2018, 04:05:07 PM »
Nothing to see here.  Move along (to the other thread that I didn't see before I posted here).

Offline Snow Dog

  • Posts: 524
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #473 on: January 07, 2018, 07:44:32 AM »


replace "nuclear button" with "tiny penis", and it's actually quite funny.

No worries. Were good...


Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 8647
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #474 on: January 07, 2018, 09:50:19 AM »
Normally, I would just automatically assume that someone shopped that.   But these days, I have to ask....is that Melania one real?  I know the original one is. 
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3684
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #475 on: January 07, 2018, 10:16:04 AM »
Just for fun, let's say you could gather 5 presidents together for a round table discussion (about anything). The catch is you have to include Donald Trump. Who you got? I'm thinking of the interaction with Trump on these picks. John Adams (or Washington), JFK, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 726
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #476 on: January 07, 2018, 10:52:04 AM »
Just for fun, let's say you could gather 5 presidents together for a round table discussion (about anything). The catch is you have to include Donald Trump. Who you got? I'm thinking of the interaction with Trump on these picks. John Adams (or Washington), JFK, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt.

Lincoln: Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation

Trump: Wrong!
 
Lincoln: ...conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal

Trump: Wrong!

Lincoln: Now we are engaged in a great civil war

Trump: The greatest civil war, huge, tremendous, but don't worry, I got this.

Lincoln: ...testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Trump: Nobody endures longer than me, believe me.

Lincoln: We are met on a great battle-field of that war.

Trump: Lyin' Lincoln wants to be a tough guy...


In seriousness, I don't get the impression Trump handles sustained conversation very well. The kind that requires careful listening and the mental juggling of complex ideas. I don't think he'd have much to offer on a dinner date with the great presidents. Perhaps he could discuss carnal conquests with Slick Willy and JFK. Quite frankly I'd pay good money to listen in on that chat.   
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20559
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #477 on: January 07, 2018, 12:48:49 PM »
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26558
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #478 on: January 07, 2018, 12:56:40 PM »
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.

The hell would we be left with?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online Kattoelox

  • Cart Corral Crusader
  • Posts: 3684
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #479 on: January 07, 2018, 12:59:07 PM »
Andrew Jackson to serve as Trump's mouthpiece on political matters.
James Garfield as a very intelligent, educated republican counterpoint who could explain why they're both stunningly full of shit.
Lyndon B. Johnson to put a very quick end to any discussion about hands, dicks, or buttons.
John F. Kennedy to put a very quick end to any discussion about sexual prowess.
George Washington to put a very quick end to any discussion about who was the first or greatest to do anything.

The hell would we be left with?

Trump playing with one of those bead maze toys while the rest enjoy a nice scotch?

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20559
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #480 on: January 07, 2018, 01:09:16 PM »
Quote from: #TheRealDonaldTrump:
Had dinner with five former presidents last night. Those guys had nothing to offer. Total losers. Boring. Jackson wants to meet with me tomorrow morning at dawn down by the river. Probably wants to apologize.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #481 on: January 07, 2018, 06:22:28 PM »


In seriousness, I don't get the impression Trump handles sustained conversation very well. The kind that requires careful listening and the mental juggling of complex ideas. I don't think he'd have much to offer on a dinner date with the great presidents. Perhaps he could discuss carnal conquests with Slick Willy and JFK. Quite frankly I'd pay good money to listen in on that chat.

Alec Baldwin was on Stern not long ago, and since Howard knows Donald fairly well, he asked Alec about his level of acquaintance with him, being a "big wig" of sorts in NYC.  Alec said - and I think while he was clearly not a fan of Trump, he was being sincere here and not mean, though you can't tell with Baldwin because he's so damn smart - that Trump was well-known as the unofficial Mayor of New York, meaning he would appear at everything, but he'd never stay in any one place very long.  He'd swoop in, glad hand, take pictures, but as soon as the dust settled he'd be gone.  There was almost no personal interaction beyond the superficial.   Having said that, Alec said in that that limited capacity he was always a gracious polite man, for what that's worth.   Just, it was clear, not very deep.

Online axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11546
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #482 on: January 07, 2018, 10:31:26 PM »
There's been a lot of interesting talk about the economy and finance in the last couple pages. Not going to go back and quote, but I'll just hit on a couple things.

I'm probably splitting hairs a little bit in the grand scheme of things, but with regards to election night, the initial reaction to Trump's increasing chances of winning the presidency was panic. Pulled from a CNN article:



After Florida and Ohio were called for Trump the market bottomed out hitting it's stop loss a little after midnight. The numbers were already in Don's favor then (though he wasn't a lock yet). The market started to bounce back reflecting on the possibilities of Trump in the presidency with Republicans controlling both chambers as far as pro-business legislature. This was no doubt aided by his (in retrospect uncharacteristically) conciliatory tone in his acceptance speech, leading to hope he wouldn't be as volatile as expected based on his campaign. Since then the market has obviously done well, posting a similar % gain in the Dow to Obama's first year, and slightly worse job #s than last year. Some of the gains are certainly due to both his regulatory rollbacks (not to say that necessarily makes all of them good decisions) and the expectation and ultimate delivery of tax cuts.

Personally I'm not a fan of a decent chunk of the tax bill (even though as someone with few itemized deductions, the doubling of the standard deduction will probably be a boon to me) for a number of reasons. One, I'm skeptical of how much of the tax savings will actually make it beyond executives and major shareholders. I know there are plenty of companies who were already sitting on cash reserves, and I'm sure some of the tax cuts will end up funding increased compensation and bonuses for top executives, share buybacks, and dividends. Not exactly helpful to people who don't own stocks or are hoping for a big hiring spike. I'm not saying there won't be any gains to that effect, just that I doubt there will be anywhere near as much as Republicans who are trying to sell it to the rank and file are claiming. Two, I don't know how necessary it was to blow a trillion dollar plus hole into the budget for a major tax cut given that the economy was already growing beforehand. We haven't had a down quarter in GDP since Q1 2014 (which was immediately followed by two quarters of 4%+ growth). Even if the cuts are as effective in growing the economy as the GOP hopes/promises, given how low the unemployment rate already is, the likely result is that the Fed ends up speeding up their monetary tightening, which then mutes any positive effect from the tax plan. Then we're left in a position where growth is the same, or at best slightly better than without a major tax cut, but at the same time the government now loses the option of a big tax cut as a stimulus tool for the next time the economy takes a downturn.

As far as the 08 downturn, I don't think I'd say Obama is anything more than a footnote in terms of causes. The housing market was heading for a disaster no matter what. People like John Paulson were looking to bet against it as early as late 2005 to mid 2006, and Paulson had returns north of 60% in February 2007 (yes, 60% in one month) thanks to those bets well before the primaries were even decided. I don't doubt Stadler's anecdotes about some money staying on the sidelines once it was clear that Obama had a real shot at becoming President. I would just argue that the cat was already out of the bag. The financial alchemy that enabled companies to take garbage mortgages, chop them up and package them into much desired investment grade debt (rated so by ratings companies that had no idea what they were doing and operate with perverse motivations in general given that these companies are the ones paying for the ratings) was based on the faulty assumption that there would never be a nationwide downturn in the housing market, and resulted in way too many people getting mortgages who had no business getting one. And there were still those hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps oustanding on companies who were doomed by the imminent housing crash. I'd argue that at best, the absence of an Obama (or Obama-like) frontrunner in 2008 lets some of that money that was held back come into play, which likely delays the inevitable for a little while longer and maybe cushions the blow a little bit. I don't think Obama is the difference between a run of the mill downturn and what we actually went through though. It was always going to be very ugly and very painful.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #483 on: January 08, 2018, 07:11:22 AM »
There's been a lot of interesting talk about the economy and finance in the last couple pages. Not going to go back and quote, but I'll just hit on a couple things.

I'm probably splitting hairs a little bit in the grand scheme of things, but with regards to election night, the initial reaction to Trump's increasing chances of winning the presidency was panic. Pulled from a CNN article:



After Florida and Ohio were called for Trump the market bottomed out hitting it's stop loss a little after midnight. The numbers were already in Don's favor then (though he wasn't a lock yet). The market started to bounce back reflecting on the possibilities of Trump in the presidency with Republicans controlling both chambers as far as pro-business legislature. This was no doubt aided by his (in retrospect uncharacteristically) conciliatory tone in his acceptance speech, leading to hope he wouldn't be as volatile as expected based on his campaign. Since then the market has obviously done well, posting a similar % gain in the Dow to Obama's first year, and slightly worse job #s than last year. Some of the gains are certainly due to both his regulatory rollbacks (not to say that necessarily makes all of them good decisions) and the expectation and ultimate delivery of tax cuts.

Wait a second, though; this isn't a real time - meaning, "to the second!" - activity.   If Hillary is your president, where are you investing?  Wall Street?  Coal?   Energy companies?   Real estate?   Probably not.  If Trump is your president, where are you investing? 

So what you're seeing is exactly what I'm talking about:  once it became a reality that Hillary wasn't walking with this, investors moved to "keep their powder dry", i.e., you watch the futures drop as we know the money SHOULDN'T be where it is, but we don't yet know where it SHOULD be.  "Losing Florida" doesn't mean "losing the election", it means a key block in the wall has fallen and the pundits may not be right.   Then as more and more data comes in, you start to see where the good plays might be, and so you start to see where the money might go.  Remember, these are FUTURES, so you're really reading minds at this point.   The real key is when the markets open, and at that point the behavior continued to exhibit the thought that was forecast the night before. 

Quote
Personally I'm not a fan of a decent chunk of the tax bill (even though as someone with few itemized deductions, the doubling of the standard deduction will probably be a boon to me) for a number of reasons. One, I'm skeptical of how much of the tax savings will actually make it beyond executives and major shareholders. I know there are plenty of companies who were already sitting on cash reserves, and I'm sure some of the tax cuts will end up funding increased compensation and bonuses for top executives, share buybacks, and dividends. Not exactly helpful to people who don't own stocks or are hoping for a big hiring spike. I'm not saying there won't be any gains to that effect, just that I doubt there will be anywhere near as much as Republicans who are trying to sell it to the rank and file are claiming. Two, I don't know how necessary it was to blow a trillion dollar plus hole into the budget for a major tax cut given that the economy was already growing beforehand. We haven't had a down quarter in GDP since Q1 2014 (which was immediately followed by two quarters of 4%+ growth). Even if the cuts are as effective in growing the economy as the GOP hopes/promises, given how low the unemployment rate already is, the likely result is that the Fed ends up speeding up their monetary tightening, which then mutes any positive effect from the tax plan. Then we're left in a position where growth is the same, or at best slightly better than without a major tax cut, but at the same time the government now loses the option of a big tax cut as a stimulus tool for the next time the economy takes a downturn.

You can't lump "executive pay", "stock buy-backs" and "dividends" into one pile.  They're not at all the same, and the idea that "oh, well, I'm too poor to invest" is sort of a hollow one with me.   You can invest with as little as $25 a month.   If you have ANY retirement scheme with your company, you are investing.   In those cases, dividends and buy-backs are a direct benefit to you.  At some point, we're not talking about "who benefits" as much as we're now talking about making these massive, national endeavors "idiot-proof", and that's where much of the problem lies.    Look, I don't want to turn this into a "Liberal/Conservative" discussion, but increasingly, the Liberal platform is one of "lack of accountability" and trying to make risk scenarios "idiot-proof".   Absolving people of their student debt, contracts entered into willingly and with free will.   REQUIRING that everyone have healthcare, because as we all know most of us are too stupid to decide on our own whether we want insurance or not.   Minimum wage, because we shouldn't ask our people to actually take responsibility for their career and their growth within their career.   

Quote
As far as the 08 downturn, I don't think I'd say Obama is anything more than a footnote in terms of causes. The housing market was heading for a disaster no matter what. People like John Paulson were looking to bet against it as early as late 2005 to mid 2006, and Paulson had returns north of 60% in February 2007 (yes, 60% in one month) thanks to those bets well before the primaries were even decided. I don't doubt Stadler's anecdotes about some money staying on the sidelines once it was clear that Obama had a real shot at becoming President. I would just argue that the cat was already out of the bag. The financial alchemy that enabled companies to take garbage mortgages, chop them up and package them into much desired investment grade debt (rated so by ratings companies that had no idea what they were doing and operate with perverse motivations in general given that these companies are the ones paying for the ratings) was based on the faulty assumption that there would never be a nationwide downturn in the housing market, and resulted in way too many people getting mortgages who had no business getting one. And there were still those hundreds of billions of dollars in credit default swaps oustanding on companies who were doomed by the imminent housing crash. I'd argue that at best, the absence of an Obama (or Obama-like) frontrunner in 2008 lets some of that money that was held back come into play, which likely delays the inevitable for a little while longer and maybe cushions the blow a little bit. I don't think Obama is the difference between a run of the mill downturn and what we actually went through though. It was always going to be very ugly and very painful.

I'm not arguing with you; but having Paulson bet against is not the same thing as a "Great Recession".   It could  have been another of hundreds of moderate corrections over the past 100 years.   No one - least of all me - is saying that "we'd be billionaires if it wasn't for Obama!".   It likely WOULD have corrected itself and burst.  But we can look at how that "burst" occurred and what the consequences are.  This is one of the things that I didn't explain very well in the previous explanations:   investing is content neutral.   An investment dollar in coal is the same - with respect to the markets and the indices - as a dollar in pharma, as a dollar in transportation, etc.  Now, some are bigger than others, so a dollar in, say, marijuana may not LITERALLY be the same as a dollar in, say, Big Oil, but the point is that the market doesn't care. It's not sentient in that way.   The worst thing for the market is apathy; if you have a dollar, and decide you do not want to put it in the market that is FAR worse than investing in a dead end industry.  THEN, once the dollar is invested, do all the other things come into play, i.e. quality of the industry and what not.   "Obama" (the idea, not the man) led people to pull their money entirely.   Had he been more conscious of his impacts and his role - as Clinton was, so it's not strictly a "Democrat" thing - he could have given confidence to investors that while the old guard may not be completely safe, there WERE good investments out there that were safe and solid.  He didn't do that.  "Change You Can Believe In!"


Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 20039
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #484 on: February 20, 2018, 10:46:38 AM »
If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement
Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 3, 2016

@MittRomney has announced he is running for the Senate from the wonderful State of Utah. He will make a great Senator and worthy successor to @OrrinHatch, and has my full support and endorsement!
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Thank you Mr. President for the support. I hope that over the course of the campaign I also earn the support and endorsement of the people of Utah.
Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 20, 2018


What a pussy.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24016
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #485 on: February 20, 2018, 10:50:06 AM »
Mitt is a flag that sways with the political wind.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #486 on: February 20, 2018, 03:48:51 PM »
If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement
Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) March 3, 2016

@MittRomney has announced he is running for the Senate from the wonderful State of Utah. He will make a great Senator and worthy successor to @OrrinHatch, and has my full support and endorsement!
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 20, 2018

Thank you Mr. President for the support. I hope that over the course of the campaign I also earn the support and endorsement of the people of Utah.
Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) February 20, 2018


What a pussy.

Yeah, what a stand up guy.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #487 on: February 21, 2018, 08:35:02 AM »
Three people I respect deeply (seriously; I consider two of you friends, and only exclude Harmony because I wouldn't know her if she was standing on my foot), but I can't disagree with you more.

Let him vote blindly in favor of some of Trump's more ridiculous policies before we start calling him a "pussy".  We rail against the partisanship of Washington, we lament how Trump ridicules anyone who even seems to disagree with him, and now we're going to mock both men for being at least reasonably professional and adult?   

Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch (no, not at all nave to the political benefit to him of having Romney in the Senate) to someone who previously likely would have been mocked via Twitter, and it's bad?    And because Romney wasn't bathing  in the swirling bath of shit that is political discourse in America circa 2018 he's a "pussy"?   C'mon.   There's plenty to mock in  the news today, I don't think this is even close. 

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24016
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #488 on: February 21, 2018, 09:05:03 AM »
Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch

I think we can all agree that Trump's motivations are rarely genuine, and almost universally self-serving.

As it relates to my opinion on Mitt's position... If he was sincere in the comment in 2016, what's changed in him over the last 23 months that he now will gladly accept the endorsement?  Have his morals or principals changed?  The fact that Trump said it 6 years ago now makes it ok for Mitt to dismiss?  He comes across as though he's pandering to Trump's base now that he has something to gain (or lose) from it.  in March/'16, he had no horse in any race, so he would have been free to speak his conscience.

Either he wasn't being sincere then, or he's not being authentic to himself now.  That's the basis of my comment.
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?
And TAC can suck it  :biggrin:, this is heavy in all the right places.  :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 12903
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump Tweets (sorry Stadler)
« Reply #489 on: February 21, 2018, 09:16:09 AM »
Trump actually acts like an adult and extends the olive branch

I think we can all agree that Trump's motivations are rarely genuine, and almost universally self-serving.

As it relates to my opinion on Mitt's position... If he was sincere in the comment in 2016, what's changed in him over the last 23 months that he now will gladly accept the endorsement?  Have his morals or principals changed?  The fact that Trump said it 6 years ago now makes it ok for Mitt to dismiss?  He comes across as though he's pandering to Trump's base now that he has something to gain (or lose) from it.  in March/'16, he had no horse in any race, so he would have been free to speak his conscience.

Either he wasn't being sincere then, or he's not being authentic to himself now.  That's the basis of my comment.

Why?  Because you feel he should reject it?  I don't see anything "insincere" about accepting kind words from your enemy.   If my ex-wife - who I've battled in multiple forums, including court, says - in public - something nice, am I required to say "Fuck you, whore.   Go back to your dickless, spineless dork husband who you cheated on me with for three fucking years while I was raising our kid."  Or do I say "Thank you; I appreciate the kind words."?    Romney merely said he wouldn't have endorsed Trump had he known certain facts.  But in the time since, Trump was elected - to the best of our knowledge, and following the rules of the U.S. election system - President.  You think Romney should "resist" that?   Why? 

Please feel free to clarify your point, but I'm reading into your comment that because Romney felt that Trump was crossing lines of bigotry that he ought to subsequently reject everything Trump.  I don't agree with that.   That's part of the conversation we're having about Trump in the other thread and why he won.  That's part of the disconnect.   I don't understand where in the discourse it was determined that the MINUTE one says something that isn't completely in line with the identity politics playbook, that everything subsequent is negated and rejected.