The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,802
Having a right to do something doesn't imply that it's a good idea to do said thing. For example, I have the right to go call someone a n----r but I choose not to do it because it's offensive and inappropriate. So women have the right to pee standing up but I'm not suggesting that it's a good idea. Great talk, let's discuss this again some time :roflmao:
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,739
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
I tend to draw the line at sexual assault. But how's that presidency going, Mr. Grab-em-by-the-pussy?

I think you'd like it. The economy is booming, unemployment is very low, taxes got cut, we're not starting wars all over the world - it's a good world to live in, you should try it.

Or stay in your imaginary world where everyone is racist, the world is about to end, and Trump made a phone call.
So delusional? The stock market is not the economy. Taxes got cut, but the deficit is massive when we should be paying it down. Unemployment is low, but so is wage growth. About the only thing I agree with here is that we are not starting wars - despite Trump bringing us to the brink of war just so he can play with his toys.

In the world I see, not everyone is racist, but there is institutional racism and racist policies. When a good chunk of your vocal base is white supremacists and neo Nazis, it's kind of hard to say that your policies aren't racist. The world isn't about to end, but Trump is trying damn hard to make sure the US's role in the world is changing for the worse - international politics and economics are moving away from a US-centric position as we have proven ourselves to be an unreliable partner. As for that phone call ... well, let's just see how that works out for him.

The way you characterize yourself and others is utterly fascinating, I wonder if we will have something coded specifically for this under DSM VI or if it will just be a specifier under F22.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,737
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
The stock market is not the economy.
It's a pretty good indicator though, remember stocks tend to reflect how optimistic the market is. So if the market is doing well there is a reasonable belief that the stock issuers are going to be doing well in the foreseeable future. Now you could make an argument that we are in the midst of a bubble...
Unemployment is low, but so is wage growth
Wage growth been stagnant for decades now, so I would call low unemployment a win.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,739
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Never said low unemployment is bad in general, but when people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet, unemployment alone is not a sufficient measure. Same is true for stocks; stocks represent corporate profits, not necessarily the health of the entire economy. Due to increasing wage and wealth inequality, the many Americans are not invested in the stock market because they are busy trying to make ends meet. According to Gallup, the number of Americans invested in the market was down to 52% as of 2015 and it had been trending down since 2002 (except for a bump in 2007 before the slide continued). Additionally, the amount of money invested is vastly unequal, the top 10% had about a million invested at any given time, the next 40% had about $132,000, and the bottom investors had about $54,000. Remember, that this only represents the half of the nation with any investment in the market. The top 10% owns 81% of the stock, so who is benefiting from this boom in the market?

It's natural that those with more money have more invested, but it's disingenuous to state that the condition of the stock market is a measure of the economy as a whole, it's primarily a measure of how well corporations and the top 10% are doing. We know that those entities are doing well, they are flush with cash, corporate profits are up, and dividends are being paid to shareholders (other wealthy people) while wages have not risen in decades (more accurately, wages have shrunk compared to inflation).

When corporations start paying workers more so they can get in on the grown and investment rather than paying the wealthy even more money just because they already have money, then we can start talking about the market as a measure of the state of the economy.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,785
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
You answered your own question

Remember when US backed the Taliban against USSR and then went to war with them?
The move is going to cost dear to the US, both strategically and in public image. Making such expensive favours to powerful authoritarian leaders is a sign of weakness, as it is a sign that the US are so scared of having Erdogan... leaving them or NATO, maybe, and set sails for elsewhere, that they are willing to make such bad (or at least image-shattering) deals.

Yet if the US are right in their fears, then Turkey is by no means a safe ally, and this means the US feel so weak they have to try to buy it somehow.

I really can't see anything good in this. There is probably something I don't know, but it doesn't feel like it's something to be proud of, because nobody is trying to show the good part of the deal even if this move is reducing the US reputation. And no, the "we don't want to get into useless wars" is stupid, because this is AFTER the war considered as useless.
 

Redliner

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
22,557
It's a pretty good indicator though, remember stocks tend to reflect how optimistic the market is. So if the market is doing well there is a reasonable belief that the stock issuers are going to be doing well in the foreseeable future. Now you could make an argument that we are in the midst of a bubble...
Negative yeld bonds anyone?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,737
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
when people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet
That's a relatively low percentage of the population though, and there have always been and likely always be people who are working multiple shit jobs to make ends meet that's not really an indication of unhealthy economy.
Same is true for stocks; stocks represent corporate profits, not necessarily the health of the entire economy.
It's not corporate profits that drive the market it's the expectation of future performance, which is why Apple stock drops every time a new phone is announced and is missing a bunch of features Android had for years. Then it always rebounds when they see how many units are being moved.

Having said that, corporate profits are also an indicator of how the economy is doing, when economy is healthy profits go up.

According to Gallup, the number of Americans invested in the market was down to 52% as of 2015 and it had been trending down since 2002 (except for a bump in 2007 before the slide continued).
Does that include various retirement investments such as 401k and IRA?

Negative yeld bonds anyone?
My favorite!
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,802
I tend to draw the line at sexual assault. But how's that presidency going, Mr. Grab-em-by-the-pussy?
Who has Trump sexually assaulted? And what the hell does that have to do with unequal rights or some other nonsense?



The stock market is not the economy.
It's one of the biggest indicators of how the economy is doing.


Taxes got cut, but the deficit is massive when we should be paying it down.
I take it then that you don't support Warren or Sanders, considering how much their plans would increase spending, right? Or is this another case of a Democrat worrying about the deficit only while a republican is in office?


Unemployment is low, but so is wage growth.
What does one have to do with the other? We've had stangant real wages since the 60s or something, that doesn't negate low unemployment.


In the world I see, not everyone is racist, but there is institutional racism and racist policies.
Give me an example of institutional racism and a racist policy. I'd say the war on poverty under LBJ (a Democrat) was racist but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.


When a good chunk of your vocal base is white supremacists and neo Nazis, it's kind of hard to say that your policies aren't racist.
That makes no sense; correlation, causation, etc. Again, give me an example of Trump's racist policy.


------


Never said low unemployment is bad in general, but when people are working two or three jobs to make ends meet, unemployment alone is not a sufficient measure.
Where's your data that shows that more people are working more jobs than, say, under Obama or Bush? And even if that's the case, isn't the implication then that people were unable to find a second or a third job under Obama and now they can, which would mean that there are more jobs available?


Same is true for stocks; stocks represent corporate profits, not necessarily the health of the entire economy.
Stocks do not represent corporate profits :ROFLMAO: Stocks are a function of people's disposable income (i.e. how much money they are willing and able to invest) and the people's perception of the health and direction of the economy (i.e. they will invest more if they think that they economy is doing well and therefore their investment will bring a positive return).


Due to increasing wage and wealth inequality, the many Americans are not invested in the stock market because they are busy trying to make ends meet. According to Gallup, the number of Americans invested in the market was down to 52% as of 2015 and it had been trending down since 2002 (except for a bump in 2007 before the slide continued).
I'd like to see some research that specifically shows that Americans aren't investing because they're "trying to make ends meet".


Additionally, the amount of money invested is vastly unequal, the top 10% had about a million invested at any given time, the next 40% had about $132,000, and the bottom investors had about $54,000.
That seems completely obvious and intuitive - the majority of people have their wealth invested (typically through 401k plans) so the more they invest and the more their investments grow, the wealthier they get.


It's natural that those with more money have more invested, but it's disingenuous to state that the condition of the stock market is a measure of the economy as a whole, it's primarily a measure of how well corporations and the top 10% are doing. We know that those entities are doing well, they are flush with cash, corporate profits are up, and dividends are being paid to shareholders (other wealthy people) while wages have not risen in decades (more accurately, wages have shrunk compared to inflation).
What? I'm not wealthy or in the top 10% but I get dividends and my 401k has increased quite a bit in this economy. Where is this myth coming from that only the rich have anything to do with the stock market??
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,802
Something else I just thought of: top 10% is very much middle class still, not "the rich". Top 10% is a household income of around $180k.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
DONOR
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
21,739
Location
Utah, USA
Car(s)
06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
Who has Trump sexually assaulted? And what the hell does that have to do with unequal rights or some other nonsense?
Court filings against Trump for sexual assault:
  • Inana Trump, 1989
  • Jill Harth, 1992
  • Summer Zervos, 2007
  • Alva Johnson 2019
Public allegations of sexual assault just since 2016
  • Jessica Leads, 1980s
  • Kristin Anderson. 1990s
  • E. Jean Carroll, 1995-1996
  • Lisa Boyne, 1996
  • Cathy Heller, 1997
  • Temple McDowell, 1997
  • Karena Virginia 1998
  • Mind McGllivray, 2003
  • Jennifer Murphy, 2005
  • Rachel Crooks, 2005
  • Juliet Huddy, 2005-2006
  • Jessica Drake 2006
  • Ninni Laaksonen 2006
  • Cassandra Searles 2013
And then there's Trump's own admission:


It's one of the biggest indicators of how the economy is doing.
When all you look at is corporate earnings, yeah.


I take it then that you don't support Warren or Sanders, considering how much their plans would increase spending, right? Or is this another case of a Democrat worrying about the deficit only while a republican is in office?
No, I worry about the deficit regardless of who is in office. Where I start getting vocal is when we pump up the deficit as a handout to the wealthy. We've already talked about this.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CheapAptHoopoe-mobile.mp4

What does one have to do with the other? We've had stangant real wages since the 60s or something, that doesn't negate low unemployment.
You cited low unemployment as a sign of the economy. If we take a simplistic look of straight "supply vs demand" then we should be seeing wages go up when unemployment is low - we aren't seeing that happen. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it's because people are working more low-wage jobs, driving down the unemployment numbers but not actually being able to get out of lower incomes despite the work.

Give me an example of institutional racism and a racist policy. I'd say the war on poverty under LBJ (a Democrat) was racist but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.
Who mentioned LBJ or Democrats at all? Can't you go a single post without a Whatabout moment? We've been over this multiple times, I'm not indulging you again.

That makes no sense; correlation, causation, etc. Again, give me an example of Trump's racist policy.
Again, we've been over this going back to his management of housing in the 1980s - feel free to go over it again, because I'm disinclined to post it for the third or fourth time just because you demand a review.

Where's your data that shows that more people are working more jobs than, say, under Obama or Bush? And even if that's the case, isn't the implication then that people were unable to find a second or a third job under Obama and now they can, which would mean that there are more jobs available?
First, Obama was handed an economy that tanked within weeks of his taking office, the economic recovery is probably what he will be known for more than anything. Second, do you really want to build on the idea that people need 2-3 jobs to survive, because that sounds dystopian as hell. "Yeah, people have to work 80-90 hours per week to get by, look how awesome the economy is that they have that amazing opportunity." You sound like a caricature of a shitty villain.

Stocks do not represent corporate profits :ROFLMAO: Stocks are a function of people's disposable income (i.e. how much money they are willing and able to invest) and the people's perception of the health and direction of the economy (i.e. they will invest more if they think that they economy is doing well and therefore their investment will bring a positive return).
Right, so a company's stock doesn't go up when they have a good earnings report with lots of profit? :rolleyes: Okay, it's a function of disposable income, so the market is a gauge of how well the people with money are doing - and since more and more money is concentrated in so few, those people have lots of money to invest and make even more money. Thus, wealth continues to grow at the top as companies strive for better quarterly reports as a way to pander to their wealthy investors rather than paying workers a living wage. Does that make it any clearer for you? I thought you studied finance or economics or something.

'd like to see some research that specifically shows that Americans aren't investing because they're "trying to make ends meet".
Sure, let me find a source for you that you might listen to. Oh, here's one.
Stocks are a function of people's disposable income
As I established earlier, only about half of Americans have anything in the market - so what does that say about their "disposable income"?

What? I'm not wealthy or in the top 10% but I get dividends and my 401k has increased quite a bit in this economy. Where is this myth coming from that only the rich have anything to do with the stock market??
First, I never said only the rich have anything invested, I posted the breakdown of who has what invested and who has nothing invested. Now, add a couple of decimal points to your portfolio. Now add a couple more. And just like that you are making money just because you have money. How about the myth that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough?
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,802
Court filings against Trump for sexual assault:
  • Inana Trump, 1989
  • Jill Harth, 1992
  • Summer Zervos, 2007
  • Alva Johnson 2019
Public allegations of sexual assault just since 2016
  • Jessica Leads, 1980s
  • Kristin Anderson. 1990s
  • E. Jean Carroll, 1995-1996
  • Lisa Boyne, 1996
  • Cathy Heller, 1997
  • Temple McDowell, 1997
  • Karena Virginia 1998
  • Mind McGllivray, 2003
  • Jennifer Murphy, 2005
  • Rachel Crooks, 2005
  • Juliet Huddy, 2005-2006
  • Jessica Drake 2006
  • Ninni Laaksonen 2006
  • Cassandra Searles 2013
And then there's Trump's own admission:
IIRC there hasn't been a single guilty verdict or conviction, so this is all completely irrelevant.


When all you look at is corporate earnings, yeah.
Did you miss my explanation as to who, why, and how much gets invested?


No, I worry about the deficit regardless of who is in office. Where I start getting vocal is when we pump up the deficit as a handout to the wealthy. We've already talked about this.
Yes, I remember that conversation quite well - it's the one where you echoed Pelosi that a few grand is "crumbs".


You cited low unemployment as a sign of the economy. If we take a simplistic look of straight "supply vs demand" then we should be seeing wages go up when unemployment is low - we aren't seeing that happen. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it's because people are working more low-wage jobs, driving down the unemployment numbers but not actually being able to get out of lower incomes despite the work.
Maybe - but you haven't provided any evidence of this. Furthermore, wages have been stagnant for 50+ years, yet clearly the economy has gone up and down.


Who mentioned LBJ or Democrats at all? Can't you go a single post without a Whatabout moment? We've been over this multiple times, I'm not indulging you again.

Again, we've been over this going back to his management of housing in the 1980s - feel free to go over it again, because I'm disinclined to post it for the third or fourth time just because you demand a review.
You said that Trump's POLICIES are racist. I didn't ask about the time he got sued and there was no guilty verdict; I asked for an example of institutionally racist policies passed under Trump's presidency. Do you have any examples?


First, Obama was handed an economy that tanked within weeks of his taking office, the economic recovery is probably what he will be known for more than anything. Second, do you really want to build on the idea that people need 2-3 jobs to survive, because that sounds dystopian as hell. "Yeah, people have to work 80-90 hours per week to get by, look how awesome the economy is that they have that amazing opportunity." You sound like a caricature of a shitty villain.
Don't dodge the question. I'll ask again - where's your data that shows that more people are working more jobs than, say, under Obama or Bush?


Right, so a company's stock doesn't go up when they have a good earnings report with lots of profit? :rolleyes:
The stock price doesn't go up because the company does well, it goes up because people want to buy more of the company's stock.


Okay, it's a function of disposable income, so the market is a gauge of how well the people with money are doing - and since more and more money is concentrated in so few, those people have lots of money to invest and make even more money. Thus, wealth continues to grow at the top as companies strive for better quarterly reports as a way to pander to their wealthy investors rather than paying workers a living wage. Does that make it any clearer for you? I thought you studied finance or economics or something.
By "people with money" do you mean the 50% of the population that's invested in the market? And yes, I've studied both, which is probably partly why I understand what a market is better than you do.


Sure, let me find a source for you that you might listen to. Oh, here's one.

As I established earlier, only about half of Americans have anything in the market - so what does that say about their "disposable income"?[/quite]
I have friends who make a decent living but don't contribute to a 401k because of pure laziness; it boggles my mind.


First, I never said only the rich have anything invested, I posted the breakdown of who has what invested and who has nothing invested. Now, add a couple of decimal points to your portfolio. Now add a couple more. And just like that you are making money just because you have money. How about the myth that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough?
Idk man, I came to this country with nothing and now I get dividend and interest payments, it's pretty cool.
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,406
I was glancing at this page, and happened across LeVtard talking about financial matters again. I'm sorry that I saw it but, I did.

Lev has made it clear that he doesn't understand and isn't willing to learn how tax brackets actually work, what is meant by economic inequality, or that the values of stocks are determined by corporate profits (which can but doesn't always represent a firm's liquidity, solvency, and an ability to pay dividends) and intrinsic value.

Lev, until you've studied and understand how taxes, economics, and finance work, I very strongly suggest that you don't discuss such matters, as your doing so makes you deserving of the moniker that I just gave you.
 

calvinhobbes

Forum Addict
DONOR
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
5,546
Location
near Cologne
BTW, let’s not argue with LeVeL about Trump. It’s pointless because Trump makes him feel good and as long as that’s the case, he will defend the man, facts be damned.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,802
I was glancing at this page, and happened across LeVtard talking about financial matters again. I'm sorry that I saw it but, I did.

Lev has made it clear that he doesn't understand and isn't willing to learn how tax brackets actually work, what is meant by economic inequality, or that the values of stocks are determined by corporate profits (which can but doesn't always represent a firm's liquidity, solvency, and an ability to pay dividends) and intrinsic value.

Lev, until you've studied and understand how taxes, economics, and finance work, I very strongly suggest that you don't discuss such matters, as your doing so makes you deserving of the moniker that I just gave you.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

I literally have degrees in economics and business and I work in finance. What's your claim to fame?
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,406
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

I literally have degrees in economics and business and I work in finance. What's your claim to fame?
Says an anonymous man on the internet who, in this very thread, revealed that he doesn't understand income tax brackets and stock prices. And who, in another nearby thread put his ignorance about economics on full display. Your having any such degrees from an accredited institution is a laughable thought.
 
Top