[awm]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 14:03, said:

So,in the last few months the US public has received a tax cut and numerous bonuses, consumer confidence is at an all time high, unemployment is at a 17 year low, black and hispanic unemployment are at the lowest ever recorded, investment money and factories are pouring into the US, GDP is running at 3+%,

Interesting timing for this claim, considering that Trump's big tax cut passed in late December. This is the first direct impact Trump really had on the economy; now we've added his tariffs on Chinese steel. How've things been going:

1. The stock market, which had been on a near-record rise since 2009, has turned downward.
2. Unemployment rate, which had been decreasing gradually since 2009, has flattened out.
3. The Carrier plant that Trump "saved" is laying off large numbers of workers and the coal jobs Trump promised aren't coming back.
4. Most of the tax cuts are going to wealthy shareholders as expected.
5. The dollar is losing value against foreign currencies (i.e. the Euro).
6. There has been a recent uptick in inflation, which is worrying investors.
7. US tourism is suffering as Trump makes the US a less attractive place to visit. Even more significant given that the weakening dollar should encourage tourism.

It really seems like the economic news has quickly turned for the worse since the tax cut passed. Not what you'd expect if Trump's "voodoo economics" were really working?

[Winstonm]

He knows exactly what he is doing:

Quote

WICHITA, Kan. ― Three anti-Muslim militia members, on trial for plotting to slaughter Somali refugees in southwest Kansas, have adopted a defense strategy that could’ve been culled directly from President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed: suggesting that a biased FBI conspired against them in the lead-up to the 2016 election due to their political beliefs.

Curtis Allen, Patrick Stein and Gavin Wright are on trial in connection with their arrest in a FBI domestic terrorism sting just weeks before the 2016 election. Their defense attorneys, in turn, are putting the FBI on trial ― accusing the nation’s premier law enforcement agency of improperly targeting the three men due to their conservative ideology.

[y66]

Word of the day:

Quote

emolument, n.
Pronunciation: /ɪˈmɒljʊmənt/
Frequency (in current use):
Etymology: < Latin ēmŏlŭmentum, ēmŏlĭmentum profit, advantage; in most Latin Dicts. said to be < ēmōlīrī to bring out by effort.
On this view, however, the quantity ought to be ēmōlīmentum; the quantity evidenced in Latin poetry points to derivation fromēmŏlĕre to grind out. Possibly two distinct Latin words of the same spelling may have been confused.

1. Profit or gain arising from station, office, or employment; dues; reward, remuneration, salary.

1480 Wardrobe Accts. Edward IV in N. H. Nicolas Privy Purse Expenses Elizabeth of York (1830) 127 Certeyn offeringes..and emoluments unto the said benefice due.
1650 J. Row & J. Row Hist. Kirk Scotl. (1842) 31 His former rents and emoluments.
1743 J. Morris Serm. viii. 216 Believers..deny themselves all the..emoluments..they might have injoyed here.
1803 F. Jeffrey in W. B. Scoones Four Cent. Eng. Lett. 423 The concern has now become to be of some emolument.
1881 P. Brooks Candle of Lord 69 Men who want to be scholars for the emoluments..scholarship will bring.
2018 WaPo 28 Mar A federal judge ruled that the District of Columbia and Maryland may proceed with an unprecedented lawsuit against President Trump alleging that Trump’s business dealings have violated the Constitution’s ban on receiving improper “emoluments,” or payments, from individual states and foreign governments.

2. Advantage, benefit, comfort. Obs.

1633 P. Massinger New Way to pay Old Debts iv. ii. sig. I3v Thou neuer hadst in thy house..A peece of..cheese..For their [sc. men's] emolument.
1704 Swift Tale of Tub viii. 147 It is very justly observed by Naturalists, that Wind still continues of great Emolument in certain Mysteries.
1756 Ld. Chesterfield Let. 15 Nov. (1932) (modernized text) V. 2209 I brought it [sc. an emetic] all up again..to my great satisfaction and emolument.

[ldrews]

 awm, on 2018-March-28, 15:32, said:

Interesting timing for this claim, considering that Trump's big tax cut passed in late December. This is the first direct impact Trump really had on the economy; now we've added his tariffs on Chinese steel. How've things been going:

1. The stock market, which had been on a near-record rise since 2009, has turned downward.
2. Unemployment rate, which had been decreasing gradually since 2009, has flattened out.
3. The Carrier plant that Trump "saved" is laying off large numbers of workers and the coal jobs Trump promised aren't coming back.
4. Most of the tax cuts are going to wealthy shareholders as expected.
5. The dollar is losing value against foreign currencies (i.e. the Euro).
6. There has been a recent uptick in inflation, which is worrying investors.
7. US tourism is suffering as Trump makes the US a less attractive place to visit. Even more significant given that the weakening dollar should encourage tourism.

It really seems like the economic news has quickly turned for the worse since the tax cut passed. Not what you'd expect if Trump's "voodoo economics" were really working?

1. I think you mean that volatility has increased. The stock market is still within 10% of it's all time high.

2. I think you mean that we have probably reached "full employment". There are so few unemployed remaining that the unemployment rate has difficulty going lower.

3. I think you mean that Carrier seems to be the exception to the rule. Major companies are opening or expanding plants in the US and hiring. That is why the unemployment rate is low.

4. I think you mean that 80+% of taxpayers are seeing a tax reduction, but since wealthy taxpayers and major corporations pay the bulk of the taxes they necessarily receive the bulk of the tax savings on a dollar basis.

5. I think you mena that the dollar losing value is a benefit to exporting and a detriment to importing, both of which work toward reducing our gigantic trade deficits.

6. I think you mean that the population, having received tax benefits, more jobs, and increasing wages, can now afford to pay a bit more for their products. Thereby support home based manufacturing, which means increased jobs, which means increase discretionary income, etc., etc.

7. I think you mean that foreign tourists no longer can take advantage of cheapened products and services in the US. Our companies and workers now receive wages and profits commensurate with those of other leading Western nations. One area where you are correct is in illegal immigration from Mexico and tourism from the Middle East. Perhaps that is, in your view, and unfortunate consequence.

Did I read you correctly?

[jjbrr]

"Every woman in the Senate just demanded Mitch McConnell hold a vote on sexual harassment legislation"

If we could try to come up with a headline that sounds important but means literally nothing, this has got to be it. I fully expect an equal headline in the near future "Turtle McConnell ignores every woman in the Senate"

In case you needed an assist, the senate has 22 women; 5 are republican. Of those 5, only 2 break from party lines sometimes.

Sorry ladies, nothing to see here

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 14:03, said:

So,in the last few months the US public has received a tax cut and numerous bonuses, consumer confidence is at an all time high, unemployment is at a 17 year low, black and hispanic unemployment are at the lowest ever recorded, investment money and factories are pouring into the US, GDP is running at 3+%, NATO countries are now contributing more of their share of expenses, ISIS has been decimated, and now North Korea wants to talk to the US and is offering to de-nuclearize.

Anyone think that perhaps Trump knows what he is doing?

http://www.politifac...ut-black-hispa/

Black unemployment moved from a high of 16.6% in April 2010 to 7.2% when Obama left office in January 2017; however, it fell to 6.8% during Trump's administration. So who should really get credit here?

[ldrews]

 RedSpawn, on 2018-March-28, 20:30, said:

http://www.politifac...ut-black-hispa/

Black unemployment moved from a high of 16.6% in April 2010 to 7.2% when Obama left office in January 2017; however, it fell to 6.8% during Trump's administration. So who should really get credit here?

Perhaps Trump can take credit for the move from 7.2 to 6.8? Nonetheless, it currently is at the lowest rate recorded, right?

[hrothgar]

Yesterday's episode of The Daily has some very good coverage about Bolton, including coverage regarding why Republican Senators banded together to block his appointment as UN Ambassador.

Seems that Bolton has a long history of inventing threats and lashing out at underlings who try to fact check his claims.
Just what you want as head of the National Security Council.

[awm]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 17:45, said:

1. I think you mean that volatility has increased. The stock market is still within 10% of it's all time high.

2. I think you mean that we have probably reached "full employment". There are so few unemployed remaining that the unemployment rate has difficulty going lower.

3. I think you mean that Carrier seems to be the exception to the rule. Major companies are opening or expanding plants in the US and hiring. That is why the unemployment rate is low.

4. I think you mean that 80+% of taxpayers are seeing a tax reduction, but since wealthy taxpayers and major corporations pay the bulk of the taxes they necessarily receive the bulk of the tax savings on a dollar basis.

5. I think you mena that the dollar losing value is a benefit to exporting and a detriment to importing, both of which work toward reducing our gigantic trade deficits.

6. I think you mean that the population, having received tax benefits, more jobs, and increasing wages, can now afford to pay a bit more for their products. Thereby support home based manufacturing, which means increased jobs, which means increase discretionary income, etc., etc.

7. I think you mean that foreign tourists no longer can take advantage of cheapened products and services in the US. Our companies and workers now receive wages and profits commensurate with those of other leading Western nations. One area where you are correct is in illegal immigration from Mexico and tourism from the Middle East. Perhaps that is, in your view, and unfortunate consequence.

Did I read you correctly?

It looks to me like there was a long, gradual improvement in the economy starting in mid-2009 and running through late 2017. This momentum now appears to have stalled, based on:

1. Stock market down for the first three months of 2018.
2. Unemployment, while low, has been flat for 5 months.
3. While GDP growth has been solid (around 3% annual) for the last nine months, the increase in inflation (domestic) and drop in the dollar (international) make me skeptical that this is “real growth.”

Of course you are in a hurry to give Trump credit for a good 2017, even though it’s just a continuation of Obama’s trend line from 2009-2016. And you seem to be in denial about the indications of stalling which started right around the time this budget-busting tax give away started. Seems dubious to credit Trump for a success that started 7 years before he took office and stopped as soon as he got some major economic policy done. But to each his own I guess.

[RedSpawn]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 22:05, said:

Perhaps Trump can take credit for the move from 7.2 to 6.8? Nonetheless, it currently is at the lowest rate recorded, right?

That is factually correct yet intellectually dishonest. This is the stuff politics is made of.

[y66]

From Swamp Notes at FT (March 29, 2018):

Quote

Ed:

Is Trump already bored of the job? To judge by his schedule it is hard to conclude otherwise. Here is Wednesday's White House pool report. “It has been a quiet morning at the White House. There is a lunch lid until 1.30pm The White House briefing has been pushed back until 2pm.”

On Tuesday, Trump’s day began with his daily intelligence briefing at 11.30am and included just one other event – a “private dinner with supporters”. On Monday, again, Trump’s official day began with the 11.30am intelligence briefing and ended two hours later following his weekly lunch with Mike Pence, the vice-president. Apart from a couple of pro forma events – a bill signing and a credentialing ceremony for new ambassadors – that’s the sum of his week to date.

By my calculation that leaves Trump roughly 20 hours a day of “executive time” for the things that matter - tweets, phone calls to friends, cable TV watching (as long the channel is not re-running the Stormy Daniels interview) and private meetings with lawyers who have zero wish to represent the president of the United States. It is hard to blame them. Forget Trump’s patchy record on paying his bills – most of his legal fees are being settled by the Republican National Committee. The real problem is that he is notoriously hard to represent. It manifests itself in two forms.

First, Trump keeps changing his mind. Ask John Dowd, who quit last week as Trump’s attorney on the Russia investigation. Dowd issued a statement calling on the special counsel leading the investigation, Robert Mueller, to quit. Then he thought the better of it and retracted. Trump was not happy with that. Dowd left the job. The president then broke his rule about not mentioning Mueller in public by sending two tweets calling on him to quit.

Second, Trump lacks candour: his lawyers often have little idea what they are supposed to be defending. Whether it’s the facts of his alleged affair with porn actress Stormy Daniels, or the extent of alleged collusion with Russia, Trump’s lawyers – like the White House communications team – are often flying blind. Worse, when they settle on one direction, the chances are that he will contradict it in public. Terrible work if you want it – and almost nobody does.

So is Trump bored of his job? The answer is that he had little interest in the first place. True, the portion of his day that he spends alone appears to expand each week. But I suspect that is a measure of the advance of Mueller’s investigation. As readers already know, virtually nothing happened on Trump’s official Wednesday. His diary was a blank.

This is what hit the news cycle in the space of several hours: The New York Times reported that Trump’s lawyers had offered former advisers Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn pardons in advance of questioning by Mueller; the White House then denied Trump had any plans to pardon anyone “at this time”; Stormy Daniels’ lawyer petitioned a court to compel Trump to testify in her suit against the president; a Maryland court permitted a suit to go ahead against Trump for alleged breach of the emoluments clause; and Mueller issued a new indictment against a London-based lawyer who worked for Manafort. Plenty to keep Trump busy – but just an average day in DC. How was your day in New York, Rana?

Rana responds:

Ed, I know that people in Washington work harder than we do here in NYC, but I have to set you straight on something. Tweets, phone calls to friends, and cable TV do count as work, at least on Wall Street. Carl Icahn once raised the market capital of Apple by $8bn with a tweet. Phoning friends? That's called deal-making. I mean really -- haven't you ever watched Billions? And cable TV, like magazine covers, is a terrific counter-indicator on the markets. Trump is a creature of the Street. Elites like you may think he's not working, but he is. Well, at least for himself.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go do a hit on CNN.

Ho-hum.

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 17:45, said:

1. I think you mean that volatility has increased. The stock market is still within 10% of it's all time high.

2. I think you mean that we have probably reached "full employment". There are so few unemployed remaining that the unemployment rate has difficulty going lower.

3. I think you mean that Carrier seems to be the exception to the rule. Major companies are opening or expanding plants in the US and hiring. That is why the unemployment rate is low.

4. I think you mean that 80+% of taxpayers are seeing a tax reduction, but since wealthy taxpayers and major corporations pay the bulk of the taxes they necessarily receive the bulk of the tax savings on a dollar basis.

5. I think you mena that the dollar losing value is a benefit to exporting and a detriment to importing, both of which work toward reducing our gigantic trade deficits.

6. I think you mean that the population, having received tax benefits, more jobs, and increasing wages, can now afford to pay a bit more for their products. Thereby support home based manufacturing, which means increased jobs, which means increase discretionary income, etc., etc.

7. I think you mean that foreign tourists no longer can take advantage of cheapened products and services in the US. Our companies and workers now receive wages and profits commensurate with those of other leading Western nations. One area where you are correct is in illegal immigration from Mexico and tourism from the Middle East. Perhaps that is, in your view, and unfortunate consequence.

Did I read you correctly?

Adam can speak for himself but I am pretty sure he meant what he said. I usually react badly when someone tells me that what I said was not what I meant to say.

Now I will just take your first one. I don't judge a presidency by how much the DJIA rises. Rising is good, crashing is bad, reasonable stability suits me fine. But, and now I will interpret your words a bit, you seem to be saying that when the Dow goes up we will call this a rising market, when the Dow goes down we will call this an increase in volatility. I see up as up, down as down. Actually, some "down" might be useful long term. When the market starts rising too fast there are too many people who think they can make a lot of money just by buying anything. Having the market sometimes go down as well as up can be a useful jolt of reality, and it is best for it to happen mildly and sooner, rather than dramatically and later.

I don't like Trump. Never have, never will. We will see how this all goes long term.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-March-29, 06:44, said:

Adam can speak for himself but I am pretty sure he meant what he said. I usually react badly when someone tells me that what I said was not what I meant to say.

Now I will just take your first one. I don't judge a presidency by how much the DJIA rises. Rising is good, crashing is bad, reasonable stability suits me fine. But, and now I will interpret your words a bit, you seem to be saying that when the Dow goes up we will call this a rising market, when the Dow goes down we will call this an increase in volatility. I see up as up, down as down. Actually, some "down" might be useful long term. When the market starts rising too fast there are too many people who think they can make a lot of money just by buying anything. Having the market sometimes go down as well as up can be a useful jolt of reality, and it is best for it to happen mildly and sooner, rather than dramatically and later.

I don't like Trump. Never have, never will. We will see how this all goes long term.

Assessing the state of the DJIA in the short term is, to me, a fool's errand. Over a longer term there seems to be some correlation with the economy. So to assign credit or blame for the last few months seems foolish, but many people seem to do it.

I have attempted to make sense of the directional flow of the stock market for many years. As I tell my friends, I am in my 56th year of my get rich quick scheme.

It seems to me that liking Trump or not liking Trump, or any President for that matter, is not the issue. When I hire a brain surgeon to operate on me or the President to operate the economy, I don't really care what his personality is like. I am concerned what results does he/she produce, and am I in favor or not of those results. I am in favor of the economic and international relationship results so far.

[Winstonm]

The Republican party is proving itself to be anti-democracy.

[barmar]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-28, 22:05, said:

Perhaps Trump can take credit for the move from 7.2 to 6.8? Nonetheless, it currently is at the lowest rate recorded, right?

As usual, you're giving Trump credit for a trend continuing. Yes, it's a good thing that he hasn't reversed these improvements. But he didn't do anything to cause them.

[kenberg]

 ldrews, on 2018-March-29, 08:18, said:

Assessing the state of the DJIA in the short term is, to me, a fool's errand. Over a longer term there seems to be some correlation with the economy. So to assign credit or blame for the last few months seems foolish, but many people seem to do it.

I have attempted to make sense of the directional flow of the stock market for many years. As I tell my friends, I am in my 56th year of my get rich quick scheme.

It seems to me that liking Trump or not liking Trump, or any President for that matter, is not the issue. When I hire a brain surgeon to operate on me or the President to operate the economy, I don't really care what his personality is like. I am concerned what results does he/she produce, and am I in favor or not of those results. I am in favor of the economic and international relationship results so far.

I believe many people place far more weight on personal judgments that they are prepared to acknowledge. I would say it depends on just what it is that I don't like. We absolutely do not have to be natural friends. With Trump, for me, it is different. He made a lot of money with casinos. Ok, if a sheep presents itself for shearing we should not blame those who wield the scissors. Trump U is another matter. Here we have young people willing to work hard to get ahead being scammed. I don't like that. All this was pre-2016 of course. As was his tv show. I never watched it but the ads seemed to mainly feature Trump gleefully firing someone. Let's move on to Stormy. Yuk. As to their agreement,, if she took the money and she signed it, that would be enough for me. But of course that was the carrot, perhaps there was a stick. Pretty likely. So it's not a matter of not wanting the Trumps over for dinner. I don't want such people having any influence over my life. This country is set up so that so that a person who has no problem screwing people over can make a lot of money doing it. Trump has a real talent for that, and he has good lawyers. All and all, I am content to let the Trumps of the world get rich, I just don't want them in any way representing this country or influencing my life.

[ldrews]

 barmar, on 2018-March-29, 08:40, said:

As usual, you're giving Trump credit for a trend continuing. Yes, it's a good thing that he hasn't reversed these improvements. But he didn't do anything to cause them.

Anything? C'mon, be serious.

[ldrews]

 kenberg, on 2018-March-29, 09:18, said:

I believe many people place far more weight on personal judgments that they are prepared to acknowledge. I would say it depends on just what it is that I don't like. We absolutely do not have to be natural friends. With Trump, for me, it is different. He made a lot of money with casinos. Ok, if a sheep presents itself for shearing we should not blame those who wield the scissors. Trump U is another matter. Here we have young people willing to work hard to get ahead being scammed. I don't like that. All this was pre-2016 of course. As was his tv show. I never watched it but the ads seemed to mainly feature Trump gleefully firing someone. Let's move on to Stormy. Yuk. As to their agreement,, if she took the money and she signed it, that would be enough for me. But of course that was the carrot, perhaps there was a stick. Pretty likely. So it's not a matter of not wanting the Trumps over for dinner. I don't want such people having any influence over my life. This country is set up so that so that a person who has no problem screwing people over can make a lot of money doing it. Trump has a real talent for that, and he has good lawyers. All and all, I am content to let the Trumps of the world get rich, I just don't want them in any way representing this country or influencing my life.

I understand your point of view. However, when I hire an attorney to represent me I don't want a nice guy, I want a pit bull. To me, representing the US both domestically and internationally is not a case of everyone sitting around singing Kumbaya. People and countries aggressively pursue their self-interests, often at my/our expense. I want someone representing me that can handle all of that effectively. As Trump has often pointed out, many of the international agreements negotiated over the past several years are less than desirable from the pov of the US interests, i.e., they are terrible deals. I am happy to see that being rectified.

When I want to associate with congenial people I call on my friends. When I want results I call on people who have demonstrated that they produce results. Very seldom do the two groups overlap. Perhaps your experience is different.

[jjbrr]

this page has somehow broken my script. i am baffled.

[Winstonm]

This is what it is like to be a loser:

Daily Beast

Quote

Wisconsin’s Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Thursday finally called for two special elections to fill vacancies in the state’s Senate and Assembly, after declining to do so when they opened in December.

And then he got extremely mad online.

He should have held his breath until he turned blue - that would've shown 'em.