Is anyone on the right just a little bit embarrassed buy stuff like this?


#1

So here we have Don Jr posting:

I mean, it’s not even a convincing forgery…

main-qimg-1c6cb5768b106b45dae06a1e433ae543

Do the ends always justify the means?


#2

BTW…The high deficit that Congress approved is responsible for the high GDP numbers just as I would have predicted.


#3

All he did was UPDATE the approval figures to reflect what they are NOW! What’s the problem?


#4

Sorry CS but I don’t grock Pelosi logic. If this made any sense we would have had 8% GDP growth under Obama. Can you even imagine that tax cuts and regulation reform had anything to do with it?

By the way, what was the date on the tweet and what was the date of the CNN spot?


#5

Source?


#6

That’s easy. The defaults on loans were resulting in the destruction of capital. To prevent a total collapse the government created money and private sector debt was swapped to the public sector.

Ya know, private gains socialized losses?

For the rest of Obama’s term, he reduced the deficit each year. Under Trump, the deficit will increase $1.4 trillion dollars (about a trillion is spending and $400 billion in tax cuts.

Now I agree that tax cuts played a large part in growth. I’m all for tax cuts. Of course, I would target different demographics, but let’s not quibble…

Now, does the removal of regulations increase output? Sure. Do I think that it accounts for what we’re seeing, hell no.

If a regulation is removed that allows a coal-burning energy company to dump ash in places it was previously unable to dump, the question is, what is the opportunity cost? If a river floods and wipes away the ash, there is a cost to be paid in environmental damage and clean up. The question is simply who pays? The regulation makes the coal company pay by preventing them lower cost places to dump, removing the regulation creates the opportunity that we’ll all have to pay.

I don’t take issue with the removal of regulations as long as it can be shown to be justified. That is, that the opportunity costs are low enough that the regulation is unnecessary? I bet there are several that could be removed. But do I think that they’ve resulted in the recent growth we’ve seen? No. Do I think that there may still be future costs to pay as a result of reduced regulation? If I were just to hazard a guess, I’d say yes.

August 5th best I can tell…

Gallup has trump around 39% on that date

Here are some Fox News numbers around the same time…


#7

Why not just find a poll that says that? Why Photoshop an image from months before?

Nice try Dave, forever the apologist of unethical behavior.

When Don Jr Tweeted that, it was 100% false.


#8

Actually not. The Quinnapeac poll (acknowledged as one of the more accurate) has him (President Trump) @ 50% after July 31st.


#9

Link?


#10

And Rasmussen had him at 50% on August 2nd.


#12

Ok, had to correct…

Looks like Rasmussen had Trump at 50% on August 2, but less by the time Don Jr Photo-shopped CNN.


#13

Again though, we’re ok with this?


#14

Which is wrong of course. This simply lays down ground work for another bubble; another faulty assumption where private actors will waste money, assuming they’re safe because the government will bail them out if they get into trouble.

… Why not? Regulations do curtail economic activity, that can’t be denied. It equally wasn’t simply energy companies he was doing this for.

One of the main reasons for why it was growth has avoided rural areas around the country, is the increase to lending & banking regulations. They couldn’t readily access capital, so they couldn’t remake themselves into anything new or grow.

Trump has removed those barriers, so we see growth in rural areas again.

Fact of the matter is, regulations are more destructive to economic growth than taxes, because taxes are more visible, and more easily planned around. How a regulation applies to you is far more fickle (up to the discretion of the bureaucrat looking at you), and far less easily navigated, especially by smaller players who can’t afford dedicated legal teams to help them find loopholes, or quibble with the bureaucrat.

This isn’t a relevant example CS. It could take 10 years before the consequence of the ash-dumping is something people have to move on, which won’t be reflected in GDP figures just from the past year.

Further, it’s far from clear what kind of impact this damage has on economic growth. Most of the time it amounts to noise; clean up costs are far less than bottlenecking the activity to start with.

And, due to limitations of what compromises GDP as a figure, this clean up could actually contribute to the figure growing, because you’re having to pay companies to do it.

I’m not saying you’re point can’t be right, but this particular example is too removed by time and impact to be what you actually mean. Do you have anything else?

That doesn’t go far enough. You should be asking if the regulation does anything effectively, or just adds compliance costs to no benefit.

Plenty of regulations are like that. Large volumes are never properly vetted to ascertain their impact; it’s simply assumed their presence somehow is better than not being there.


#15

OK. I was wrong. It wasn’t Quinnepeac. It was Rasmussen. Big deal. So how is Don Jr. posting these revised figures worse than CNN posting the old ones as if they were something “new?”


#16

True AS. I recall “regulations” coming out of OSHA that mandated that dairy farmers “must remove deposited cow manure ‘immediately’ after it’s deposited because it’s slippery and someone might slip and fall if it’s allowed to remain.” Another stupid “regulation” was that growers couldn’t continue to provide drinking water for it’s field employees in thermos cans, but had to provide it by PIPING it out to the fields and had to provide port-a-potties every few hundred feet! Any farmer knows that’s impractical…not to mention expensive and useless.


#17

Not that I’m a fan of Trump (I am a fan of some (not all) of what he’s doing), but given their past history, and more recently, a cleverly loaded poll on the abortion issue, I take them with a grain of salt.


#18

Pretty sure I addressed that…

“Now, does the removal of regulations increase output? Sure.”

I remain unconvinced that rollbacks of regulations have resulted in the increases in GDP. I’m more convinced that $1.4 trillion dollars in government spending and tax cuts are responsible.

When you remove these sorts of regulations across a wide array of social and economic issues these sorts of problems crop up on a regular basis.

But as I said, I recognize that there are examples of regulations that either fail to obtain the goals set for them, or there are others that have unintended consequences that result in greater destruction than growth.

This just means that we have to more carefully study problems and potential fixes and we should regularly re-assess our regulations to ensure that they are efficient and accomplishing the social and economic goals they set out to accomplish.


#19

Oh, an MMT debate on its way!


#20

I don’t know that the effect would be as instantaneous, but removing governmental hoop that cost money to comply with (which nearly all regs do), production is going to increase, because they can make their product/sell their service at lower cost, which makes it more affordable, and finds a bigger market.


#21

What’s “MMT?”