The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: Mission146

I'd have to look into the Boeing thing; I know nothing about it. Certainly businesses opened stuff and Obama did not sue them all, so I assume there is more to it than that.

I don't know why Hillary is relevant to this in any way; she has never been POTUS. I can't say what would or would not have happened with her as POTUS, because she did not win. How can you, "Deprive workers of their right to vote not to have a union?" I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to without more specifics, but that sounds very much like a scare-mongering sort of phrase.

Trump might have done some, and on net, maybe even sped up the course it was already on. I'll admit that the markets have (continued to go) up under his watch and that I cannot prove that his actions did not accelerate the process. I hate tariffs because they never make sense. The rest of his policies might have been good and I disagree with anything Environmental if it costs/loses any money, other than preserving certain areas.

So, I guess I'm saying I have not analyzed all of his economic policies enough to make a definitive conclusion. I do know what the market was doing with Obama in office, though. I also stand by my original assertion that, if anything Governmental at all, Congressional dealings have the most to do with what happens to the economy...but really...I think generally that Government affairs don't influence the markets too much absent extreme circumstances. More than zero, yes, but far less than half.

I am friends with money managers, business owners, financial advisors...... They ALL say that despite Trump being an overall idiot, as far as the markets and economy goes, his idiotness is far less relevant than the policies of the left compared to the favorable policies of business first Trump. Anyone who truly thinks that the economy did not take off because Trump was elected and not Clinton is just fooling himself. I am not saying that decreasing oversight of big (and small) companies is good overall for our country long term, but you are silly if you don't think it is good for business, and has been for the 3 years of non-COVID-19 US economy.

The market response to his election was shocking! Way down when it was realized we actually elected the reality TV show guy...... Way up when we eventually realized it wasn't a business shackling Democrat. And has been nothing but up until COVID-19.

Quote: Mission146

I'd have to look into the Boeing thing; I know nothing about it. Certainly businesses opened stuff and Obama did not sue them all, so I assume there is more to it than that.

BA opened a plant in a Right to Work state. Obama sued. Look it up.

Quote:

I don't know why Hillary is relevant to this in any way; she has never been POTUS. I can't say what would or would not have happened with her as POTUS, because she did not win. How can you, "Deprive workers of their right to vote not to have a union?" I'm afraid I have no idea what you're referring to without more specifics, but that sounds very much like a scare-mongering sort of phrase.

Not scare mongering at all. When a union wants to try to organize a plant they get "interest cards" signed. When they think they have enough interest they petition the NLRB for a vote, which happens after a "campaign period." Then a majority is needed to force recognition. Well, Obama wanted to eliminate the election, just assume a majority of cards is good enough. This from the party that makes a drinking game out of using the term "disenfanchised."

Try googling about Obama and "card check."

Quote:

So, I guess I'm saying I have not analyzed all of his economic policies enough to make a definitive conclusion. I do know what the market was doing with Obama in office, though. I also stand by my original assertion that, if anything Governmental at all, Congressional dealings have the most to do with what happens to the economy...but really...I think generally that Government affairs don't influence the markets too much absent extreme circumstances. More than zero, yes, but far less than half.

It influences way more than you think. Think is this influence is hard to measure. When I look at my next house flip I look at after tax return. If we put the capital gains tax at 0%, where it belongs, I would be more likely to do a deal. That means hiring some tradesmen and being at THD so often people think I work there. All that wood, paint, wiring, carpet, cabinets, doors, you name it.

It never shows up that I did not do this. It is not just me. Do you think oil companies are going to rush to sign leases and put wells on a drill schedule with Biden promising to ban fracking? Do the outfits that deliver frack sand buy trucks or other equipment? Do steel producers make more or less pipe to have in stock?

Do the same exercise in every imaginable industry. This is the effect POTUS has. Democrats hate businesses. They show this with their policies. Business owners will not invest when such a party can run wild.

Quote: AZDuffman

Obama sued Boeing for OPENING a new plant.

Boeing opened the factory in SC as insurance against the constant strike threats in Seattle that were costing them orders. Customers were going to Airbus and other competitors, rather than deal with delivery delays.

Obama's Labor Board dropped the lawsuit at the request of the Seattle union.

Don Jr. suspended from Twitter for 12 hours for spreading misinformation about Hydroxychloroquine (what is it with righties’ obsession with that drug?!??)

Quote: Tanko

Boeing opened the factory in SC as insurance against the constant strike threats in Seattle that were costing them orders. Customers were going to Airbus and other competitors, rather than deal with delivery delays.

Obama's Labor Board dropped the lawsuit at the request of the Seattle union.

1. Of course they did. The new plant did not cost one union job. But BA has to look out for the shareholder, the most important person involved.

2. Only because the union saw it would get roasted for this happening.

3. Is still shows Obama was anti-business. He talked about his little time in the real world as being "behind enemy lines" before he ran to hide in academia and government. I doubt the guy could explain how a job is created, and I more doubt he could do it without using the word "government." I doubt Biden could, either.

Quote: SOOPOO

I am friends with money managers, business owners, financial advisors...... They ALL say that despite Trump being an overall idiot, as far as the markets and economy goes, his idiotness is far less relevant than the policies of the left compared to the favorable policies of business first Trump. Anyone who truly thinks that the economy did not take off because Trump was elected and not Clinton is just fooling himself. I am not saying that decreasing oversight of big (and small) companies is good overall for our country long term, but you are silly if you don't think it is good for business, and has been for the 3 years of non-COVID-19 US economy.

The market response to his election was shocking! Way down when it was realized we actually elected the reality TV show guy...... Way up when we eventually realized it wasn't a business shackling Democrat. And has been nothing but up until COVID-19.

In general, I obviously concede that Republican policies are almost definitely better for the economy short-term than those of Democrats, and very probably better for the economy long-term. You can't enact policies such as UBI, free college for all, Medicare For All, $426/hour minimum wage, without significant taxation. Hell, even arguing for a greater minimum wage results in increased taxation because more workers (or more money for those for whom it is already the case) would have taxable income.

Not take from the rich and give to the poor, exactly, but take from the rich and give to the Government to do with as it sees fit.

That said, the markets were lower AFTER George W. Bush, a Republican, left office than when he took office and Obama left the DOW 148.3% higher than it was when he took office. Those are just facts.

Okay, so was W. responsible for the economic free fall?

Absolutely not.

The most direct cause was the lending/credit bubble bursting, which came mainly as a result of (and I'm not arguing in favor of regulation, so don't misunderstand) lenders making loans KNOWING:

1.) There would be a high default percentage.

2.) That the interest rates were obscene.

3.) That they were essentially approving loans to anyone with a pulse and also such that just the minimum payments were a crazy high percentage of the person's income, in many cases.

4.) Variable rate loans, of different varieties, so they could drop the hammer on the borrowers later...in a big way.

So, high default rates, but hoping it would all come out in the wash on the interest collected from those who could pay.

Looks good on paper until the bubble pops, temporarily increases stock value--which leads to bonuses and yada yada yada.

In short, not W.'s fault at all.

But, how can the markets increase more than 100% under Obama and anyone is going to even imply that Obama is an economic screwup?

So, four years almost and the equivalent percentage gain would be abut 74%, which has no hope of happening. And, again, this was with inheriting an economy that was already on the upswing. Probably would not have happened even without CV-19, though it might have been close. He was right around +50% going into this year, little under, I think.

But, similarly, I don't know what percentage of the improvement I would attribute to whoever happens to be POTUS at a given time.

I could spend this entire day listing all of the things that they don't control, without giving details on any of them, and I'd still be typing in 12 hours.

Just shooting from the hip, POTUS and POTUS alone...maybe 5% responsible for whatever happens in any direction, 10%, at most.

So, it all kind of depends on what metrics one uses...and what the economy even is really depends on what metrics one uses...I just wish people would be consistent with laying credit or blame since defining what constitutes, 'The economy,' or, 'Strong economy,' is pretty arbitrary from person to person, either way.

How would I describe it? The metric I would like for standard of living would be to take the net worth of every individual (households divided by the number of occupants), get rid of the top 10% and bottom 10% entirely, and then determine the mean average net worth of all of those remaining.

Quote: AZDuffman

BA opened a plant in a Right to Work state. Obama sued. Look it up.

I'll just watch you guys talk about it. It seems people who know more about it than I do (yourself included) have now gotten into a discussion about it. I'm not terribly concerned with one specific lawsuit and I also don't know that the lawsuit even proves the categorical point. My point was simply that I'm sure there was more to it than suing them for opening a new plant.

Quote:

Not scare mongering at all. When a union wants to try to organize a plant they get "interest cards" signed. When they think they have enough interest they petition the NLRB for a vote, which happens after a "campaign period." Then a majority is needed to force recognition. Well, Obama wanted to eliminate the election, just assume a majority of cards is good enough. This from the party that makes a drinking game out of using the term "disenfanchised."

Try googling about Obama and "card check."

I guess I don't see what the problem is? I've worked in a distribution center, but not a plant. Why would a worker sign an, "Interest card," if that worker did not want there to be a Union in the first place? It just seems to me that (assuming everything you've said is 100% true) that you would just encourage your co-workers not to sign interest cards.

Quote:

It influences way more than you think. Think is this influence is hard to measure. When I look at my next house flip I look at after tax return. If we put the capital gains tax at 0%, where it belongs, I would be more likely to do a deal. That means hiring some tradesmen and being at THD so often people think I work there. All that wood, paint, wiring, carpet, cabinets, doors, you name it.

It never shows up that I did not do this. It is not just me. Do you think oil companies are going to rush to sign leases and put wells on a drill schedule with Biden promising to ban fracking? Do the outfits that deliver frack sand buy trucks or other equipment? Do steel producers make more or less pipe to have in stock?

Do the same exercise in every imaginable industry. This is the effect POTUS has. Democrats hate businesses. They show this with their policies. Business owners will not invest when such a party can run wild.

I agree that it's hard to measure, but like I said in the previous post, I put the direct actions of the POTUS at something like 5% to a hard maximum of 10% of the overall market absent something highly unusual taking place and the POTUS royally screwing up. I do think Trump royally screwed up his handling of the Coronavirus, but I think his screwing up actually probably sort of prevented the markets from being even worse. Maybe not? Like you said, it's hard to really know. Something like this is going to tank the markets either way, unless the plan is to have every single citizen just ignore the problem entirely, and even then, it would still hurt the markets a bit.

You're preaching to the choir on Federal-level taxes. I'd like to see there just be a Universal Sales Tax and be done with it, but you might not like the fact that almost everything would constitute a sale, stocks included. I think that would increase market stability, however, as it would do a lot to end the short-seller and day trader games. The buyer of the stock (or buyer and seller could chop it) would be eating 3% (or whatever it is) right off the bat...so you'd have to have pretty strong faith in a company to overcome your immediate loss on that either long or short term.

The oil/gas companies sure seemed really active with Obama in office...especially when you consider that's when the natural gas boom, you know...happened in some areas, including ours. Granted, they had to find it first and it already had been happening elsewhere, but Obama being in office certainly didn't seem to slow them down in getting mineral rights' leases---as you very well know.

And, that's all because you also have to have Congress in order to do most things. If not, then you're at least going to have things of this nature go to the court process, which itself takes time, so it's not like a POTUS can just snap his fingers and fracking is 100% banned nationwide. He could maybe prevent them from fracking on land that the Government owns, but as POTUS, he's basically the executor of the federally-owned land itself, at least, in the immediate sense.

Business owners seem to be investing in California, but yes, I think that's mainly because the far left is trying to get its stuff done at the Federal-level. If they tried half of this bull**** in their own state, the businesses would be heading for higher ground in a hurry.

Quote: Mission146

I guess I don't see what the problem is? I've worked in a distribution center, but not a plant. Why would a worker sign an, "Interest card," if that worker did not want there to be a Union in the first place? It just seems to me that (assuming everything you've said is 100% true) that you would just encourage your co-workers not to sign interest cards.

Pretty simple. Couple of large guys come up to you and say, "You are going to sign with the union, right? Union protects you. Otherwise things can happen. Most people do not like scabs!" (Yes, I know that is not the true definition of "scab.")

IOW, simple intimidation can be done to make people sign cards. A secret ballot nobody knows.

I have seen stories about people harassed at home and anywhere they go to get the car signed. Remember, you are talking big money for the union that organizes. Which means big money for Democrats at election time, and potential big money if someone has the union corrupted (as the UAW currently is big time.)

Quote: AZDuffman

Pretty simple. Couple of large guys come up to you and say, "You are going to sign with the union, right? Union protects you. Otherwise things can happen. Most people do not like scabs!" (Yes, I know that is not the true definition of "scab.")

IOW, simple intimidation can be done to make people sign cards. A secret ballot nobody knows.

I have seen stories about people harassed at home and anywhere they go to get the car signed. Remember, you are talking big money for the union that organizes. Which means big money for Democrats at election time, and potential big money if someone has the union corrupted (as the UAW currently is big time.)

I guess. I'm not sure. I think it's hard to even assume that you're not being recorded anytime you're outside of the house, and even inside of the house, you're just kind of taking it for granted that drones aren't window-peeping at you. I also find it difficult to believe that the owner(s) of the plant itself would not want to handle any such intimidation immediately and harshly, especially since the argument seems to be that unionization of the employees is not to the benefit of ownership, either. So, to the extent that any such thing does/could happen, I'd say responsibility lies with management/ownership to prevent that.

I've only worked at one place that was unionized, and that was a grocery store which...for some reason...was unionized by a steelworkers' union? Honestly, I think the owner himself was getting kickbacks of the union dues that were taken out of our checks, because I did the math, and we would have had to work at the place for some 10 years before the, 'Added,' benefits/pay would even be sufficient to break us even v. just making minimum wage straight up. Hell, we started at minimum wage for the first six months, (unless you got promoted to something other than cashier/bagger) so it entered my head that I really didn't need a Union to guarantee that I would be paid the lowest amount that I could even legally be paid. LOL

The only other place I've ever worked in which I ever heard the word, 'Union,' was the WalMart Distribution Center...and that's because they spent a great deal of time in orientation informing us of all the reasons why unions are terrible and why we should never want one.

So, I don't know. I probably don't have enough experience to comment as to the importance of the card or secret ballots. Maybe you could just skip the cards and go straight to the voting part with the secret ballot. Like, let a different union come in every six months and make its pitch, or whatever.