Impressed by the Trump administration part II

I’ll take $2.30 any day of the week ……….government still making more per gallon than the companies doing all the work.

More winning on the trade war front …………Dow sets another record.

Take care.

posted by QuakerOats

 

I’ll take $2.30 any day of the week ……….government still making more per gallon than the companies doing all the work.

you'd think these fiscal conservatives would be dying to roll these taxes back a bit no?

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/14/the-number-of-401k-millionaires-hits-a-record-high.html

More record highs again today in the equity markets. 

Thanks obama.

https://www.missourinet.com/2019/11/16/400-million-steel-plant-to-open-in-sedalia-in-late-december/

 obama built it

posted by QuakerOats

 

https://www.missourinet.com/2019/11/16/400-million-steel-plant-to-open-in-sedalia-in-late-december/

 

 

 obama built it

These openings are no more to Obama's s credit than Trump's.  An investment such as this is not made because of who happens to be president the day it is going to be announced. It's based in the macro long view. 

Among several of the most important elements in capex decisions are tax and regulatory policies.  Capital always flows to where it is treated best. 

Good luck.

posted by QuakerOats

Among several of the most important elements in capex decisions are tax and regulatory policies.  Capital always flows to where it is treated best. 

 

Good luck.

 

 

That's a part of it no doubt.  But you keep linking to stories about new plants opening inferring that it is due to Trump being in office.  Many of the projects you cite were in the works before he got here.   I'm not saying those were due to Obama's actions. My point is that you can't simplify these stories as being confirmation of some sort of economic policy or action of Trump.  

When you have a regime that was raising your costs at the same time it was hamstringing your competitiveness through terrible trade deals, you are not inclined to put your capital at risk.  When that regime leaves, and a business-friendly administration takes over, you are more inclined to re-invest and grow.  There were thousands of businesses that simply hunkered down in order to try and survive the obama years.  Most of them have since come out of safe mode and have begun to spend and expand, directly because of who is now in the White House.  That’s a fact.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

When you have a regime that was raising your costs at the same time it was hamstringing your competitiveness through terrible trade deals, you are not inclined to put your capital at risk.  When that regime leaves, and a business-friendly administration takes over, you are more inclined to re-invest and grow.  There were thousands of businesses that simply hunkered down in order to try and survive the obama years.  Most of them have since come out of safe mode and have begun to spend and expand, directly because of who is now in the White House.  That’s a fact.

I can think of two of the largest projects your cited on here that started prior to Trump's election.  The economy is doing well now according to many metrics.  But it also did well according to many metrics during Obama's "regime".  Isn't it possible that macro economic factors take place according a longer view than presidential politics?  

To underplay the fact that the economy, housing, stock market, employment arent affected by Trump is just stupid.  There is no way any of those indicators would be as good under another president

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I can think of two of the largest projects your cited on here that started prior to Trump's election.  The economy is doing well now according to many metrics.  But it also did well according to many metrics during Obama's "regime".  Isn't it possible that macro economic factors take place according a longer view than presidential politics?  

Large multi-national companies were not nearly as affected by obama’s policies as were smaller, privately held businesses, because they can afford to absorb the substantial burdens imposed.  Hell, they may prefer it because the policies are often so damaging and costly to small business that it ultimately lessens competition for the large multi-nationals as the small firms go belly up.

The economic rape committed upon the Midwest over the last 30 years was devastating.  The obama regime policies were then inflicting the final daggers upon the victims.  Then a near-miracle occurred.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-mac-factory-texas-not-131158967.html

I see where QO gets it from.  

posted by geeblock

https://www.yahoo.com/news/no-mac-factory-texas-not-131158967.html

 

I see where QO gets it from.  

Here's an example.  This plant was built during Obama's "regime" - imagine.  Just like the DRI plant in Toledo Cleveland-Cliffs is building that QO linked as another Trump accomplishment.  Budgeting and beginning of the project started in 2014.  

Trump and Obama have nothing to do with either of these two projects.  The economy ain't that simplistic.

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Large multi-national companies were not nearly as affected by obama’s policies as were smaller, privately held businesses, because they can afford to absorb the substantial burdens imposed.  Hell, they may prefer it because the policies are often so damaging and costly to small business that it ultimately lessens competition for the large multi-nationals as the small firms go belly up.

 

The economic rape committed upon the Midwest over the last 30 years was devastating.  The obama regime policies were then inflicting the final daggers upon the victims.  Then a near-miracle occurred.

This is a generalization that can not be verified.  Besides, most of the Trump successes you cite are by large multi national corporations.  So what gives?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This is a generalization that can not be verified.  Besides, most of the Trump successes you cite are by large multi national corporations.  So what gives?

It can easily be verified.  Hell, just look at the unemployment numbers. Thousands of smaller businesses, who do not make the headlines, have given substantial raises and bonuses, and invested in new projects, knowing now that putting their capital back to use is not a risky proposition, as it was from ’08-’16. 

“You didn’t build that”.     JFC  //  LOL

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

 

It can easily be verified.  Hell, just look at the unemployment numbers. Thousands of smaller businesses, who do not make the headlines, have given substantial raises and bonuses, and invested in new projects, knowing now that putting their capital back to use is not a risky proposition, as it was from ’08-’16. 

 

 

 

 

“You didn’t build that”.     JFC  //  LOL

I know you love the "you didn't build that" quote.  If you read the original speech, he was referring to the roads, bridges, infrastructure, educated workforce, etc that helped entreprenuers succeed.  He was saying those things served you well, that you didn't create them.  You can disagree with his opinion, but at least give it context.  He was not saying that you did not build your own business.

I know no one will ever change your opinions of Trump's glorious presidency.  Whatever good's in the world now seems to come from him and whatever is bad lingers from Obama and others.  A very simplistic way of seeing life, but that's your perogative.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I know you love the "you didn't build that" quote.  If you read the original speech, he was referring to the roads, bridges, infrastructure, educated workforce, etc that helped entreprenuers succeed.  He was saying those things served you well, that you didn't create them.  You can disagree with his opinion, but at least give it context.  He was not saying that you did not build your own business.

 

I know no one will ever change your opinions of Trump's glorious presidency.  Whatever good's in the world now seems to come from him and whatever is bad lingers from Obama and others.  A very simplistic way of seeing life, but that's your perogative.  

Here is the whole paragraph where that came from in that speech...

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Now, is the general gist of the speech about how the government built the infrastructure (roads, education, etc) that allowed someone to build a business? yes, absolutely.

Did Obama terribly mash up that one sentence and actually say "If you have a business, you didn't build that." yes, absolutely.

He also got the intent of the internet wrong. The internet, while yes originally invented by the government, it was for national defense in a time of nuclear war. If nuclear war broke off normal communications (phones back then) how would the government stay in contact? They invented the internet.

It was invented to allow electronic communications for the government/department of defense in a time of nuclear war. It wasn't built so "all companies could make money off it" as Obama stated.

So yeah, the quote is correct when used by the right as that is actually what Obama said, but also yes, in context to the rest of the paragraph Obama meant the infrastructure around businesses.

I would also counter that roads existed before the federal government started building them. Schools existed before the federal government started regulating them. Utilities (water, electricity, etc) were run as private industries before the government took them over.

So I also disagree with his whole sentiment as well, that you wouldn't have/couldn't have succeeded if the federal government hadn't built this stuff.

I call malarky as they all (save the internet) existed before the federal government took them over. Also, the internet could have/would have been invented by private companies as well.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I know you love the "you didn't build that" quote.  If you read the original speech, he was referring to the roads, bridges, infrastructure, educated workforce, etc that helped entreprenuers succeed.  He was saying those things served you well, that you didn't create them.  You can disagree with his opinion, but at least give it context.  He was not saying that you did not build your own business.

 

IOW, a reworded "Muh Roads!" speech. While true that all of the things mentioned serve us (well is arguable in many cases), I have paid my share of the cost to build and maintain that infrastructure, and the share of somewhere around 43 other people. I'm not sure why that makes the government a partner in what I created. When I started my business, I needed a laptop. Does that make Dell a stakeholder in my company? Of course not. Or Office Depot for my red Swingline stapler?