"... that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly. While business leaders are eager for the tax cuts that take effect this year, the newfound confidence was initially inspired by the Trump administration’s regulatory pullback, not so much because deregulation is saving companies money but because the administration has instilled a faith in business executives that new regulations are not coming."
So begins the NYT article "The Trump Effect: Business, Anticipating Less Regulation, Loosens Purse Strings." I was interested to see the comments there, because I figured there'd be outrage and grousing and assorted Trump Derangement symptoms. But although the article went up yesterday, there isn't one single comment.
That's one way to silence your critics!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
None of them read it. New York Times knows where their bread is buttered, therefore, they keep the Trump bashing coming.
"That's one way to silence your critics!"
You need to look no further than your own blog for an example...the absence of LLR/ TT and resident dullards is common.
Keynes's “animal spirits”.
Wait till the tax bill goes into effect and people actually have more money in their paychecks. Lots of people. It doesn't matter if the bill is good or bad. It only matters that people see more money. That's what they're going to remember
I'm still not tired of all the winning.
And this.
"Iran is now wracked by riots against the savage Muslim theocracy that Obama and John Kerry spent eight years trying to prop up. The population is rising up because the economy is in ruins, and why is that? Because the price of oil has collapsed, and why is that?
Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the U.S. is suddenly the world’s leading energy producer again? The Keystone XL pipeline is being built — thank you, President Trump! — and that will drive oil prices even lower, which means less money for Hezbollah and all the other terrorists Iran supports.
“Along with human rights,” Trump tweeted yesterday, “the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!”
Already, the new Dakota Access Pipeline is leading to increases in U.S. oil production, which means less money for Iran, and more riots for mullahs. In September alone, production in North Dakota increased 78,000 barrels a day. It’s a toss-up who’s angrier, Tom Steyer or Ayatollah Khamenei. Either way, I call this winning."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2018/01/carr_trump_s_tough_talk_tamps_down_threat
Did you read the rest of the article? A lot of the ol’ “but experts say” nonsense. The article basically takes the position that Obama-era regulations are good for he country in the long run, there is no evidence that deregulation helps the economy, and business leaders aren’t thinking rationally (or something).
Many chief executives have been publicly critical of President Trump’s approach to social and cultural issues, including his response to a white nationalist march over the summer in Charlottesville, Va., that turned deadly and his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Two of the business advisory councils that Mr. Trump assembled in the nascent days of his presidency disbanded after executives grew concerned about his public remarks on the violence in Charlottesville.
Mandatory Trump bashing. Chuck could not do it better.
Long ago, I was taught that, if you were going to criticize an employee, you should "make a sandwich of it."
You started with a positive item, shoved the knife in and then added another positive item.
The Times is doing the reverse. Tell a bit of truth, Add a Trump bash, then it is OK to add another tiny bit of truth.
It doesn't matter if the bill is good or bad. It only matters that people see more money. That's what they're going to remember
This is what Obama would call False Consciousness.
The left have a careful dance around economics. Narrative and old tired clcihes are failing to work for them.
The left are collective economic ignorants because their idea of good economics includes The economics Cuba, Venezuela and Bernie Sanders. The economics of punitive collective failure. The economics of Nancy Pelosi and San Fransisco. The economics of urine filled streets, homelessness, and free stuff for people who scam and over-paid government bureaucrats who pimp Hillary.
Something happened in the last election that has never happened before, at least the last hundred years and what happened is, we elected a successful competent person from the private sector and not just another politician. They said it couldn't be done, though people have complained for years that competent people didn't run and couldn't be elected because of the dirty politics but it finally happened and we are reaping the benefits. My wildest dreams have been realized.
The liberal Democrats see the economy as a cash cow providing them with spending money so that they, as wonderful people in government can help those people less wonderful than themselves. It's a good feeling, apparently and they get to do it with other people's money. I guess it's good to be wonderful.
"the newfound confidence was initially inspired by the Trump administration’s regulatory pullback, not so much because deregulation is saving companies money but because the administration has instilled a faith in business executives that new regulations are not coming."
Government's boot comes off the economy's throat and businesses respond. It's not rocket science.
The Obama administration and it's supporters frequently claimed that their regulatory surge did not harm the economy. They provided no evidence to that effect; they just asserted it to facilitate their policy goals.
Honestly, I'm most surprised that the article didn't begin with, 'President Trump, who once spoke about grabbing women by the pussy,'. In fact, I'm surprised all of their articles and op-eds don't begin that way.
-sw
The liberal Democrats see the economy as a cash cow
Lefties view the economy as a goose that lays golden eggs and they love the taste of goose.
The NYT plays games with their comments system a lot. Sometimes like this the comments will be disabled -- for now, they may get turned on again later. Or the comments will be open, but only a handful of selectively chosen comments will be published for the first several hours the post is up. The reader recommends and NYT picks will bump up these comments before the queue of pending comments is let loose and then the comments are turned "live" where each additional comment is immediately posted. It's not censorship or spin. It's just the NYT doing their journalistic duty of weighing the comments that are posted and determining which deserve the priority of our attention.
The article is a pains --- painful "at pains" --- to claim there's "little evidence" that regulations hurt business and economic growth. Then the authors cite how "nevertheless" business leaders believe deregulation will help them grow their businesses, expand opportunities, and generate profits.
Ugh! These NYT idiots are killing me, although just acknowledging the positive "Trump Effect" on the economy will make leftists cringe.
I wrote about it here, 'New Wave of Optimism Prompts Business Investment: The 'Trump Effect" Will Cause Leftist Heads to Explode'.
Democrat economics > Double down on stupid, call it compassion.
Did the lefties abandon the theory that all the good economic news is the result of Obama's eight years of economic policy finally - FINALLY - taking effect? And Trump is just riding on Obama's genius?
MAGA
There are comments now. The top two are predicting dirty air and water because regulations have been rolled back. Others are predicting fraud that will go unpunished.
Not that they have any idea what regulations have been rolled back or what those regulations accomplish, if anything. All they know is "regulations good, deregulation baaad!"
There are tens of thousands of federal government regulations. Every single regulation has a compliance cost. By all means, not all regulations are bad. No rational person wants to go back to the days when raw pollution was dumped into rivers or cars didn't have even basic safety equipment like seat belts. Just because we accept these regulations as desirable and even necessary, there is no denying the costs. We just choose to accept that part of the price of every new car we buy includes the costs of the various environmental and safety systems mandated by government regulations.
The problem with the sheer number of regulations is that we long ago reached the point of diminishing returns. The EPA has enacted air pollution mandates on cars that have reduced the emissions radically. Years ago, I read that one 1960s vintage car emitted more air pollution than over 400 new cars. If anything, the ratio is even higher today. For each additional tightening of the emissions standards, there is less benefit for the cost than before - diminishing returns. However, the first priority of all bureaucracies is to perpetuate and expand themselves. They do this by writing more new regulations and hiring more people to enforce them.
In Obama's last year, he was pushing thousands of new regulations through the bureaucracy. Some of them had an impact of over $100 million. According to this source, over 22,000 new regulations were enacted during his 8 years in office with an annual compliance cost of over $100 billion. It's no wonder business confidence, consumer confidence, and the stock market soared when Trump was elected. That's a serious burden on businesses and job creation.
This is very fragile, and will turn in a minute should Trump fail in his grand stunt of riding the tiger. That would be a genuine disaster. And it is obvious to any observer, hence this risk is a substantial brake on "animal spirits".
So begins the NYT article "The Trump Effect: Business, Anticipating Less Regulation, Loosens Purse Strings."
Wow, simple economics. Then would it be so surprising to discover that stagnation in wages has a lot to do specifically with labor regulations?
An employer subject to being hit with treble wage penalties for any "infraction" is likely to set those wages low in the first place to compensate.
Fun article to read. Businessmen are investing because they think deregulation is good for them - even though "there is little evidence that they are right".
Then the comments. Deprived of their usual "Conservatives and their voodoo economics imagine that business will improve without regulations!", they say instead, "In order to make money the Republicans are destroying our environment for generations!"
Until Trump was elected, I was honestly unaware that so many liberals take a default attitude toward any random regulation that they never heard of before, that it must be valuable and essential. They actually trust those faceless bureaucrat guys. Amazing.
Like net neutrality. Most people can't even understand what it involves, it was only in place for a couple of years - and it's a travesty that the corrupt Republicans got rid of it.
I guess all the typical NY Times readers were hung over and/or watching football yesterday because there's 207 comments now as of 9:18a PST.
buwaya said...
"This is very fragile, and will turn in a minute should Trump fail in his grand stunt of riding the tiger."
I agree, only Trump is capable of riding the tiger. I see the "animal spirit" in action on a daily basis over the last six months. My clients are hiring and revenues are way up. A small trucker just purchased twenty new Kenworths with sleepers for cash. Builders are happy again.
It’ll all come crashing down if the progs win the midterms. Let’s see if they start slow-walking.
Push infrastructure now.
"It’ll all come crashing down if the progs win the midterms."
The progs are praying for the economy to tank so there will be a wave.
Deregulation is only one element. As important is that there is an expectation that the steady flow of new regulations that interfere with business will be significantly diminished. Combined with reductions in taxation (business will have more cash to to invest, modernize, hire, and expand to make more things for people) and the people (reduced taxes) will have more money to buy things, the economy will expand. And yes corporations have been sitting on a lot of money - but with the prospects of a more positive and more predictable environment for business, these corporations will start spending more. Same principle applies to smaller businesses and individuals. In the face of uncertainty, you sit on your money. Challenge your lefty friends to name 5 things that they own and find useful that aren't made by corporation. Corporations are great - make things that people really like and are useful (cars, phones, computers, appliances, furniture, hospitals, process and deliver foods, etc., etc., etc.) at a reasonable price,
By 12:53 p.m. Eastern, it's 259 comments of the usual anti-business take. NYT commentators are so monochromatic.
Spaceman's take is right on.
dreams
Something happened in the last election that has never happened before, at least the last hundred years and what happened is, we elected a successful competent person from the private sector and not just another politician.
Herbert Hoover had a rather successful career as a mining engineer and businessman. One difference between Hoover and Trump is that Hoover also had government experience: Secretary of Commerce for 7 1/2 years. He also directed famine relief in post-war Europe, including relief for the Bolshevik-caused famine in the Soviet Union.
News Bulletin from Dept. of Failed Predictions:
PAUL KRUGMAN: TRUMP WILL BRING GLOBAL RECESSION
"The economic fallout of a Donald Trump presidency will probably be severe and widespread enough to plunge the world into recession, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman warned in a New York Times opinion piece published early Wednesday.
"Calling Trump the "mother of all adverse effects," the Nobel Prize-winning economist predicted that the GOP nominee's administration could quickly undo the progress that the markets around the world have made in the eight years since the financial crisis."
((11/09/2016))
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055
Post a Comment