Economists agree who is responsible for booming economy

[hislegacy]

each If these companies cited Trumps policies (tax cuts) and the benefits they are sharing from the money they save

​

AAON
ACCUWEATHER
ADVANCE FINANCIAL
AFLAC
ALASKA AIR - AMERICACOLLECT - AMERICAN AIRLINES - AMERICAN BANK
AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK - AQUESTA FINANCIAL HOLDINGS - ASSOCIATED BANK
ASSURANT - AT&T - BALL VENTURES - BALTIMORE GAS & ELETRIC
BANCORP SOUTH - BANK MIDWEST - BANK OF AMERICA - BANK OF COLORADO
BANK OF HAWAII - BANK OF THE JAMES
| BANK OF THE OZARKS |
BB&T |
BERKSHIRE HILLS BANK |
BLESSEY MARINE |
BOEING |
CANARY LLC |
CARL BLACK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
| CENTRAL BANK |
CENTRAL PACIFIC BANK |
CHARLOTTE PIPE AND FOUNDRY |
CITIZENS BANK |
CLAYTON DISTILLERY |
COLLING PEST SOLUTIONS|
COMCAST |
COMERICA |
COMMERCE BANK |
COMMONWEALTH EDISON | COMMUNITY TRUST BANK | COPPERLEAF ASSISTED LIVING | CORNERSTONE HOLDINGS | CUSTOMERS BANK | DARDEN RESTAURANTS | DAYTON T. BROWN INC. | DENIZENS BREWING COMPANY | DEPATCO | DIME COMMUNITY BANK | EAGLE RIDGE RANCH | EASTIDAHONEWS.COM | ELITE CLINICAL TRIALS | ELITE ROOFING SYSTEMS | EMKAY | ENNIS INC. | EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PRC | FIDELITY | FIFTH THIRD BANK | FIRST FARMERS BANK | FIRST FINANCIAL | FIRST FINANCIAL NORTHWEST | FIRST HAWAIIAN BANK | FIRST HORIZON NATIONAL CORP | FIRSTCAPITAL BANK OF TEXAS | FLEMING CAR AND TRUCK COUNTRY | THE FLOOD INSURANCE AGENCY | FORT RANCH | FRANK L. VANDERSLOOT FOUNDATION | GARDNER COMPANY | GATE CITY BANK | GET FOUND FIRST | GNARLY BARLEY | GREAT SOUTHERN BANK | GREAT WESTERN BANK | GULF COAST BANK | HARBORONE BANK | THE HARTFORD | IAT INSURANCE GROUP | INB | INUNISON INC. | ISG | JETBLUE | JORDAN WINERY | KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN | KAUAI CATTLE LLC | KEY BANK | LAWRENCE PAPER COMPANY | MAINSOURCE FINANCIAL | MB FINANCIAL | MELALEUCA| MERIDIAN BANK | MID-AM | MOVE IT OR LOSE IT MOVING LLC | MUSICNOTES | NATIONAL BANK HOLDINGS CORP | NATIONWIDE | NATURAL GUARDIAN | NAVIENT | NELNET | NEPHRON PHARMACEUTICALS | NEW LIBERTY DISTILLERY | NORTHPOINT APARTMENTS| OCEANFIRST | OHNWARD BUSINESS | OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION | PACIFIC POWER | PEPCO | PINNACLE | PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY | PNC BANK | REGIONS FINANCIAL| RESIDENT CONSTRUCTION LLC | RIVERBEND COMMUNICATIONS | RIVERBEND MANAGEMENT, INC. | RIVERBEND RANCH | RIVERBEND SERVICES | ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER | ROYAL HAWAIIAN HERITAGE JEWELRY | RUSH ENTERPRISES | SHEFFER CORPORATION | SHOPRITE| SINCLAIR BROADCAST | SMITH CHEVROLET | SMITH HONDA | SMITH RV | SOUTH POINT| SOUTHWEST | STEEL DESIGN LLC | STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP. | STIFEL NICHOLAS | SUMMIT STATE BANK | SUN TRUST | TCF FINANCIAL | TERRITORIAL SAVINGS BANK | TEXAS CAPITAL BANK | TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES | TRAVELERS | TURNING POINT | U.S. BANK | UNITY BANK | UPS | VISA | WALMART | WASHINGTON BANK | WASHINGTON FEDERAL | WASTE MANAGEMENT| WEBSTER BANK | WELLS FARGO | WESTERN ALLIANCE | WHITE PINE WINERY | WILLOW CREEK WOODWORKS | WINDSOR FEDERAL SAVINGS | YAM WORLDWIDE |


Feel free- click on the links and see.

 

[AllButNone]

Yes, because I can't think of any of them, so I'm asking you to enlighten me. I wouldn't have asked for any other reason. Not everyone is trying to set traps you know.

I want to say, Trump has definitely cut regulations, although most of the regulations cut were pending regulations, not regulations that were in effect. For rules that were in effect, I believe this is a fairly complete list. (right click, open in new private window to get past the paywall) A lot of the removed rules involve worker and environmental protections. Their removal probably will stimulate the economy slightly, though some of those worker and environmental protections were quite important...

As for the remaining 860+ rules, these are rules that had been proposed, but weren't yet in effect. I don't have a complete list, so I can't say much about them. I agree with the idea that government regulations should be streamlined, but I admit I don't trust Trump to do it in a way that improves individual welfare.

 

[cow451]

That would be an impeachable offense - when are they pressing charges?

Not soon enough.

 

[Gigimo]

Unemployment is already very low, so it is a sketchy notion that the increase in workers an wages will cover the new debt.

That all depends on how you count/figure unemployment.

 

[Gigimo]

And because the temporary tax cuts going to individuals go away, don't forget that part.

Ahh yes the swamp was too chicken to make them permanent, guess they think they will eventually get back control of the government.

 

[hislegacy]

Not soon enough.

Yeah, I didn’t think you had any proof

 

[whatbogsends]

Betcha he doesn’t

You did read what you were asked to provide, yes?

I too would like to know exactly which regulations have been rescinded and just how their rollback has affected the economy.

You posted some tweets. You didn't post anything explaining how any of Trump's regulation rollbacks have impacted the economy. (but kudos for posting any evidence at all)

Moreover, per AllButNone's response:

I want to say, Trump has definitely cut regulations, although most of the regulations cut were pending regulations, not regulations that were in effect. For rules that were in effect, I believe this is a fairly complete list. (right click, open in new private window to get past the paywall) A lot of the removed rules involve worker and environmental protections. Their removal probably will stimulate the economy slightly, though some of those worker and environmental protections were quite important...

As for the remaining 860+ rules, these are rules that had been proposed, but weren't yet in effect. I don't have a complete list, so I can't say much about them. I agree with the idea that government regulations should be streamlined, but I admit I don't trust Trump to do it in a way that improves individual welfare.

From viewing the list of regulations that were cut, I don't see how many (if any) would positively impact the economy:

Killed a rule mandating that government contractors disclose past violations of labor law.

Ended a rule that allowed consumers to file class-action suits against financial companies.

Ended limits on the ability of states to drug test those seeking unemployment benefits.

Ended a rule that barred employers from taking some or all of the tips given to service employees.

Canceled a rule mandating that financial advisers act in the best interests of their clients.

Feel free to explain how any of those would positively impact the economy.

 

[whatbogsends]

Please cite verifiable sources for such claims

Not opinion pieces but actual proof. And please be specific

"The biggest hit was to Trump's real estate portfolio, which is weighted heavily toward New York City. Values of several Manhattan properties, particularly those on or near Fifth Avenue, have dropped, shaving nearly $400 million off his fortune. Some of his golf properties, including ones in Miami, Ireland and Scotland, have also declined in value, as some would-be guests stayed away, apparently offended by the president's politics and bombast. Trump's cash pile is down an estimated $100 million since last year, after he spent $66 million on his campaign and $25 million settling a lawsuit over Trump University"

Trump's Net Worth Tanks On New Forbes List Of Richest Americans

Government money going into Trump's pockets:

"WASHINGTON – The Secret Service has spent at least $137,505 to rent golf carts to protect President Trump this year at his private clubs in New Jersey and Florida.

According to federal purchase orders flagged by the progressive PAC American Bridge and reviewed by USA TODAY, the agency paid $61,960 in a Sept. 29 contract to rent golf carts at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ect-trump-new-jersey-florida-clubs/736618001/

"Federal Election Commission records show that the U.S. Secret Service has paid the Trump campaign about $1.6 million to cover the cost of flying its agents with the candidate on a plane owned and operated by one of his companies.

It’s standard practice for the agency — which is tasked with protecting presidential candidates as well as presidents and other federal officials — to reimburse presidential campaigns for the cost of traveling with the candidates.

In fact, the Secret Service has reimbursed the Clinton campaign, too: $2.6 million so far this cycle.

The difference with Trump is that one of his companies, TAG Air, Inc., owns the plane, so the government is effectively paying him."

Trump received $1.6 million from Secret Service

Of course, getting the full information is difficult, as much of the government spending on Trump properties isn't being disclosed.

"As President Donald Trump spends much of August at his New Jersey golf club, Democratic lawmakers are making a new push for information about how much money the federal government is spending at his for-profit properties.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday asked departments to hand over information about their Trump-related spending by Aug. 25.

"The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent, including the amount of federal funds that are being provided to private businesses owned by the president and the purposes of these expenditures," reads the lawmakers' letter to Elaine Duke, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers sent similar requests to all Cabinet secretaries."

House Dems Seek Receipts From Trump-Related Gov't Spending

 

[AllButNone]

Feel free to explain how any of those would positively impact the economy.

I didn't say every single one would boost the economy. The removal of some of the regulations seems clearly negative to me. I said their removal as a whole will probably stimulate the economy slightly. Probably, but perhaps not, and this has less to do with the individual regulations, for which it's very difficult to reasonably estimate effects, and more to do with the broader macroeconomic effects of regulations and regulatory burden, which is a really big topic of itself.

But alright, lets take for example the rule that prevents consumers from filing class-action suits against banks. Broadly, this reduces the costs of legal liability. As a byproduct of reduced legal costs, banks see a greater return on investment and have less need to hedge against those costs. In particular in the banking sector, this helps to reduce the cost of borrowing, it helps money flow into new ventures, it helps stave off liquidity crises, among other things.

But of course this isn't the only thing that happens. The reduction in legal protections for consumers exposes consumers to more risk, which can make them less reluctant to borrow and partake in financial services, which has pretty much the opposite effect as above. But my understanding is that individual consumers should be much, much less sensitive to this change than are banks, so as a whole the regulation change should end up creating a net stimulative effect. And I say should, because it's not 100% clear that it will, to me.

Obviously I'm not being complete here. There are a few other angles to look at on this issue. For example, moral hazard or market failures that arise from class action lawsuits or the lack thereof.

 

[hislegacy]

Lol

 

[rambot]

The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.

68??? WOW! Now THAT is impressive.
Almost as impressive is the INCREDIBLY glowing review of "at least some credit".

Not sure the OP took a closer look at this....

 

[KCfromNC]

Ahh yes the swamp was too chicken to make them permanent, guess they think they will eventually get back control of the government.

Trump is the swamp? Or the GOP congress?

 

[whatbogsends]

I didn't say every single one would boost the economy. The removal of some of the regulations seems clearly negative to me. I said their removal as a whole will probably stimulate the economy slightly. Probably, but perhaps not, and this has less to do with the individual regulations, for which it's very difficult to reasonably estimate effects, and more to do with the broader macroeconomic effects of regulations and regulatory burden, which is a really big topic of itself.

But alright, lets take for example the rule that prevents consumers from filing class-action suits against banks. Broadly, this reduces the costs of legal liability. As a byproduct of reduced legal costs, banks see a greater return on investment and have less need to hedge against those costs. In particular in the banking sector, this helps to reduce the cost of borrowing, it helps money flow into new ventures, it helps stave off liquidity crises, among other things.

But of course this isn't the only thing that happens. The reduction in legal protections for consumers exposes consumers to more risk, which can make them less reluctant to borrow and partake in financial services, which has pretty much the opposite effect as above. But my understanding is that individual consumers should be much, much less sensitive to this change than are banks, so as a whole the regulation change should end up creating a net stimulative effect. And I say should, because it's not 100% clear that it will, to me.

Obviously I'm not being complete here. There are a few other angles to look at on this issue. For example, moral hazard or market failures that arise from class action lawsuits or the lack thereof.

"Feel free to explain how any of those would positively impact the economy." was directed to HisLegacy, not to you. I quoted your post as part of my response to HisLegacy, as it addressed that discussion. I thought that your post was a fair assessment of the rollbacks and limited impact of them. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I do think that some of the regulation removals will improve the economy in the short term, as they allow businesses to cut corners and not take in the full impact of their decisions. However, as you have noted, most of those rollbacks were for changes that hadn't even been legally binding yet.

 

[hislegacy]

68??? WOW! Now THAT is impressive.
Almost as impressive is the INCREDIBLY glowing review of "at least some credit".

Not sure the OP took a closer look at this....

What is an acceptable number?

 

[hislegacy]

"The biggest hit was to Trump's real estate portfolio, which is weighted heavily toward New York City. Values of several Manhattan properties, particularly those on or near Fifth Avenue, have dropped, shaving nearly $400 million off his fortune. Some of his golf properties, including ones in Miami, Ireland and Scotland, have also declined in value, as some would-be guests stayed away, apparently offended by the president's politics and bombast. Trump's cash pile is down an estimated $100 million since last year, after he spent $66 million on his campaign and $25 million settling a lawsuit over Trump University"

Trump's Net Worth Tanks On New Forbes List Of Richest Americans

Government money going into Trump's pockets:

"WASHINGTON – The Secret Service has spent at least $137,505 to rent golf carts to protect President Trump this year at his private clubs in New Jersey and Florida.

According to federal purchase orders flagged by the progressive PAC American Bridge and reviewed by USA TODAY, the agency paid $61,960 in a Sept. 29 contract to rent golf carts at the Trump International Golf Club in Florida."

Secret Service spent $137K on golf carts to protect Trump at New Jersey, Florida clubs

"Federal Election Commission records show that the U.S. Secret Service has paid the Trump campaign about $1.6 million to cover the cost of flying its agents with the candidate on a plane owned and operated by one of his companies.

It’s standard practice for the agency — which is tasked with protecting presidential candidates as well as presidents and other federal officials — to reimburse presidential campaigns for the cost of traveling with the candidates.

In fact, the Secret Service has reimbursed the Clinton campaign, too: $2.6 million so far this cycle.

The difference with Trump is that one of his companies, TAG Air, Inc., owns the plane, so the government is effectively paying him."

Trump received $1.6 million from Secret Service

Of course, getting the full information is difficult, as much of the government spending on Trump properties isn't being disclosed.

"As President Donald Trump spends much of August at his New Jersey golf club, Democratic lawmakers are making a new push for information about how much money the federal government is spending at his for-profit properties.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday asked departments to hand over information about their Trump-related spending by Aug. 25.

"The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent, including the amount of federal funds that are being provided to private businesses owned by the president and the purposes of these expenditures," reads the lawmakers' letter to Elaine Duke, acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The lawmakers sent similar requests to all Cabinet secretaries."

House Dems Seek Receipts From Trump-Related Gov't Spending

I’ll give you the Forbes article but the rest on Trump expenses is pure conjecture.

 

[AllButNone]

"Feel free to explain how any of those would positively impact the economy." was directed to HisLegacy, not to you. I quoted your post as part of my response to HisLegacy, as it addressed that discussion. I thought that your post was a fair assessment of the rollbacks and limited impact of them. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

No problem! My fault, reading comprehension error. "Moreover, per AllButNone's response:" should have made it pretty clear to me.

Frankly, I think it's tough to understate how minimal of an effect the current regulatory cuts will have on GDP. This article sums up my own feelings towards regulatory reform, and to this point I feel the regulatory cuts have been indiscriminate.

 

[Hank77]

It took 12 seconds to click on google

View attachment 218565

 

[cow451]

Yeah, I didn’t think you had any proof

You didn’t ask for proof. I answered your question.

I’m all about letting the legal process run it’s course. The evidence should drive the bus.

 

[rambot]

What is an acceptable number?

Sorry. To be clear, any number is "acceptable". But not every number is impressive. When you say "Economists agree", the usual (at least my usual) first though would be that it would be a group of hundreds if not thousands.

I mean there's thousands of people who believe in a flat earth. To find 68 anybody who believes anything really doesn't impress me. Not to be too blunt....

 

[cow451]

That all depends on how you count/figure unemployment.

The consensus is the unemployment rate is very low regardless of method. My point is that the cuts exceed the need when considering long term impact.