Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd be fine with Trump from an economy standpoint if he just let the ball keep rolling.
I agree. However, we are likely to have a recession in 2019 or 2020 because of Trump. It happens every time we elect a Republican. I wonder what it's going to take for people to get over their feel-good perception of the 1980s and realize that trickle-down doesn't work and the '80s economy happened in spite of, not because Reagan's trickle-down policy.
Free trade and globalism is something conservatives champion. Liberals do not oppose it either, since it opens up trade and corporate profits.
Opposing free trade is a populist idea, which Trump promotes, which is the only reason people like you suddenly call it "liberal".
sorry Finn, but Free trade and globalism is something liberals champion, and yes there are some '''republicans'' who are quite liberal...like both bushes(neo-cons)
I agree. However, we are likely to have a recession in 2019 or 2020 because of Trump. It happens every time we elect a Republican. I wonder what it's going to take for people to get over their feel-good perception of the 1980s and realize that trickle-down doesn't work and the '80s economy happened in spite of, not because Reagan's trickle-down policy.
the recessions (which may happen during a republican term) come from liberal policies
Right. We have barely maintained the course. There has not been an increase in jobs added, no GDP increase, or any other measurable improvement. The stock market has stalled. The loyalists can parrot "booming economy" all day long, but they are only fooling themselves.
sorry Finn, but Free trade and globalism is something liberals champion, and yes there are some '''republicans'' who are quite liberal...like both bushes(neo-cons)
Well, how come it took Obama more than 8 years to be successful? Slowest recovery ever.
You don't suppose it might have had something to do with so many regulation being lifted by Trump?
You realize GDP growth last quarter was only like 2% don't you?
All of the numbers that you cite as good right now, Trump and the right called fake under Obama. The truth is, we were headed in this direction, the tax cuts juiced the market and some investment, but it also set us on a path to trillion dollar deficits next year. He traded short term gains for long term losses. Juicing the economy also resulted in increased interest rates which just compounds our debt problem.
When the economy is healthy, the prudent thing to do is pay down debts and restructure them, not add to them. It is not politically sexy, but it is the prudent and fiscally conservative thing to do
sorry Finn, but Free trade and globalism is something liberals champion, and yes there are some '''republicans'' who are quite liberal...like both bushes(neo-cons)
Feel free to believe anything you want. What I said is factually correct, so there is no point in arguing about it.
It sounds like you need to stop look at money as money and understand at a business level money is a tool and clearly haven't put two seconds into understanding what would've really happened had the government done nothing and allowed liquidity to go bone dry.
It sounds like you have announced something that I have debunked often.
Quote:
When liquidity dried up and the Fed released funds to banks to help kickstart lending again, that was the proper action to take. The Fed isn't in the business of loaning money to individuals, banks are, so that's who you use. You think the Fed should've handed money out to mom and pop businesses? It would've taken years and countless dollars to setup that infrastructure. Who the **** cares about 3%, all businesses have overhead to cover even when they're just passing something on to someone else. When I pass work on to a sub do I not take a cut? Most certainly not. Not going to waste my time for free.
It would take years.....Really? They could have just directly funded social security via deficits which would have given cash flows to both business and workers across the board. Why do you need banks to carefully deploy loans in a liquidity crisis? You bypass the banks and rebate cash across the board....which is what occurred anyway , automatically. Your solution, debt loaded business should borrow even more. And now we know it didn't actually work too well now did it? Meanwhile the automatic stabilizers added the cash flow anyway. Why give people money for not working when the same thing could have been done while they were working?
Quote:
It takes money to make money. Short on cash? If you're responsible and know what you're doing then borrowing money to make more money is something that happens everyday in business.
I'm routinely wrapped up in large projects that take 6-18 months to cash out of. The bigger my personal cash pile gets, the bigger my projects get. It's called ambition. Banks providing liquidity in between is what bridges that gap when you're trying to get bigger. My first project I lost $15k. I borrowed $50k for the second and made $50k in profit from it. There isn't anything wrong with getting in a hole and using more borrowed money to get out of it. The borrowed money allowed me to bounce back instantly. It's comes down to the responsibility of the person, I know plenty that don't have that responsibility, but there's nothing wrong with it.
Wish Germany could have had you instead of Hitler. In order for Germany to pay its indemnity, it just needed more debt to prosper. You don't seem to understand the dynamics of debt. A small amount of debt is not the issue. In a liquidity crises its suicide to take on debt. Yeah sure I am sure some business was willing but unable to get a loan but in a liquidity crisis even their recent forecast would be off. I mean you realize banks worked just fine until there was a bank run, yeah?
And as we see banks were not lending because it was a liquidity trap.
Quote:
For a lot of small businesses they needed liquidity to simply survive through the rough spot. Paying a little interest is a small price to pay. It's easier to borrow something to survive tough times then to let it burn down and have to start over. Kind of like preventative maintence for your home or you car. It costs money regardless of how well you might be doing at the time, but spending it when you need to is a lot cheaper than ignoring it and waiting till something really breaks.
Typical micro economic perspective that is invalid in a liquidity trap. Again what ever happen to the left? When did they adopt the most idiotic right wing polices any Keynesian economist could see clearly as wrong? As bad as Obama was, the deficit hawks were even worse. But then again that is what I would expect. Business was never going to borrow its way out of it, and it didn't. The automatic stabilizers did. Its the deficits that added the liquidity to the economy, not the banks. The banks just went on a rent seeking binge buying up real estate , creating shadow inventory, collecting interest on Treasuries.
Back in 2009 I had debates with the gold bugs who were all talking about "reserves" and the hyper inflation that would ensue. All it was was to let banks conform to bank accounting rules by having "performing assets, aka Treasuries. They sat and did nothing for years.
I bought quality junk bonds yielding 8% that year BTW. The yield dropped down to 4 meaning I cleaned up
because I understood the problem I was happy to help solve the liquidity crisis....
Quote:
PS: that tax plan was and still is garbage for the middle class. It's also highly irresponsible to be doing it in this phase of the economic cycle. This myth that if you tax the rich less they're just going to create jobs is just that, a myth. Money is not what prevents me from hiring more people, consumer demand is. That's mostly the middle class. Stop favoring the rich in tax cut bills. Stop favoring corporations. We're going to do business regardless. My tax savings? They're just going into my pot of money. Changes nothing about how my business operates or how I spend. Whenever someone thanks me for a job I tell them to thank the customers, they're the ones employing you. If the customers weren't giving me money, I wouldn't be giving them money just to be nice.
I got a tax cut and I am middle class. I agree with you that rent seeking wealthy people never stimulate an economy, but Obama gave cash to the rent seeking rich directly. He did not just give them a tax cut he gave them money. The big banks should have gone into reorg bankruptcy, run as zombies if needed. Then regressive tax relief via FICA rebates would have added demand. However Obama worked for the banks. They selected his entire cabinet.
Trump , mild reformer that he is, is just better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
