Morpheus Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Good reply here from the husband of Jo Cox https://mobile.twitter.com/MrBrendanCox/status/936131798987427840 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Speaking of conservative asset mispricing concern trolling: https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-priorities-for-a-new-fed-regime-1511997268 Quote Now is a good time for those who hope to see new thinking at the Federal Reserve. There will soon be a new Fed chairman and vice chairman. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who serves as vice chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee, will also be replaced in the coming months. And a majority of the Fed’s Board of Governors will be new next year. What should this leadership 1. One yes equity prices are probably overvalued some. But, its not that bad when you take into account the natural rate of interest. 2. Rent/Price ratios don't seem that high. 3. Fed Rate should do one thing: And that is meet inflation targets and keep them anchored. It's notoriously hard to predict bubbles. I call the using the Fed rate to pop bubbles the Howard Turkstra "I thought I'd join the army before I got drafted" rationale. 4. This is why you need Dodd Frank and macroprudential polices. Using the Fed rate to tamp on asset prices is very bad policy. 5. If you want to make the argument were close to the inflation target, then fine. But, could we stop with this asset mispricing concern trollling? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 19 hours ago, OldGimletEye said: Yeah, definately racial issues were a significant factor. But, I think, at least with chattering class, of the Republican Party and conservatives they had a tough time dealing with the fallout from Dubya's presidency. And Republicans I know, generally don't even want to talk about Bush. I think your analysis is off here. Bush likely has little to no effect on the downward spiral of the Republican party. They’ve simply washed their hands of him or “forgotten” that he even exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 The shuffling at State could place a stalwart Russiagate denier at the CIA http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/11/trump-wants-to-install-a-reliable-mouthpiece-on-russia-at-the-cia/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 23 hours ago, Tywin et al. said: I think your analysis is off here. Bush likely has little to no effect on the downward spiral of the Republican party. They’ve simply washed their hands of him or “forgotten” that he even exists. And I submit the reason they have washed their hands of him and forgot he exist is because they could not or refused to honestly deal with his legacy and the fact his disastrous presidency went against many of their priors. I'm not denying that racism played a part. It did. But, I'm pretty sure that Bush's failed presidency played a big part in conservatives boarding the crazy train to wackoville. For the "intellectuals", and I use that term very very loosely, that make up the conservative movement, or the chattering class of the conservative movement, I think they feared a successful liberal president after George Bush. And to save face, it became imperative that they destroy him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 18 hours ago, denstorebog said: Ratfucker Rubio comes right out and says what we all knew they were going to say, except sooner. https://www.fa-mag.com/news/rubio--offset-tax-cuts-by-reducing-social-security--medicare-benefits-35928.html There’s nothing new to this. It’s been widely speculated for a long time that Republicans want to run up the debt so they can cut entitlements. It’s really the only way to achieve their goal since doing so now when it’s not an absolute necessity would be highly unpopular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: I think your analysis is off here. Bush likely has little to no effect on the downward spiral of the Republican party. They’ve simply washed their hands of him or “forgotten” that he even exists. He's not saying that Bush caused Republicans problems (clearly it really hasn't that much). He's saying that the conservative government system was largely based on Reagan/Bush/GWB doctrine and had been for 20 years, and with GWB's massive failure they went another way. And despite GWB's major faults, he wasn't particularly racist, he wasn't particularly inflammatory towards minorities, and he believed in a world where the US was the world's leader. Conservatives went entirely away from that, and that's where we are at now - a place where conservatives regularly ignore data and facts that don't suit their desires, where they push hard on racism and evangelism, where they push hard on isolation and doing whatever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Theoretically I don't have a problem with a turn towards isolationism if isolationism means that we evolve into a more defensive posture without having quite so many forward bases scattered across the planet and thus are able to cut defense spending in order to build infrastructure, etc. at home. I don't think we should go full hermit or anything, but in the sense that I think it would be preferable for us to scale down our global meddling I'm completely fine with it. The problem is that Republicans wouldn't be caught dead cutting defense spending so right now we're on this middle-finger-to-the-world Trumpian footing while simultaneously increasing military capability - at least in terms of spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/30/16720814/lindsey-graham-trump-kook Quote Lindsey Graham, 2017: I’m tired of media portraying Trump as a kook. Graham, 2016: Trump is a kook. Quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Thursday said he is fed up with the media’s portrayal of President Donald Trump. Oh noes, a Republican is fed up!!! I guess we all need to start shakin' in our boots! Quote What concerns me about the American press is this endless, endless attempt to label the guy as some kind of kook not fit to be president,” Graham told CNN. Well he is kook. And you've become a kook by denying he is in fact a kook. You don't like it? Then too fuckin' bad. I think it's about time people stop coddling the sorry ass Republican Party. Quote “It’s pretty frustrating for most Republicans, quite frankly, that it’s 24/7 attack on everything the president does or thinks. It gets a little old after a while.” Republicans don't like it!! Well, we can't have that now can we? Quote This is very different from the stance Graham took in early 2016, when Trump was running for president in the Republican primary. Back then, Graham, who supported Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign at the time and had previously run in the primary himself, called Trump a “kook” and “crazy” in an interview with Fox News. He said his party had gone “batshit crazy” because it was backing Trump. He also tweeted that Trump is “not fit to be President of the United States.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Just now, S John said: Theoretically I don't have a problem with a turn towards isolationism if isolationism means that we evolve into a more defensive posture without having quite so many forward bases scattered across the planet and thus are able to cut defense spending in order to build infrastructure, etc. at home. I don't think we should go full hermit or anything, but in the sense that I think it would be preferable for us to scale down our global meddling I'm completely fine with it. The problem is that Republicans wouldn't be caught dead cutting defense spending so right now we're on this middle-finger-to-the-world Trumpian footing while simultaneously increasing military capability - at least in terms of spending. We're going economically isolationist and militarily interventionist. And the latter is heavily opposed by the original Trump supporters, who thought he would be a bit less gung-ho about it. With Mattis, Kelly and Pompeo leading things, chances are good we'll continue to have a lot of military action - and a very large lack of economic deals and diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: We're going economically isolationist and militarily interventionist. And the latter is heavily opposed by the original Trump supporters, who thought he would be a bit less gung-ho about it. With Mattis, Kelly and Pompeo leading things, chances are good we'll continue to have a lot of military action - and a very large lack of economic deals and diplomacy. To me this is the most maddening thing about Trump supporters. They become whatever he needs them to be. I think it's because they have such a disdain for liberals that as long as he's pissing lefties off they're OK with whatever Trump does, even in the face of numerous blatant contradictions and some downright bad ideas. I've been wondering where the red line is for over a year now, starting to think maybe there isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 So something I've continually heard is the notion that the US, due to their corporate tax rate, is noncompetitive with the rest of the world in attracting corporations. Does anyone have any evidence to support this claim? I'm quite serious. I would think in theory it would be very easy to see how a corporation decided to move itself away from the US and cut jobs in order to give jobs somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 23 hours ago, S John said: Theoretically I don't have a problem with a turn towards isolationism if isolationism means that we evolve into a more defensive posture without having quite so many forward bases scattered across the planet and thus are able to cut defense spending in order to build infrastructure, etc. at home. I don't think we should go full hermit or anything, but in the sense that I think it would be preferable for us to scale down our global meddling I'm completely fine with it. The problem is that Republicans wouldn't be caught dead cutting defense spending so right now we're on this middle-finger-to-the-world Trumpian footing while simultaneously increasing military capability - at least in terms of spending. Just adding here, but not really disagreeing with thrust of what you are saying: I'm extremely skeptical of military interventionism. I certainly don't approve of the neo-con shenanigans. And frankly, I'm not a fan of the Susan Powers branch of the Democratic Party. That said, I still have a fundamentally internationalist outlook and think it's important to main our traditional friendships while building relationships with other countries. And I think Trump's 18th Century mercantilist outlook is rather dangerous. I think @Kalbear hit the nail on the head. With Trump were getting the worst combination of military interventionism and economic and diplomatic isolationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 JCT dynamic scoring has been released. Quote This report provides an analysis of the macroeconomic effects of a proposal to reform the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). Specifically, the proposal analyzed here is the one summarized in JCX-59-17, “Estimated Revenue Effects of the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,’ As Ordered Reported by the Committee on Finance on November 16, 2017.” We estimate that this proposal would increase the level of output (as measured by Gross Domestic Product) by about 0.8 percent on average over the 10- year budget window. That increase in income would increase revenues, relative to the conventional estimate of a loss of $1,414 billion (provided in JCX-59-17) by $458 billion over that period. This budget effect would be partially offset by an increase in interest payments on the Federal debt of about $50 billion over the budget period. We expect that both an increase in GDP and resulting additional revenues would continue in the second decade after enactment, although at a lower level, as many of the provisions that are expected to increase GDP within the budget window expire before the second decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 minute ago, S John said: To me this is the most maddening thing about Trump supporters. They become whatever he needs them to be. I think it's because they have such a disdain for liberals that as long as he's pissing lefties off they're OK with whatever Trump does, even in the face of numerous blatant contradictions and some downright bad ideas. I've been wondering where the red line is for over a year now, starting to think maybe there isn't one. I think of it differently. Because Trump stands for nothing save Trump, he'll wildly contradict himself from day to day without any real thoughtfulness or value. What I've seen is that you can find two Trump supporters who will support him for completely contradictory things, and use those contradictions to show that he's on their side. Trump, in other words, gives people the ability to rationalize why they like him. And he's a likable human being, in the sense that people genuinely want to be buddy-buddy with him or think he's funny or charming. They mistake that like of his personality or act with liking the person or his decisions. We see this with some of the justification for Franken or Louis CK, and it's the same deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/936015973903097866A lot of Trump's black shirts won't be assaulting people in the street, instead they will be harassing you on social media and getting your phone number and harassing you with robocalls trying to intimidate you by saying you are being monitored to halt all criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 SHS is doubling down on her defense of Trump reposting fake anti-Muslim videos from fascists by saying that the videos illustrate the very real threat of extremism even if they are fake and they bring attention to terrorism. Trump wanted to "elevate the conversation"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 23 hours ago, Kalbear said: So something I've continually heard is the notion that the US, due to their corporate tax rate, is noncompetitive with the rest of the world in attracting corporations. Does anyone have any evidence to support this claim? I'm quite serious. I would think in theory it would be very easy to see how a corporation decided to move itself away from the US and cut jobs in order to give jobs somewhere else. A few things here: 1. I think taking a look at the international tax arbitrage literature, there is really nothing all that compelling. Look at some of the stuff that Kimberly Clausing and Jennifer Gravelle have written. 2. As noted by Kimberly Clausing, who specializes in corporate taxes, if you look at the Forbes top corporations list, America is well represented. 3. The US financial system represents something like 1/3 of the international financial system. In other words, the world rate of return can't be modeled as exogenous to the US. If the US rate of return jumps up, then so will likely will the rest of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 @OldGimletEye, I honestly can't tell if you're disagreeing with me or agreeing with me here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.