timschochet
Footballguy
If he tries to impose a big tarrif on Chinese or Mexican goods I would hope this would be the case.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A week later, I am still crushed. The perspective of a mixed-race marriage and a loss of trust (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Koya
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
I'll get back to you as soon as we have the first concrete policy issue from Trump. Only then would I be able to answer this question. If I had to try and predict the future, I'd guess something in the "trade" deals Trump wants to do. Though, I think you misunderstood my comment. It really didn't have anything to do with specific policy. Plenty of ways to make Trump look bad. If their goal is to have "their own" in the positions of power, policy won't get in their way.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This was the original "Dems and establishment Republicans band together!" post. This is what I was responding to.
timschochet
Footballguy
I seem to recall several people here refusing to vote for Hillary because of her "ties to Wall Street". Oh well.
Hillary wanted reasonable restrictions on Wall Street, she didn't see them as great villains the way Warren and Sanders did but she recognized that they could not be left completely to their own devices either. Now we're about to leave them to their own devices.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
"Wall Street bankers and their Washington lobbyists are quietly celebrating. They went from expecting fresh crackdowns from a Hillary Clinton administration with Warren wielding heavy influence to the cusp of a deregulatory bonanza with Republicans in complete control of Washington.
“There is a joke going around here that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president. “What people are reacting to is this incredible cultural shift. People thought it might be 10 or 15 years until regulators stopped demanding heads and now all of a sudden you can envision it happening overnight.”
Unsurprisingly, it is coming down to the haves and the have nots. What is interesting to me is which Americans think they're in which group, and how they voted.
For example, if I directly benefit from policies such as the above, yet I didn't vote for Trump, that's pretty much a win for me in that scenario. Curious what the Trump voters think about their place, their vote, and their prospects in a haves vs. have nots America. I suspect I already know the reality of that answer for the most part, but I wonder when the realization will hit of what's really happening in America with Trump. Here's a hint: he builds luxury apartment buildings and hotels.
“There is a joke going around here that if I’d have known how good Trump was going to be for Wall Street, I’d have campaigned for him,” said one Goldman Sachs executive who declined to be identified by name speaking about the incoming president. “What people are reacting to is this incredible cultural shift. People thought it might be 10 or 15 years until regulators stopped demanding heads and now all of a sudden you can envision it happening overnight.”
Unsurprisingly, it is coming down to the haves and the have nots. What is interesting to me is which Americans think they're in which group, and how they voted.
For example, if I directly benefit from policies such as the above, yet I didn't vote for Trump, that's pretty much a win for me in that scenario. Curious what the Trump voters think about their place, their vote, and their prospects in a haves vs. have nots America. I suspect I already know the reality of that answer for the most part, but I wonder when the realization will hit of what's really happening in America with Trump. Here's a hint: he builds luxury apartment buildings and hotels.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Somehow, I don't think he's going to listen to you, Liz.
chet
Footballguy
No crying necessary here. This is a great thing for the country. They will keep us out of disastrous trade wars and guide Trump to implement growth friendly policies. To paraphrase someone quoted in the article, if I'd known this was how it was going to work out, I'd have supported Trump instead of Hillary.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
chet
Footballguy
What do you have against staying out of trade wars and growth friendly policies?
boots11234
Footballguy
Reading down? There is no indication this was the issue. It was a vote. That's all. Can't believe you got some poverty likes over this post. You all need play go and animals to pet.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
"Growth friendly policies" is generally a euphemism for "rich people get richer, everyone else gets ####ed."
Skoo
Footballguy
I doubt it will ever happen.
In 6 months they'll be bragging about Obama's supposedly fake unemployment numbers and claim them as a victory for Trump.
Mark it.
Last edited by a moderator:
chet
Footballguy
Oh bull####™. The country grows at a rate to minimize inflation and everyone benefits.
timschochet
Footballguy
It is a positive sign that perhaps the trade wars won't happen. But we'll have to wait and see.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
If he listens to them on trade, then yes, it's a hugely good thing -- a trade war with China and protectionist trade policies in general would be absolutely disastrous for the country (the world economy, really). I'm not as excited about rolling back regulation and oversight though.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Like most legislation, it is a mixed bag. No problem here making changes to it (or to the ACA or anything else really), but not a fan of just ripping stuff up without an alternative.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Hi, reality is on the phone, and they said "exactly".
Lol at "Trump's bringing back coal". He's bringing back trickle down. People think chet is happy because they might build a wall now?
This is no knock on chet either, he's exactly right. It's the mouth breathers I can't help but chuckle at. They're too busy right now crying about what the libs are doing.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Citing an opinion column from the Wall Street Journal on Dodd-Frank is like citing an opinion column by Bill Cosby on sexual assault laws.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
The 90% would benefit if inflation was not minimized, as they would be paying back their debts with dollars worth less than what they borrowed. Minimizing the inflation rate helps the lender (banks), not the borrowers.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yes. Most of people in this country have little to no wealth and are in debt. The costs of inflation to them are very low.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
And the economy slows down overall and interest rates go through the roof. That's bad news for the folks living on their credit cards.
Sabertooth
Footballguy
Cool. Go inflation!
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Low interest rates result in the 90% consuming more, which again profits the 10%.
Coeur de Lion
Footballguy
Helps most of us here with minimal debt outside of our fixed rate mortgages, sure. But we're not 90% of the population, and interest rates skyrocketing kills people that live on credit.
Doug B
Footballguy
Does that make up for paying more for everyday consumer goods, food, gasoline, etc.? A hypothetical situation in which the prices for all those things stayed close to static (call it a very slow 0.5 - 1.0 % annual increase) for a decade sounds appealing.
Doug B
Footballguy
Depends on the specific level of inflation, doesn't it? Not sure where the line is between "not too bad, even healthy" and "ruinous", expressed as an annual inflation rate.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Whether the economy is good or bad, strong or weak, etc, etc.... the 10% benefit more than the 90%.
The offset is taxes, where the 90% should benefit more than the 10%.... unless of course elected politicians subscribe to trickle down economics and/or Ayn Rand.
chet
Footballguy
Inflation hurts the poor more than the rich as a higher proportion of their income goes to essentials. It also drives up the cost of their cc payments, car payments etc. Some inflation is good for the economy but high inflation definitely is not.
msommer
Footballguy
It may keep the US from starting trade wars, but it could result in another 2008 meltdown
chet
Footballguy
Address some of the points in the column rather than blindly reject it.
It's been a disaster for the poor.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
You are only looking at one side of the equation. Income for poor people comes from wages, and wages also rise from inflation. So while inflation causes lower income people to spend more, it also causes them to earn more. At least this is what I remember from 25 years ago when I was taking economics classes in college.
chet
Footballguy
How? And please don't blame the aught eight meltdown solely on Wall Street. That's silly.
msommer
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I haven't read the article (paywall), but the section you provided links to a Pew Trust letter on the FDIC survey. That letter and the executive survey seem to say the opposite of what the section of the article says. They say unbanked rates are on the decline both overall and among the poor. Here's language from the actual FDIC survey:
I'll stop here and point out that if I was as uninterested in proving causality as this writer appears to be I could claim that the improvements in socioeconomic circumstances could be linked to Dodd-Frank itself and how it's helped us avoid another 2008. Anyway, moving on ...
There's more nuance and detail of course, including underbanked rates (largely unchanged). But I think the point is made. If you want to know about a law, don't ask the ####ing criminal.
Last edited by a moderator:
chet
Footballguy
I believe Barney Frank spearheaded legislation circa 2003 to increase the proportion of homeowners in the country. That caused a lot of unqualified people to buy houses. At the same time, commercial banks (NOT investment banks) went from evaluating the ability of people to pay to selling those mortgages for a fee to pseudo government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And you had many people from the general public lying on their mortgage applications--no income verification etc. Wall Street also played a role by re-packaging those mortgage securities into difficult to understand products. So, there's a lot of blame to go around.
Doug B
Footballguy
This is the way it's worked traditionally. But -- and I have no stats, just personal impressions of mine and many around me -- it seems like this direct link between inflation and wages has been beaten over the last 15 years or so. It definitely seems like wages have increased much slower than the prices of consumer goods since around 2000.
I also know that a lot of us spend much more on healthcare than we did 10-15 years ago. Really, my impression is that since ~2000, wages have increased a bit but we're getting hit harder financially on all sides in a lot of small ways to more than erase that wage increase.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
W had a Home Ownership for All program. No knock on W, it was well intended by him, he linked it to more folks being able to participate in the American dream. A consequence of this was riskier loans to individuals, which led to way higher than historical default rates. The Wall St. bundling of security products with high grade ratings when they were crap loans was where Wall St. got involved, but it wasn't "their fault" alone by any means.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Thanks for this article. It basically says that, for the last few years, there has been more inflation on stuff that poor people buy than on stuff that rich people buy. And wages have remained stagnant. So in the short-term past, the poor have been hurt more than the rich. But the article notes that "this trend is unusual." It also concludes with some paragraphs suggesting that the trend may reverse itself:
So I guess I feel like I need to do some more digging to get a feel for this stuff. My instinct is still that the big losers from inflation are people with a lot of cash, because that money gets devalued.
With all that said, there's a part that all the articles seem to ignore, which is that we have inflation because the government is printing more money, and so a big winner from inflation is the government itself. So to the extent the government is doing things that help poor people like investing in education or improving infrastructure, poor people will benefit indirectly on that end. When the government tries to keep inflation low, it has to use more taxes to get revenue, and those taxes may cost the poor more than the inflation does.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yup, that's what the 538 article chet linked says. According to the article, it's unknown whether we should expect that trend to continue or reverse itself.
msommer
Footballguy
Without the magic "let's make the risk appear to disappear" swaps the scope would have been far smaller.
omahawildcat25
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Higher home ownership is a good goal. However, over the last few decades, wages have been stagnant while housing prices have continued to increase strongly. That means higher ownership has been accomplished by the increased financialization of the economy and indebtedness of the working classes. Trump isn't going to do anything about wages, so he will need to deregulate more.
