Economists Got the Decade All Wrong. They're Trying To Figure Out Why. (wsj.com) 322
The U.S. has enjoyed its longest economic expansion on record without triggering inflation as interest rates remain historically low [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled]. From a report: [...] So in 2013 Larry Summers, a former top adviser to Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and now an economist at Harvard University, advanced an alternative explanation: "secular stagnation." He borrowed the phrase from an earlier Harvard economist, Alvin Hansen who used it in 1938 to describe the Great Depression's persistently weak growth and high unemployment. Mr. Hansen tied it to weak investment due to slow population growth: Businesses had less need to invest when there were fewer new workers and customers and when aging households bought fewer big-ticket products like houses. Slow population growth is once again weighing on growth and interest rates, Mr. Summers noted, and he added several other factors: the fastest-growing businesses, such as social-media platforms, invest little of their rich profits. Higher inequality meant more income flows to the high-saving, low-spending rich.
Though initially skeptical of Mr. Summers's thesis, many economists have since warmed to it, at least for other parts of the world, if not the U.S. In some countries like Germany a persistent excess of savings manifests itself as a trade surplus which flows into other countries' bonds, holding down interest rates around the world. Secular stagnation has several profound implications. First, with interest rates closer to zero, central banks are less able to combat future recessions. Second, a structural shortage of private borrowing means governments can run big deficits without pushing up interest rates. Indeed, given central banks' lack of ammunition, governments should run deficits, or the economy will stagnate. Reducing entitlements such as future Social Security benefits in the name of fiscal prudence may worsen the problem by encouraging households to save more.
Though initially skeptical of Mr. Summers's thesis, many economists have since warmed to it, at least for other parts of the world, if not the U.S. In some countries like Germany a persistent excess of savings manifests itself as a trade surplus which flows into other countries' bonds, holding down interest rates around the world. Secular stagnation has several profound implications. First, with interest rates closer to zero, central banks are less able to combat future recessions. Second, a structural shortage of private borrowing means governments can run big deficits without pushing up interest rates. Indeed, given central banks' lack of ammunition, governments should run deficits, or the economy will stagnate. Reducing entitlements such as future Social Security benefits in the name of fiscal prudence may worsen the problem by encouraging households to save more.
The growth is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The growth is a lie (Score:5, Informative)
That's what happens when the people find out that they can just vote themselves bread and circuses. You can't really specifically blame Democrats or Republicans because they both like to deficit spend, just mainly on a few different things outside of the money pits that both sides dump billions into.
At least Democrats are more apt to raise taxes to offset spending. Kix is absolutely on-target though - cutting taxes and running massive deficits to offset them is pure madness, and I believe we will learn a very, very tough lesson on why it is considered as such.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when cutting those taxes results in increased revenue?
You do know that President Trumps tax-cuts resulted in record revenue for the feds, don't you?
Re: The growth is a lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why is it all over the news that the tax revenue has fallen sharply after the tax cuts? What are you basing your statement on?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
here is a good starting point [thebalance.com]
Politifact also had a good article. Being liberal, they downplayed Trump's success. But, the point the left is making is that Trump destroyed the economy. If revenue is up, if only by their 1% estimation, it is still record revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Quote from the article you linked:
Not sure what you're missing, but the quote says pretty directly that if taxes were not changed revenues would be higher than they are with the Trump tax plan. Therefore, the Trump tax plan cost the U.S. revenue and raised the deficit (est. 1.1 Trillion in 2020). Completely irresponsible in my book.
Re: (Score:3)
Because tax-to-GDP ratio is down.
Revenue alone isn't a terribly useful metric. All it's good for is when you want to lie with statistics, and the tax-to-GDP is down.
Think of it this way, if you make $100 more per month, are you actually making more money? Depends on what's going on with the rest of your "economy". If your expenses went up by $200/mo, that $100/mo more doesn't make you net positive.
Re: (Score:3)
An increase for a year. What's the bigger picture, as in longer term outcomes regarding the budget? So far everything points to an even bigger deficit down the road. And the tax cuts still didn't help the average person. [cnbc.com] What's the saying about penny-wise and pound-foolish?
Re: (Score:2)
At least Democrats are more apt to raise taxes to offset spending.
Problem is, they then immediately increase spending to offset higher taxes. Their presidential candidates are falling over each other to promise free stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Democrats are more apt to raise taxes to offset spending.
AOC and her followers think we should just print money [nymag.com]. The current levels of unemployment and inflation are unprecedented. We are in uncharted territory. So maybe she is right.
cutting taxes and running massive deficits to offset them is pure madness
When real interest rates are at zero, it may not be so crazy.
Re:The growth is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy is claimed to be growing, but the economy is not all that good by many factors. The problem is that the government is not looking at all the factors since it always wants things to look better than they (no matter which party is in charge). For instance, wages seem flat currently, though there were some parts in the 2010's that were better. Under-employment is still a thing, homelessness is up, discount stores are growing (the "dollar" store), outsourcing grew a lot, the haves-vs-have-nots divide is growing, and so forth. For some sectors, things are fine (ie, highly skilled tech workers with experience), but that doesn't necessarily reflect the economy for the average person.
This reminds me of the mid-90s when I was stuck for a long time trying to get a job, all my friends I contacted said their company was tightening the belt, and everyone else I knew looking for a job was having a tough time. And yet all the news reports were saying how amazing the economy was and how unemployment was down.
Re:The growth is a lie (Score:5, Insightful)
The NYT (or maybe it was the WashPost) had an article or op-ed on how the GDP number misstates the health of the economy. Put quickly, the people and companies at the top are doing very, very well. The people below the top are not getting the benefits of that GDP. So beware government spokesbots honking on about the GDP without an analysis of where the money is going.
Re: The growth is a lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!! And now we're pumping $1 Trillion dollars of deficit spending every year into the economy. If the economy wasn't on a sugar high from that, then there'd be problem. And as soon as the U.S. can no longer keep up with interest payments on the total debt, the game of musical chairs stops. At that point, all the Congress People who voted for this disaster will mysteriously retire to spend more time with their family.
Re: The growth is a lie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not so easy to tell when, because it all depends on people's willingness to continue financing the US's debt. The government today has no problem selling all those T-bills, even with the ridiculously low interest rates, so it can just pay off today's debt's with tomorrow's money. And if they can pay tomorrow's debt with the day after's money, and the day after's with the next day's, etc. it will continue on. Essentially as long as the people buying the IOU's believe that the government can pay them
Re:The growth is a lie (Score:5, Informative)
Interest on the debt will rival the amount spent on defense next year. There's no amount of weaseling out of that. Default would destroy the U.S. Printing money will cause a horrible inflation. I'm guessing you didn't live though the Carter years where the inflation ran rampant and unemployment was very large. It took ridiculous interest rates to tame it. Then Reagan came in and decided to cut a deal with Congress to cut the deficit and cut taxes. Taxes got cut, Congress never cut the deficit. Reagan declared Victory and it's been off to the debt races ever since.
Simple, the rich stole all the money (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, the economy has grown but most of that is not going into the pockets of regular Americans. It is going to pay for a fifth yacht and a seventh vacation home, which weren't bought here in America. If it were just lower population growth, then why would the economy grow at all? No, the economy is growing but inflation isn't, because regular Americans are poorer than ever.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the economy is growing but inflation isn't, because regular Americans are poorer than ever.
This is just false and it's a bad talking point. Here's the real median household income [stlouisfed.org], which is at the highest point that it's ever been. In previous posts where I've addressed this I looked into other measures and have found that the average house size has increased along with purchases of consumer goods like televisions, which are not only more plentiful but considerably better than what you could buy at twice the cost only two decades prior. It might not always appear that Americans are better off, bu
Re: (Score:3)
This is just false and it's a bad talking point. Here's the real median household income [stlouisfed.org], which is at the highest point that it's ever been.
Looking at that chart, we've had about 3 years of "highest ever" wages, up a total of 2% over a peak in 1999, with most of the intervening years flat or below that.
I agree it refutes the claim that things are worse than ever (god, some people always want everything to be at its most terrible, and it's genuinely annoying) but that's hardly unbelievable sunshine and roses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Simple, the rich stole all the money (Score:5, Insightful)
As your own link says real wages are still well below 1975 levels. You can pick any arbitrary time frame to make it say anything you like.
What matters is wages Vs the cost of living. In the 70s one person could support a family and live well.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not agree with this. I'm not rich but I'm not poor either. I'm the "American" you say is poorer. I find my wealth growing, not shrinking. I've taken opportunities in my life starting a side business. It make money. It could turn into something big who knows. But i will be one person who will not complain about getting poorer. I believe, on average, people have all the opportunities to make money and can take it whenever they want to. I also believe, on average, the people who are waiting for we
Few consequences for the Great Recession (Score:5, Interesting)
Savings (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If I had a billion dollars and sat on it, doing nothing with it, I'd be too much of an idiot to have a billion dollars.
Those billionairs that seem to bother you so much, don't have a bank account with $1B in it. They have stocks and other securities that would add up to $1B. That is why you see Jeff Bezos being the richest man in the world one day, and Jeff Zuckerberg the next, and then he gets knocked down by Bill Gates again. Their "worth" is not what is in their bank account. It is what the stocks, w
Re: (Score:3)
Someone is either jealous or doesn't know rich people. For example, Bill Gates is the primary investor in many venture funds, including a $1 billion clean energy fund [qz.com]. He doesn't sit on his wealth, he invests it. And maybe those penny-stock cleantech companies aren't getting funded because either their tech is bad (or is already out, and they have nothing new to add) or the management is so shaky no one would trust them with a buck.
Rich folks - people who actually made the money, not inherited it - tend
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kicking the can... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't accept this as an unquestioned fact. The Malthusian idea that we're approaching a hard population limit completely ignores how clever and technologically adaptable we are. We've stomped this limit repeatedly, much to the consternation of those that expound it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that means dialing back the entitlements (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) which eat up 100% of tax receipts for the Federal Government (yes, debt and entitlements eat all the revenue - defense, energy, transportation, law enforcement, science, everything else runs on borrowed money). And since we've established a permanent political class, they will never cut their own throats and get rid of the entitlements.
What is really needed is a Constitutional amendment limiting Senators to no more than
Easy, don't count housing, healthcare & colleg (Score:3)
Meanwhile in the real world my pay goes up about 2% a year while my expenses go up 5%, leading to a net pay cut of 3% every year. But hey, as long as the stock market goes up, right?
Except that they are counted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They include housing, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just 2% per year increase? I guess making Firefox plugins doesn't pay very well, does it...
If your pay isn't going up by 3-4% per year [frbatlanta.org] right now, then you're well below average.
Gah. Which economists? (Score:3, Informative)
The IS-LM model also indicates the way to fix the stagflation - a massive public spending program (preferably in infrastructure), funded by deficit spending. Yet the US had been essentially paralyzed for 8 year by the Republican party's madness (remember the government shutdown because of the deficit?). Europe had its own brand of austerity madness, mostly pushed by Germany.
Re: Gah. Which economists? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Wages are up [frbatlanta.org]. Real median income is up [stlouisfed.org]. Both are 100% true, but you don't like that because Orange Man Bad, right?
You'd probably join Maher in hoping for a recession [snopes.com] just to get rid of the President, right? I mean, with unemployment at a 65 year low [bls.gov], we can break a bunch of eggs just to get prove Orange Man Bad, right?
And I guess Krugman likes to cover his bases - predict both a recession AND no recession, you're guaranteed to get it right! I guess that's what it takes to win a Nobel prize these days?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Infrastructure spending was promised, and not delivered, by the current administration because the legislative branch seems more hell bent on impeachment on one side and winning back control on the other in one chamber.
Ah, I see. You are a typical Republican voter. Misinformed and projecting.
Legislative and the Executive branches did exactly zero for the infrastructure spending during 2 years when they had a majority. When Democrats got House they signaled that they are ready to talk about infrastructure. Trump stormed away from the only meeting about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com] - that shows how important it is for Trump.
In the end, Republicans are physically incapable of infrastructure planning. They spent
Astrology (Score:2)
"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable"
Re: (Score:3)
"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable"
This. Economics as we know it is basically just a step or two beyond voodoo. It's a so-called Social Science. And socials sciences aren't real science.
The Trump bump is real (Score:5, Interesting)
When there's a democratic president in office, conservatives feel bad about life and invest less. Conservative-owned businesses batten down the hatches, expecting bad things. I've seen this happen first hand. When Obama was president, I knew multiple conservatives who pulled entire investment accounts out of the stock market and put them in money markets (or even gold) because they were sure that Obama was a nigerian muslim communist hell-bent on destroying everything great about America. These were BIG sums of money that went underutilized.
Conversely, when a republican is in office, conservatives feel better about life and pump those dollars back in, improving the health of the economy. Liberals, however, don't react the same way. When Trump took office, liberal investors felt bad about life, but they had the education and sophistication to understand that he's not going to destroy the country. They understand that the president doesn't really drive economics. So they grumble, but keep their investments in place.
To summarize: when theres a republican president, liberal and conservative investors both pump the economy. When there's a democratic president, liberal investors stay active but conservatives pull back. In essence, the economy does better under republican presidents because conservative voters are (as a group, statistically speaking) unsophisticated.
no it isn't (Score:3)
Not from what I've seeing. Our previously steady business is down for the first time ever. Prices for everything has gone up. Wages haven't.
Re: (Score:3)
In essence, the economy does better under republican presidents because conservative voters are (as a group, statistically speaking) unsophisticated.
Ohhh no, someone is starting the old "The economy does better under the control of my party" thing. *rolls eyes* If you *really* want to debate the point, first check out this most excellent lesson on statistics. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Re: (Score:3)
In essence, the economy does better under republican presidents because conservative voters are (as a group, statistically speaking) unsophisticated.
Unfortunately for your theory, the economy has grown more under Democratic presidents since the end of WWII. Even if you drop the really awful economies from the analysis, like W's second term and Nixon's recession.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure if you are joking or not. I should check your post history, but for now this is kinda funny.
I'm sure that the Trump bump has been offsetting the slowdowns that might have
So Trump is so successful that he has countered theoretical financial problems. They didn't happen, and no one knows about them because they didn't happen. That's awesome: should I give him credit for that? Next time I need a raise, I'll tell my boss that I have prevented all kinds of problems that might have happened. The reason I can't list them is because they didn't happen!
The amounts of money that some of my friends moved back into investments when Trump became president is impressive.
I'll listen since you
Re: (Score:3)
No, the effect isn't because Trump is so successful. No, he doesn't deserve any credit for it. Any republican would have seen the same effect. It's simply because conservatives are soothed by a republican in the oval office.
Smart investors don't care who's in the oval office. The truth is that tons of businessmen and investors aren't "smart investors" they would count as "emotional actors". The companies, the seriously wealthy people, the institutional investors
Sounds plausible (Score:2)
It's possible that traditional economic indicators like unemployment and inflation matter less now. Low unemployment is fine, but when you consider that the vast majority of jobs are low-paying and/or unstable gig economy jobs, does the indicator still capture the same things? When I was little (40 years ago) unemployment seems like it was a better indicator of stability. Most people had steady jobs doing paper pushing in large companies or working at factories in manufacturing. When companies laid off, it
Upper-middle class Babyboomers retired (Score:4, Interesting)
The answer is amazingly stupidly simple. The Upper-middle class babyboomers retired this decade and have been doing nothing but spending their wealth.
It's not complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost.
The reason is that most of the population has not seen a rise in income (above inflation level), so if prices are raised, people stop buying.
The exceptions test the rule. E.g., if housing prices rise, then this predicts more homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen much evidence that a significant portion of the US population has stopped buying crap.
Why (Score:2)
Alvin Hansen who used it in 1938 to describe the Great Depression's persistently weak growth and high unemployment. Mr. Hansen tied it to weak investment due to slow population growth
More idiotic analysis severed from politics. Scare the hell out of investors with threats of tax increases, and they retract. They throw it into their analysis of possible return on investment, and if you halve the profit, you are shocked, shocked some say to hell with it.
Fast forward to out of control spending and adding a hundred billion in regulatory burden each year, proudly, like some bizaaro badge of honor, and are shocked, shocked at the same thing.
Here you have a president, for better or for worse
bullshit (Score:2)
Highest national deficit ever. Highest national debt ever. Massive handouts to farmers. Why would you suggest that this president "can be trusted to minimize" spending?
Headline should read (Score:5, Interesting)
"Economists have figured out their science is not actually science". It's not a coincidence that the Nobel Prize for economics is not an official Nobel Prize, and that Paul Krugman (a laureate of the aforementioned prize) compares unfavorably to a random number generator in terms of his predictive capacity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Fuck paywall posts! (Score:2)
So we need a UBI? (Score:3)
If this economic theory is correct, then a more rational solution than running massive deficits would be to institute a UBI.
First, with interest rates closer to zero, central banks are less able to combat future recessions.
Translation: The mega rich are getting too rich for the government/central banks to be able to support using traditional methods which have been tapped out, hence we have an unsustainable situation and can't just go on with the status quo.
Second, a structural shortage of private borrowing means governments can run big deficits without pushing up interest rates.
Translation: For whatever reason, currently the ultra-concentrated wealth isn't able to get out to borrowers that can use the money to produce real value, so the government can take money from the pool of ultra-concentrated wealth with relatively little consequence. It can realistically do this by pinky promising to pay it back with interest, without really needing to have a solid plan for actually doing so, since investors are so desperate.
Indeed, given central banks' lack of ammunition, governments should run deficits, or the economy will stagnate.
Translation: According to this theory, the government should totally do this, because we can make more money than we otherwise would from a variety of projects.
Reducing entitlements such as future Social Security benefits in the name of fiscal prudence may worsen the problem by encouraging households to save more.
Translation: Even simply giving people money is more useful than how the money is currently being invested. By giving low/middle income people money which is then spent on useful things, things start moving again. Spending from below increases how much money can be made through useful goods and services, which increases private borrowing for expanding the production of those things to the benefit of investors, and it also brings in tax dollars for the government. Thus far more value is created, benefiting pretty much everyone.
Can the government actually pay back its promises if we do this? Who knows!
One thing is for sure though, either way money will be diluted, but redistributing the money deliberately would likely lead to a healthier economy and more control over redistribution. If we stay the course, then investors will eventually either be facing negative interest rates on their investments or a crash that drastically devalues their holdings. If we redistribute via deficit spending and can't pay back our promises, then when the government defaults the investors still in the system would lose their investments, effectively having had them redistributed to the people and programs they were spent on. If we redistribute via deficit spending and the government manages to pay it back, then it's very likely there was still a redistribution effect through some more subtle mechanism, most likely either inflation suddenly returning to wipe out gains or more optimistically the economy growing fast enough to provide the tax income to pay for the debts.
So, instead of a potentially chaotic redistribution via deficit spending/sudden drastic crashes, why not just be honest with ourselves about the need for a broad redistribution to inject money into areas where it is actually needed? The super wealthy will benefit from this too, with their remaining investments going from slow growing and vulnerable, to fast growing and economically crucial, as well as the environment they are operating in being far more full of real, meaningful opportunities.
A UBI would achieve the same basic goals as deficit spending on entitlements, but without the borderline fraud and crazy brinkmanship of uncontrolled deficit spending, and with a better redistribution (not just old people would get the money, giving younger people who can spend the money more effectively an opportunity to do so).
Re:Larry Summers (Score:5, Funny)
Macro-economists are wrong about things in general.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Between the established trade wars and support for nationalist dictators, it is just a matter of time
Re: (Score:3)
The orange guy has certainly shot at the economy in risky ways from multiple angles. The tax-cut stimulus (which increased debt) and badgering the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates may have countered that, but could have unpleasant side-effects when the next recession hits, leaving too little room for strong stimuli, based on the Keynesian "stock up for a rainy days" principle
The side-effects of his u
Re: (Score:2)
...The tax-cut stimulus (which increased debt) ...
How would that be, when tax revenue increased after the tax cut went into effect?
Re:Larry Summers (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolute dollars of taxes collected went up, you are mistaken that tax revenues fell. That article is talking about taxes as a percent of GDP. Duh, of course taxes as a percentage of GDP fell - we had a tax rate cut!
Taxes collected by US government
FY 2020 - $3.64 trillion, budgeted.
FY 2019 - $3.44 trillion, estimated.
FY 2018 - $3.33 trillion.
FY 2017 - $3.32 trillion.
FY 2016 - $3.27 trillion.
FY 2015 - $3.25 trillion.
FY 2014 - $3.02 trillion.
https://www.thebalance.com/cur... [thebalance.com]
Re:Larry Summers (Score:5, Interesting)
We were collecting 35% of GDP in taxes and then cut the overall rate by 2.5%; that took us down to 32.5%. This is not a partisan statement, it is a math fact. If you have tax cut the total percent of GDP collected it going to fall. The inverse is also true, pass a tax increase and the percent of GDP collected taxes will rise.
How did tax collections rise while the rate was cut? The GDP is expanding. So when you multiply the larger GDP number time the lower rate, the taxes collected came out larger than the previous year.
We are going to have trillion dollar deficits for the next four years. Then they will expand to about $1.5T. In 2035-2040 they will peak at about $2T. This is due to the demographic effect of the baby boom on Social Security and Medicare. It does not matter which party is in power. We are gong to have $2T deficits starting around 2035.
It is probably impossible to avoid these coming deficits. They are the result of spending all of the Social Security and Medicare taxes collected over the last fifty years instead of investing them. Look at Norway, Norway has invested their money and they have over $500,000 per citizen in their sovereign wealth fund. The US spent the taxes collect and wrote IOUs. We need to cash in those IOUs now to pay for the baby boom. Cashing in those IOUs is going to cause a $2T deficit. If the SS/Medicare money had been put into an actual investment (like the world stock market) we would not be in this situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is tax to GDP an important factor? Or couldn't you find a metric that actually mattered?
Re: Larry Summers (Score:5, Informative)
The Mueller report said that impeachment was the domain of Congress since the Justice Department refused to indict a sitting president
It also listed the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump should be impeached for
Oh wait, you just listened to Barr's white washing, I can see how you are confused
Re: Larry Summers (Score:5, Informative)
Mueller said there was no collusion, true. But he most definitely did not say there was no obstruction. In fact, he enumerated many instances of obstruction, and then said that he couldnâ(TM)t conclude that no collusion had occurred. But due to the justice departmentâ(TM)s position that a sitting president canâ(TM)t be indicted, he couldn't say that it had, either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Larry Summers (Score:5, Informative)
No Collision?
Funny?
What Mueller actually said (not withstanding a car wreck), what Mueller actually said was, "We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term."
Mueller went on to indicate that they investigated Conspiracy, but could not charge it. This was likely because the Justice Dept will not indict a sitting president
Further analysis:
Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III wasted no time during his House Judiciary Committee testimony Wednesday in undercutting President Trump’s ongoing insistence that Mueller’s probe cleared him of all wrongdoing.
In fact, it was only about an hour after Trump’s most recent claim that there was “NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION” that Mueller slowly read into the record an opening statement that made obvious how wrong Trump was.
“The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Mueller said. But: “We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the Mueller report stated that it found ZERO instances of Trump, or any members of his campaign, or any American at all coordinating with, working for, or otherwise helping the Russians interfere with the 2016 elections.
The closest anyone came was a guy that sold fake IDs online, who didn't even know he was selling them to Russians.
That's about as close as it possible to get to "no collusion". Of course, by your own claim, since "collusion" is not a legal term, all the millions of TDS sufferers l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Larry Summers (Score:5, Informative)
"Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations. The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony. Viewing the acts collectively can help to illuminate their significance. For example, the President’s direction to McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed was followed almost immediately by his direction to Lewandowski to tell the Attorney General to limit the scope of the Russia investigation to prospective election-interference only-a temporal connection that suggests that both acts were taken with a related purpose with respect to the investigation.”
"The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who would could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Attorney General; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government."
Re: Larry Summers (Score:5, Informative)
No, Mueller was bound by the 'can't indict a sitting President' Justice Dept rule and hit the ball back over to Congress to take care of it via impeachment [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."
Mueller himself says you're wrong. I'll trust his word over what he meant rather than you or the New Yorker. But as we've seen recently, US Democrats/liberals have become "expert" in deciding what people meant when they said a sentence, even when every single first-person witness disputes that conclusion.
Re: Larry Summers (Score:3)
China's election to call (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look at the numbers you'll notice that Trump already folded. That's because he's stupid and generally in a state of reactive panic. On his own, Trump has no sense of timing.
In contrast, the Chinese plan into the future, both for economics and politics. As it applies here, the question is what the Chinese are going to do with their economic weapons on the political front. If Xi wants to get rid of Trump, then he will crash the world economy, but AT THE RIGHT TIME, probably in August or September. It's
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! What do you expect to result from rolling back Dodd-Frank?
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, I'd rather not. Why anyone still listens to that partisan hack I'll never know.
Just give Trump more time to crash the economy (Score:2)
You're not making sufficient allowances for Trump's essential incompetence. All Trump does is fumble around and make distracting noises and tweets. Moscow Mitch is in charge now.
However on the actual topic of the story, the problem is that the economists think time = money, at least approximately. Stupid. The more reasonable starting point is time >> money, but it's the Streetlight Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect). Money is easy to count, while value is tough, especially when
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The rich don't save. They invest and with near zero rates, and full knowledge that bailouts will be along because the entire retirement system now depends on it; they are investing in the TBTFs and pressing the TBTFs to invest in anything else no matter how likely those investments are likely to go bankrupt the moment there is the slightest monetary hiccup; because they want returns today.
My advice (and take stock tips from the internet for exactly what they are worth) is buy US banking/financial
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree the "international tourist class' is a problem. What you have to understand is though while the very wealthy only invest in 'sure' things that has largely always been true. The good news is those sure things turn around and invest less sure things to generate returns. They can take those risks because their wealthy ownership controls the political process and will get them bailed out if need be.
Its not fair but if you understand it you can gain too; just buy financial stocks! Even those without m
Re:People have money but can’t afford anythi (Score:4, Interesting)
Those that favor the Trickle Down Theory, have completely ignored that fact that those with money save it, not invest it; and only invest in "sure" things. To ignore those that profit from business globalization, is to be wrong.
Trickle down economics doesn't exist [tsowell.com]. If you don't care to read his essay, there's a video where Thomas Sowell summarizes and discusses his position [youtube.com]. There are other explanations that detail precisely what it gets wrong, but the succinct explanation is that when people invest capital to start a business, the workers all get paid and the owner only recoups his or her investment if the business turns a profit. Wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows up. If the business fails the owner is out of their original investment, but the workers were still paid all the while.
Also please tell me what the difference is between saving and investing from the perspective of the economy as a whole. If someone invests their money they fund some specific endeavor. If they save their money, the bank just loans it out to individuals who wish to borrow it and pays back interest on those loans to the people who "saved" their money. Notice that in both cases the result is functionally the same, the money is used by someone else now in exchange for later paying back a larger amount than was initially borrowed. Those groups may value certain potential uses of that money differently or have different tolerances for risk, but money left sitting idle only loses value due to inflation.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF do you live where basic, low income rent (apartments and the like, single or maybe 2 bedroom) are $3000 month?!?!
JFC, I rent a full 3 bedroom house, with a yard, covered parking, etc....for less than half of that!!
If minimal, basic housing where you live is $3000/mo, I think it's time to move somewhere that has a reasonable cost of living, especially if you are doing menial labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also little talked about in the news, but the election results in the U.K. have sparked a significant resurgence of the U.K. stock markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and don't forget that China just started caving in on the trade war. Not to mention USMCA - the RIGHT way to do NAFTA - was just pushed through the House.
So Much Winning!
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this? Trump is a terrible businessman (good at making wealth for himself, but he has a lot of failed businesses in his wake). Tariffs are a terrible policy, and almost every economist on the left and right agrees on that point. Past presidents from both parties have been pusing on NATO, this is not a new tactic invented by Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump's trade deals and tariffs were so effective they even worked during the Obama administration, years before Trump took office!
Re: (Score:2)
When that stock is bought back, who gets the money?
When those bonuses are paid, what does the brass do with it?
Who is the real-estate bought from?
Who is paid for the patents?
What fool would "sit on cash" in a growing economy?
Your "Scrooge McDuck" view of the world, where the rich have these secret vaults of gold coins they swim in, is ridiculous. No one wants money. People want the things that money can buy. And when those things are bought, the money has "trickled down".
Re: (Score:2)
Existing stock-holders, the majority of who happen to be wealthy, measured value-wise.
Often invest it overseas or stick it in overseas tax heavens for their children.
Existing owners, who are typically well-to-do.
Typically other companies. Lone inventors are relatively rare.
Apple, for ex