Trump Threatens Canada ‘Ruination’ on Autos Amid Nafta Talks

Personal attack in reply to a reference.
Why not criticize the reference as an academic might.

 

OMG. Linus congratulates Lucy on her understanding of the world.

 

Uh huh. You'd be real impressed if I referred you to WebMD and told you that you didn't know what you're talking about. I mean, why go to med school when you have the internet? Think of all the time you wasted.

 

Lashing out is no substitute for educating yourself. Read the book - it will explain why your interpretation of the data is incorrect.

 

No Peanuts cartoons ?? Very disappointing.

 

Very curious that a skilled and knowledgeable economist such as yourself does not have a working knowledge of Alan Reynolds book and shows no interest in it. Very curious indeed.

 

Dude, you don't even look at your own graphs. Look where the steep inclines are on the rich line. You will see they occur during the Clinton and Obama years. The rich made bank while the the dynamic duo poor mouthed the 1%. The ignorant lapped it up and now Clinton is worth hundreds of millions and Obama soon will be from paybacks from their buds.

Next you spew hate about Trump and use graphs that aren't even from his era. News flash, Trump was not president in 2016.

Third the system isn't rigged against anyone. You should know that. You claim to be a self made billionaire with hundreds of people working for you and a high profile banker for a daughter. It's easy to get money. The banks will carry even a yo yo like Trump for 9 billion. Just walk in and get your free money.

You say don't blame the illegals. However, if you look at your hourly compensation graph. You will note that the growth stops at the same time huge numbers of illegals started entering the US. Since you are a little simple, here is how it works. Large numbers of people come in who will work for half what you make and soon that half becomes the going rate. Growth for that income bracket stops or drops. The groups that are not affected by them continue to grow. The wage gap grows.

 

Well, you can't say no one has given you a clue. Here it is again: "Hence my advice: Trudeau should remain defiant to the bitter end! That will really show that awful Donald Trump. Go ahead - make Trump's day. " Ddy

Try to pay attention.

 

Obviously not or Trump wouldn't be running a trillion dollar deficit.

 

Heaven help the graph challenged.

In Real World where ordinary Americans live the crippled Obama/Bush economy came to an end when Trump took office and started to keeping campaign promises. We are enjoying the Trump Boom. Even the NYT gets it.

"With neither a recession nor a major war to run against, Democrats sought instead to cast the election in starkly moral terms. Yet by Election Day, the charge that Mr. Trump is morally or intellectually unfit for office had been made so often that it had lost most of its former edge among swing voters.

“I don’t care if he lies or exaggerates in his tweets or breaks his vows to his wife, so long as he keeps his promises to me,” Leah Rownan, a self-described social conservative from Henderson, Nev., told The Times, citing the economy and Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominations as decisive for her vote. “And he has.”
THE NEW YORK TIMES, How Trump Won Re-election in 2020, A sneak peek at the Times’s news analysis from Nov. 4, 2020., By Bret Stephens, July 26, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html

 

Speaking of graph challenged.

From your NYT comment:
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist

 

The “rich” line includes small business income.

 

Yes. We know this.

 

Then you also know that since that started in the early 80’s the data since that time is meaningless.

 

Because people like BH Obama sued the banks to lend money to those who couldn't afford a mortgage, claiming it was discrimination because many of those denied mortgages were Black.

His name appears here. https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/20...bank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

 

That practice was started by Clinton.


The housing bubble and financial crisis are actually two different things although the collapse of the housing bubble resulted in the financial crisis. The housing bubble was caused by the lowering of lending standards due to the HUD requirement that Fannie and Freddie make a set percentage of loans to low income borrowers. This policy was initiated by Bill Clinton and was based on an interpretation of the Community Reinvestment Act. At the end of Clinton's term that percentage was 50%. This was increased to 55% by the Bush administration. The lowering of the lending standards was used by unscrupulous mortgage lending firms like Countrywide and New Century to make many other high risk loans. Adding to the housing bubble was the easy money policy of the Fed which made loans easier to afford due to low interest rates. The housing bubble suddenly burst in 2008. This was similar to the dot.com bubble which burst in 2001 and recovered from by 2003 but why was the financial industry so terribly affected this time.


The financial crisis triggered by the housing bubble collapse was the result of a combination of financial and banking regulations going back to 1936 (See the list below). Mortgage backed securities have been around for years before the 00's. They are securities formed by conglomerating home mortgages and are a way for investors to earn a return through the housing market. They have historically been very safe investments. The HUD housing policies however resulted in a portion of the MBS's created in the 90's and 00's to consist of the subprime and other low standard loans. The Basel rules were based on the assumption that securities consisting of home mortgages were of very low risk. Therefore the reserve requirements for MBS's were set at a very low rate of 5%. This meant that for every $50K of MBS's that a commercial or investment bank had it could make loans totaling $1M. Since banks make money from loans they would use the investment vehicles with the lowest reserve requirement. And very many of them did. They bought AAA rated MBS's (the ratings were determined by the National Ratings Agencies - Fitch, Moodys, and Standard and Poors). This was required by gov regulation. But the ratings agencies were not doing due diligence on the make up of the MBS' which was unknown to the banks involved who trusted the ratings and Basel guidelines. Collapse of the housing bubble caused foreclosures in the subprime mortgages especially. This created fear and uncertainty in the value of the MBS's even though they were still paying ~ 90% of their returns. The market price dropped (in some cases a price could not be determined because no one was interested in buying). This is where the mark to market rule came in resulting large paper and consequently the banks reserves falling below the already low 5%. The bailout from the gov started out as TARP which was passed to buy up all these MBS's which had now large paper losses due to mark to market. It was quickly changed however to give money directly to the banks so that they could bring their reserves up to the 5% level. Bear Stearns was bailed out but Lehman was allowed to fail. This resulted in uncertainty and the credit markets froze (none of the banks wanted to lend to other banks who might not be bailed out). Some commercial banks like WaMu also had MBS's in reserve and ended up being taken over.



The analysis of what happened is contained in the book by Friedman and Kraus – “Engineering the Financial Crisis” – 2011. As can be seen these rules were issued over the years with no analysis on how they might conspire together to set up a catastrophic house of cards situation due to the homogenization of asset mix held by many of these investment houses. Collapse of the housing bubble which affected these assets including MBS’s (whose contained loans were still paying at ~ 80%) then lost value due to the market price dropping way below value triggering large paper losses due to mark to market accounting rules. This reduced the capital and lending capacity of the banks due to Basel I and the Recourse Rule (an adoption in the U.S. of part of what later became Basel II), which specify those capital requirements. The conflation of all of this resulted in the financial (really the banking) crisis. The authors also show that the repeal of Glass Steagal had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Glass Steagal prevented the mixing of private deposits with investments and that was not a factor. Here are the set of regulations:




1. SEC Regulations from 1936 requiring mandated minimum ratings for a growing number of institutional investments.


2. SEC decision in 1975 to confer NRSRO on the big three ratings agencies.


3. Basel 1 from 1978 which established favorable risk weighting for mortgages and GSE issued MBS’s.


4. Mark to market accounting established by FAS 115 in 1993 and refined by FAS 157 in 2006.


5. HUD targets for mortgages to low-income families in the late 1990’s resulting in reduction of down payment requirements for the GSE’s.


6. Recourse Rule issued by the FED, FDIC, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Thrift Supervision.






Here are some excerpts from an editorial from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577166723093578272.html


Google – The Meltdown Remains a Whodunit

 

I knew you would really like that NYT article! Here's some more of the same.

"“Trump succeeded,” lamented one moderate former Democratic lawmaker who asked to speak on background. “He got my party to lose its marbles.” The lawmaker cited calls by party activists to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency — calls the Warren campaign did not formally endorse but did little to refute — as emblematic of the party’s broader problems.

“What do Democrats stand for?” he asked. “Lawlessness or liberality? Policymaking or virtue signaling? Gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms or good jobs and higher wages?”

As is his way, Mr. Trump wasted little time rubbing salt into Democratic wounds. “Democrats used to stand with the Working Man,” he tweeted Wednesday morning. “Now it’s the party of Abortion and Amnesty. All that’s missing is Acid. Sad!”
THE NEW YORK TIMES, How Trump Won Re-election in 2020, A sneak peek at the Times’s news analysis from Nov. 4, 2020., By Bret Stephens, July 26, 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html

 

The D party today is only interested in winning elections by identifying groups and manufacturing grievances between them to win votes (aka identity politics) and placing the welfare of non citizens above the welfare of US citizens many of whom are members of minority groups which the D’s claim to support. It’s a twisted “double think” maze of illogical and irrational thinking. There does appear to be some recognition of the D hypocrisy by some of these groups evidenced by movement to Trump.

 

Everyone in the key DP support groups has noticed that Trump's policies have helped them. Bad for the DP, and good for Trump.
Could even be good for the RP.

 

The DP has no economic growth plan. All they stand for are open borders, free college, higher minimum wage (and consequently higher unemployment), and some undefined form of socialism. It’s bizarre that anyone votes D.

 

And Gun Free Killing Zones.

 

I said "the problem goes back decades." See above.

Why on earth are you focused on Clinton? Lots of rich folks, including Trump, have "made bank" while average folks have continued sinking beneath the waves. Liberals like Bill Gates and conservatives like the Kochs all had a field day.

You're referring to other graphs in other posts because the four above go back decades.

Of course, it is. It's rigged against working class Americans.

Oh, please. I said I travel the world (I do), don't use Medicare or collect Social Security, and my daughter is a commercial banker (she is). There are a lot of people like me--too many considering we should be shouldering more of the tax burden.

You're blaming illegals when you should be blaming the people who enticed them here. Besides illegals are only a part of the problem.

You're trying to bat above your weight. There are a lot of reasons Joe and Jane American are hurting. Illegals are part of the mix, but only one factor.

 

Read Alan Reynolds book. It will explain why your arguments are bogus.

 

Your "advice" is suspect. Trudeau is well advised to hold fast because what Trump put on the table is bad for Canada. It has nothing to do with showing up Trump.

 

You Trumpites don't live in the real world. Trump juiced the economy at the end of the business cycle and got a little extra growth. Big deal.