The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: SOOPOO

I'm too frustrated to continue... I'll let you carry the burden. I don't like screaming at Mission. He's spent a bunch of time helping me to learn some AP plays.

Well, yeah, when you're getting yelled at by people who you are mostly agreeing with it does get a little frustrating. Especially when same people are paraphrasing something that you have already said and believe they are making an argument against you somehow.

In general, I think the only real point of departure any of us have is how responsible the President is for the DOW, or for the economy overall. I have already agreed that the POTUS is more than 0% responsible and am looking for agreement that he is less than 100% responsible.

Personally, I put the percentage at 5-10%, but that's strictly a matter of opinion because it's virtually impossible to quantify.

I'm also saying that the DOW has increased during Trump's tenure, so if Trump can be said to be responsible for that at all, he has done a good job in that respect. However, if true of Trump, then it must also be true of Obama...or at least comparing Obama to his predecessor.

And, that's ONLY using the DOW as a measuring stick. Not grading the economy overall.

Quote: Mission146

Yeah, I'm hearing it. I'm also saying there is no, "Will do," to any great extent. There's only, "More likely to do." If the stock markets, or even the stocks of individual companies, were comprised entirely of absolutes...then it wouldn't be a confidence game in the first place.

Therefore, I'm saying that favorable policies for businesses, particularly big businesses, become more likely with Trump as President. There is no, "Will do," there is just increased probability of certain things. Trump can enforce certain laws less stringently, for example, but he cannot change them or outright circumvent them, for the most part.

You are playing word games. I do not have time for word games.

Quote:

Also, it isn't even necessarily going to change things all that drastically. Do you think that profits are suddenly going to triple in a year simply because Trump has decided not to enforce a fairly specific regulation that only impacts a percentage of what the underlying company does in the first place?

It is not about one regulation. It is about the general attitude of the administration.

Quote:

For example, say that a safety regulation related to the manufacturing of airbags for new cars is loosened. For one thing, your production lines are already designed to have that regulation in place and you're already manufacturing cars that way, so you might not even change anything. Secondly, the manufacturing plant might decide to keep it as if the regulation was in place just because the regulation itself (as occasionally happens) is actually a good idea that improves the integrity of the vehicle and safety in the event of a collision. It's usually not good publicity to have more people dying in your cars than other car manufacturers have, you know? Finally, that's a very small component of the car's overall production and even getting rid of that regulation may result in only small cost-savings (percentage-wise) relative to the overall production cost of the vehicle.

IOW, people tend to react to these things more than the actual change justifies. Although, people sometimes underestimate the impacts of things. Either way, the market eventually corrects...especially as relates the stock values of individual companies.

Get it? Simply saying that regulations are going to go away does not make it so, and even if it did, depending on the regulation; it might not even impact the bottom line all that much. Regulatory costs are generally going to be passed on to end users in some form or fashion anyway.

I get it, you do not get it. You think it is all about just making things unsafe or poising water. It is about so much more. Democrats tend to put in top position lifetime bureaucrats who have spent their lives in government and not the real world. These kind are used to being judged by how many regs they add. They do not understand business.

Republicans tend to put in those positions people from industry. A person in industry does not want to write pages of regs just to write regs. In most cases they are following laws that say they have to regulate. But the nuts and bolts level differs. Say someone from the oil industry is put in charge of regulating wells and water runoff. This kind of person knows reality. Will listen to the industry about a better way to accomplish the goal.

I have been in that position. The guy who was in charge of the agency in my area had been a PCO before. So when he comes into my office he knows what reality is. He does not take an unreasonable tough guy attitude. Other areas the regulators did not take this attitude and it caused issues. IMHO you should not get a job regulating or at the EPA unless you have many years in the industry you are to be regulating.

Quote: AZDuffman

You are playing word games. I do not have time for word games.

Is someone holding a gun to your head making you read my posts? Is there anything I can do to help you?

It's not a word game, at least, not anymore than any other conversation is a word game. He can say, "Will do," but that doesn't automatically make it true if it's some sort of effort that requires collaboration. All politicians do that, though, because it makes for better soundbites. Personally, I wish they would just speak in a manner that reflects what is actually the case, though I admit it would be less impactful if they did.

Quote:

It is not about one regulation. It is about the general attitude of the administration.

I agree, but you buy stocks in individual companies, unless you're investing in Index Funds, hedge funds or just let some other third-party handle your investments directly. You can have a general attitude, but how many different regulations (that may actually be changed/lessened/less enforce) actually substantially impact the bottom lines of an individual company?

Quote:

I get it, you do not get it. You think it is all about just making things unsafe or poising water. It is about so much more. Democrats tend to put in top position lifetime bureaucrats who have spent their lives in government and not the real world. These kind are used to being judged by how many regs they add. They do not understand business.

Republicans tend to put in those positions people from industry. A person in industry does not want to write pages of regs just to write regs. In most cases they are following laws that say they have to regulate. But the nuts and bolts level differs. Say someone from the oil industry is put in charge of regulating wells and water runoff. This kind of person knows reality. Will listen to the industry about a better way to accomplish the goal.

I have been in that position. The guy who was in charge of the agency in my area had been a PCO before. So when he comes into my office he knows what reality is. He does not take an unreasonable tough guy attitude. Other areas the regulators did not take this attitude and it caused issues. IMHO you should not get a job regulating or at the EPA unless you have many years in the industry you are to be regulating.

I will not get it if you continue to put statements that I did not make in my posts. They could poison the water for all I care, except in specifically-protected scenic areas. Hell, I wouldn't even care THAT MUCH if they poisoned those. If I had to describe my Environmental positions, the description would be, "Almost total apathy."

And, I literally said that Democrats controlling the Presidency AND both branches of Congress would be a total disaster for business and particularly big business. It was part of my post that you (probably intentionally) neglected to quote.

Quote: Myself

Obviously, Democrats having total control would be likely to be an abject disaster for businesses, particularly so for big businesses in industries that are already heavily regulated. You're talking to me as if I have disputed that point already or even would dispute it. Far from it. I agree 100%.

And...you're still talking to me as if I have disputed that point or even would dispute it. At least quote my entire posts if you're not going to read them. Better still, don't respond at all if you're not going to read them. I can understand you not reading them, they're pretty long, so I won't be offended...but don't reply if you're not going to read them.

Otherwise, you're arguing with me to try to convince me of positions that I already believe!!! Which makes no sense.

I agree with the second quoted paragraph. My favorite analogy is, "I wouldn't ask a CEO of a grocery store how the cash register works, I'd ask a cashier." Same thing. People with no industry experience will often attempt to draft/enforce regulations that cannot even be feasibly complied with...changing them only when they realize compliance is literally impossible...and that's only IF the business is fortunate enough to have the regulator/Government admit that compliance is impossible.

But, seriously, would you mind arguing against things that I have actually said rather than constructing a strawman of some extreme position that I do not hold to argue against? I understand that there are some people who only know how to deal in extremes out there, but I'm not one of them.

Mission, I was just wondering if you are out of work? I am only asking because recently you seem to be posting a lot more and the posts are very long and detailed.

Quote: DRich

Mission, I was just wondering if you are out of work? I am only asking because recently you seem to be posting a lot more and the posts are very long and detailed.

I'm not out of work, though I should be spending more time writing in a way that results in me making money. My posts are almost always long and detailed, but I think I went a week or so without posting here at all until yesterday or the day before.

Just looked. I posted some on the 21st, once on the 23rd, once on the 24th and then not again until yesterday. My tendency is generally to be very interested and active in the conversations going on, or not interested at all. I'm an unusual person.

Quote: Mission146

I'm an unusual person.

Ok. Now we have found some common ground!

I am generally interested in your thoughts on most of the issues we discuss here. Maybe it is my problem, and not yours, but I often just can't read your long posts. Is there any way you can give us the Reader's Digest version?

Quote: SOOPOO

Ok. Now we have found some common ground!

I am generally interested in your thoughts on most of the issues we discuss here. Maybe it is my problem, and not yours, but I often just can't read your long posts. Is there any way you can give us the Reader's Digest version?

President. Stock Market. DOW. Economy. Yes, but only somewhat. Mostly not.

Tax cuts. Stock values. Fewer Regulations. Generally beneficial. Not end all and be all.

Democrats. Full power. Control Everything. Probably would not be good.

Trump. Economy. Mostly Not Responsible. Pretty Good If Considered Responsible.

Obama. Economy. Mostly Not Responsible. Pretty Good If Considered Responsible.

Obama/Trump. Economy. If One Good Job, Both Good Job. If One Bad Job, Both Bad Job. Still Think Mostly Irrelevant. Not Entirely Irrelevant.

Please don't take these the wrong way. I was just expressing my point and being goofy at the same time. It's not meant sarcastically or as an insult. My posts are very long and detailed. I'm very big on supporting argument over bare assertions.

I can understand why reading them might be tedious, especially since some are certainly better than others...and a few are probably mostly awful.

Quote: Mission146

President. Stock Market. DOW. Economy. Yes, but only somewhat. Mostly not.

Tax cuts. Stock values. Fewer Regulations. Generally beneficial. Not end all and be all.

Democrats. Full power. Control Everything. Probably would not be good.

Trump. Economy. Mostly Not Responsible. Pretty Good If Considered Responsible.

Obama. Economy. Mostly Not Responsible. Pretty Good If Considered Responsible.

Obama/Trump. Economy. If One Good Job, Both Good Job. If One Bad Job, Both Bad Job. Still Think Mostly Irrelevant. Not Entirely Irrelevant.

Please don't take these the wrong way. I was just expressing my point and being goofy at the same time. It's not meant sarcastically or as an insult. My posts are very long and detailed. I'm very big on supporting argument over bare assertions.

I can understand why reading them might be tedious, especially since some are certainly better than others...and a few are probably mostly awful.

lol mission...kudos

Quote: Tripdufan

lol mission...kudos

Thanks!