The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[T.Lex]

I guess I don't agree with that. I do agree with those who say unemployment numbers, such as they are presented, are difficult to deal with. However all the numbers as they are published are improving and many of these stats are the best they have been in a long time.

Unemployment for April 2018 was 3.9%, lowest in 17 years.

"Unemployment" numbers in particular, as currently reported, don't mean much of anything when viewed historically.

https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198

Look, let's be clear: "unemployment" is "better" than it has been. But, using apples-to-apple, it is about what it was 10 years ago. Which is better than what it was 5 years ago, yes.

I will also agree that, when The Economy is good, the incumbent usually does well.

 

[nonobaddog]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/apple-tech-companies-to-bring-back-400-billion.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...orate-giants-have-1-trillion-cash/1048287001/

 

[nonobaddog]

I very much disagree of coarse. On everything you just said.

Yup. It is easy to disagree with that foolishness.

 

[jamil]

I disagree, a little. The problem is that the cycles for that influence are longer than 1 term. With the possible (recent) exception of the Obamacare debacle, the effort to either create or remove regulations takes so long to trickle through the system that the effects are - at the earliest - second term.

And the regulatory environment is such a small amount of all the factors that make up The Economy, that IMHO it just doesn't scale to the national level. Local politics, even up to state-level policies, I heartily agree. Just not on the national level. There are just too many variables beyond POTUS's control.

Don’t forget the recovery stretched well into Obama’s 2nd term before noticeable improvements. Growth stagnated for almost all of Obama’s administration. Because he had growth limiting policies.

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/apple-tech-companies-to-bring-back-400-billion.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...orate-giants-have-1-trillion-cash/1048287001/

Aaaaand... what exactly? Both of those articles are from January.

Both relate to the repatriation of profits, upon which they will be taxed. Care to explain how those moves - in the current tax year - resulted in a "better economy" in the actual current year?

 

[T.Lex]

Don’t forget the recovery stretched well into Obama’s 2nd term before noticeable improvements. Growth stagnated for almost all of Obama’s administration. Because he had growth limiting policies.

Well, the low interest rates - which is a blunt tool and about the only one the federal government has to influence near-term financial issues - was a help.

 

[nonobaddog]

Aaaaand... what exactly? Both of those articles are from January.

Both relate to the repatriation of profits, upon which they will be taxed. Care to explain how those moves - in the current tax year - resulted in a "better economy" in the actual current year?

Yeah. You noticed my explanation of why I posted that was inadequate, absent in fact. I wasn't trying to claim anything about a better economy in the current year.

I said - "This will continue to improve over time but already there is American money and jobs coming back into our country instead of staying overseas to avoid the formerly extremely high tax level."

You replied - "My friend, you are wrong in terms of the timing. I'm not sure how else to say it."

So I posted those to show money coming back into the US because of President Trump's policies and the lower tax rate.

 

[mmpsteve]

Well, the low interest rates - which is a blunt tool and about the only one the federal government has to influence near-term financial issues - was a help.

So, you're saying "historically low interest rates (as in close to zero) are the only thing that kept the Obama economic/regulatory policy from looking like the economic suicide it was designed to be, and the economy survived in spite of said policy"? I could agree with that, in theory.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah. You noticed my explanation of why I posted that was inadequate, absent in fact. I wasn't trying to claim anything about a better economy in the current year.

I said - "This will continue to improve over time but already there is American money and jobs coming back into our country instead of staying overseas to avoid the formerly extremely high tax level."

You replied - "My friend, you are wrong in terms of the timing. I'm not sure how else to say it."

So I posted those to show money coming back into the US because of President Trump's policies and the lower tax rate.

Wait.

You know who first floated the repatriation thing, right?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-republicans-skeptical-idUSKBN0L51IX20150201

Part of that whole dynamic goes back to efforts to get information on Swiss bank accounts.

But anyway, my question was more geared to the part you haven't explained: how the repatriation helps the USian economy in a timeframe that helps Trump.

So, you're saying "historically low interest rates (as in close to zero) are the only thing that kept the Obama economic/regulatory policy from looking like the economic suicide it was designed to be, and the economy survived in spite of said policy"? I could agree with that, in theory.

Well, yeah, sorta that's what I'm saying. It might be worthwhile to assess which motivation was operative at any given time for keeping rates low - going back to GWB. But, overall, I do give Obama credit for keeping them low.

However, I disagree with "designed" in regards to any of his policies. I don't think there were any comprehensive policies. Every decision was a one-off.

ETA:
Whoa, that was weird. The forum lost part of my post, then brought it back when I posted.

 

[nonobaddog]

Again - I have not claimed any repatriation of funds would make a "better economy" in any time frame.

I think it is a good thing in and of itself. Economics is not my thing but I don't really see how bringing back money to America, Billions of dollars, and paying the 15% taxes on it and then probably doing a buy back on some stocks could hurt the economy.

 

[T.Lex]

Again - I have not claimed any repatriation of funds would make a "better economy" in any time frame.

I think it is a good thing in and of itself. Economics is not my thing but I don't really see how bringing back money to America, Billions of dollars, and paying the 15% taxes on it and then probably doing a buy back on some stocks could hurt the economy.

Here is one angle.

I'm not completely onboard with the Brookings assessment, but it is a good starting point.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...erican-workers-but-taxing-those-earnings-can/

 

[jamil]

Wait.

You know who first floated the repatriation thing, right?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...l-republicans-skeptical-idUSKBN0L51IX20150201

Part of that whole dynamic goes back to efforts to get information on Swiss bank accounts.

But anyway, my question was more geared to the part you haven't explained: how the repatriation helps the USian economy in a timeframe that helps Trump.



Well, yeah, sorta that's what I'm saying. It might be worthwhile to assess which motivation was operative at any given time for keeping rates low - going back to GWB. But, overall, I do give Obama credit for keeping them low.

However, I disagree with "designed" in regards to any of his policies. I don't think there were any comprehensive policies. Every decision was a one-off.

ETA:
Whoa, that was weird. The forum lost part of my post, then brought it back when I posted.

I don't agree that every decision was a trade-off. Every decision re-policy was ideological. The only trade-offs were what he could get away with. Obama executed the progressive wet dream as close within the frame of Overton's Window that was possible. He even forced the window leftward with Obamacare.

 

[nonobaddog]

Wait.

You know who first floated the repatriation thing, right?

Not a completely bad proposal. But why didn't he try this in 2008 instead of waiting until he was halfway out the door? I suspect he stalled as long as he could and then did this hesitatingly because any boob would know any future administration would probably do it.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't agree that every decision was a trade-off. Every decision re-policy was ideological. The only trade-offs were what he could get away with. Obama executed the progressive wet dream as close within the frame of Overton's Window that was possible. He even forced the window leftward with Obamacare.

[You mean "one-off" instead of "trade-off" right?]

Not to belabor this tangent, but for every decision to have been ideological, it assumes a static ideology. I see insufficient evidence of that to agree with you. Did he make progressive decisions? Yes, to be sure. But I don't see a coherent, stable dedication to those ideas.

 

[T.Lex]

Not a completely bad proposal. But why didn't he try this in 2008 instead of waiting until he was halfway out the door? I suspect he stalled as long as he could and then did this hesitatingly because any boob would know any future administration would probably do it.

I suggest more research for you.

The roots of the Swiss bank issue became a big deal after Obama won re-election (IIRC). When he didn't need to be a candidate anymore, he could risk the Inside the Beltway fallout from pushing really hard on the matter.

https://www.justice.gov/tax/swiss-bank-program

 

[nonobaddog]

I suggest more research for you.

The roots of the Swiss bank issue became a big deal after Obama won re-election (IIRC). When he didn't need to be a candidate anymore, he could risk the Inside the Beltway fallout from pushing really hard on the matter.

https://www.justice.gov/tax/swiss-bank-program

So what doe the Swiss bank issue have to do with the repatriation of corporate funds? I'm only asking because I do not know.

 

[jamil]

[You mean "one-off" instead of "trade-off" right?]

Not to belabor this tangent, but for every decision to have been ideological, it assumes a static ideology. I see insufficient evidence of that to agree with you. Did he make progressive decisions? Yes, to be sure. But I don't see a coherent, stable dedication to those ideas.

Yes. I misread that. It does say "one-off".

Insufficient evidence? Mountains of regulations is what Democrats tend to do. Deregulation is what Republicans tend to do. Obama didn't do much at all that I wouldn't expect the furthest left candidate since Jimmy Carter to do. There was absolutely a stable dedication to progressive policies, the only resistance to which came from the other side, and not his wavering on his own ideology.

On the other hand, as far as deregulating goes, Trump has been surprisingly "Republican" in that regard, though unsurprisingly, he's been on the suspected course for "working-class" social democrat in regards to trade.

 

[nonobaddog]

Wouldn't that be - non-working, no-class social democrap ?

 

[jamil]

Wouldn't that be - non-working, no-class social democrap ?

No. I'm talking about the part of Trump that favors the sort of working-class belief that their jobs should be secured in part through trade isolationism.

 

[T.Lex]

So what doe the Swiss bank issue have to do with the repatriation of corporate funds? I'm only asking because I do not know.

Corporations (and individuals) were free to keep cash abroad, relatively tax free, because they could do so without required disclosures to regulating agencies.

Once that was either not an option or politically risky to do, the "opportunity" to repatriate funds was more palatable.

That's an oversimplification, but is kinda the idea.

Take a look at some of the Panama Papers reporting, too.

Yes. I misread that. It does say "one-off".

Insufficient evidence? Mountains of regulations is what Democrats tend to do. Deregulation is what Republicans tend to do. Obama didn't do much at all that I wouldn't expect the furthest left candidate since Jimmy Carter to do. There was absolutely a stable dedication to progressive policies, the only resistance to which came from the other side, and not his wavering on his own ideology.

On the other hand, as far as deregulating goes, Trump has been surprisingly "Republican" in that regard, though unsurprisingly, he's been on the suspected course for "working-class" social democrat in regards to trade.

Ah, let me clarify. There's insufficient evidence (to me) that Obama had a static ideology. Jimmy Carter? Absolutely. His policies generally were consistent with his ideology.

We may have to agree to disagree on this. I just didn't (and don't) find Obama to have been consistent in much of anything, politically.