[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-December-09, 14:48, said:

Do you mean that the US has abandoned a number of asserted bad agreements, and the beneficiaries are unhappy about that?

Why do you only ask questions and never answer anything?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-09, 11:12, said:

Do you think that the US must have the approval/support of its allies before attempting to negotiate a better deal for the US?

I believe that there are significant costs associated with erratic behaviour.
If you can not trust that a country will live up to its word, why enter into any kind of agreement to begin with?

Quote

You disagree with Trump about the current agreement. Do you have some information that causes you to hold that position?

I certainly don't have any classified information if that is what you mean.

I like to think that I am reasonable well informed on Middle Eastern politics.

• I have a degree in History with a focus on Turkey and the Middle East
  
• My father taught political science at Vassar for many years and the Middle East was one of his areas of specialty
  
• I have travelled extensively in both Turkey and Iran
  
• I also have a whole bunch of friends at the State Department and I know what they have to say about our fearless leader

I can take a look at the track record of the foreign policy experts who support Trump and compare them with the record of those who oppose Trump.
I know which ones are more trustworty

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-09, 15:24, said:

Why do you only ask questions and never answer anything?

I think that there are two plausible explanations

1. Drews grasp of facts is "iffy" at best. As such, he steers away from making statements that can be checked against reality
2. Drews is attempting to run some kind of Socratic dialogue, much as Luke Warm did years back... Sadly, these don't work too well when they're being run by an idiot

[rmnka447]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-08, 22:12, said:

There really hasn't been any change other than the way that you are choosing to interpret facts.

The stock market, unemployment, etc are all following the same long term trends that they were on before.

With this said and done, I think that we're headed for a major correction (I pulled my $$$ from the market back in August)

Not sure what will trigger it. Maybe impeachment. Maybe some stupid military action. Maybe just animal spirits. But it feels as if its time for the bears to come out and play...

I love to see how the economy has been growing steadily according to Mother Jones. Would anyone expect them to show anything different? BTW, the historical growth in the stock market has always been about 7-8% per year long term since they started measuring it.

But if you look at a shorter period, it's not so clear that there was "steady" increase. Looking back at 5 year charts for the Dow Jones and S&P 500 provides some interesting perspective. I picked off approximate values at the beginning of each year, current value, and shortly before the election.

DJIA

Current 24,000
1/17 20,000
8-9/16 18,000
1/16 17,600
1/15 18,000
1/14 16,500
1/13 13,000

S&P 500

Current 2,700
1/17 2,300
8-9/16 2,100
1/16 1,900
1/15 2,000
1/14 1,800
1/13 1,500

Both showed about the same thing, between 1/14 and the 2016 election, there was some modest increase in the averages but they were pretty flat after 1/15. These were borne out by the growth in GDP which was less than 2% annually I believe in that period.

But since the election, both indices have risen by about a third of the value of the indices (DJIA 18,000 -> 24,000, S&P 500 2100 -> 2700) just before the election.

Let's give it to Mother Jones for creative graph creation and curve fitting/line drawing.

In the past, the stock market has been an indicator of the economy and has historically led (been ahead of) the economy by about 6 months. So you'd expect the economy to be at least a little better with its huge rise. The question is where the market belongs long term. Is it just recovering to a level it should have been at but for the business stifling policies of the Obama administration. Or, is it somewhat overvalued and will correct back to a lower level that is still quite a bit above the levels during the Obama administration. Stay tuned.

[hrothgar]

rmnka447, on 2017-December-09, 17:11, said:

I love to see how the economy has been growing steadily according to Mother Jones. Would anyone expect them to show anything different? BTW, the historical growth in the stock market has always been about 7-8% per year long term since they started measuring it.

I thought MJ picked a fairly reasonable starting point for this analysis
Jan 1, 2010 is a nice round number

If you prefer, we can move back a year to the start of Obama's term...
Or chose the point where the S&P bottomed out...

FWIW, the reason that people look at long term trends is to avoid just the sort of cherry picking that you are doing,

Oh! If I start the analysis on 2015 look how weak things look!

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-08, 20:48, said:

For all of his "ineptness" the country and the economy seems to be doing OK. It certainly feels better than it did a couple of years ago.

He hasn't actually done anything. No significant legislation that he's spearheaded has passed. The tax bill will be his first legislative success, and it looks like a disaster for the middle class.

Looking at the stock market as an indicator of his success is crazy. Much of his policy benefits mainly rich business owners, and they also do much of the investing. The DJIA is hardly a representation of how the country is doing as a whole.

Unemployment is almost nonexistent, yet wages haven't been improving, and many of the jobs are poor ones. Income inequality is the worst it's ever been, and his policies will just make things worse.

Trump's foreign policy is making us a pariah among our "allies". Even Israaelis were not in favor of his recognition of Jerusalem (our past non-recognition was not considered a problem).

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-December-09, 15:24, said:

Why do you only ask questions and never answer anything?

Why do you just ask questions and not answer anything?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-09, 16:09, said:

I believe that there are significant costs associated with erratic behaviour.
If you can not trust that a country will live up to its word, why enter into any kind of agreement to begin with?



I certainly don't have any classified information if that is what you mean.

I like to think that I am reasonable well informed on Middle Eastern politics.

• I have a degree in History with a focus on Turkey and the Middle East
  
• My father taught political science at Vassar for many years and the Middle East was one of his areas of specialty
  
• I have travelled extensively in both Turkey and Iran
  
• I also have a whole bunch of friends at the State Department and I know what they have to say about our fearless leader

I can take a look at the track record of the foreign policy experts who support Trump and compare them with the record of those who oppose Trump.
I know which ones are more trustworty

Great! Then with your education and experience you must have a solution to the Middle East problems. Would you mind sharing them because I certainly don't see them.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-09, 16:12, said:

I think that there are two plausible explanations

1. Drews grasp of facts is "iffy" at best. As such, he steers away from making statements that can be checked against reality
2. Drews is attempting to run some kind of Socratic dialogue, much as Luke Warm did years back... Sadly, these don't work too well when they're being run by an idiot

Well they certainly would not work in an audience of idiots as well.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-December-09, 17:36, said:

He hasn't actually done anything. No significant legislation that he's spearheaded has passed. The tax bill will be his first legislative success, and it looks like a disaster for the middle class.

Looking at the stock market as an indicator of his success is crazy. Much of his policy benefits mainly rich business owners, and they also do much of the investing. The DJIA is hardly a representation of how the country is doing as a whole.

Unemployment is almost nonexistent, yet wages haven't been improving, and many of the jobs are poor ones. Income inequality is the worst it's ever been, and his policies will just make things worse.

Trump's foreign policy is making us a pariah among our "allies". Even Israaelis were not in favor of his recognition of Jerusalem (our past non-recognition was not considered a problem).

I was under the impression that Trump has signed some 80+ bills into law, something of a record pace. Is this incorrect?

Unemployment is at a 17 year low, wages ticked up slightly the recent quarter, stock market is at record highs, consumer confidence is at record highs, 200,000+ new jobs were just added including a significant number of manufacturing jobs. Perhaps Trump is not responsible for this but it is happening on his watch. I think I would stick with the guy enjoying good luck. As my grandfather told me, "I would rather be lucky than talented".

So what does it take for you to concede that the economy is improving? Doesn't two consecutive quarters of 3+% growth, while suffering from 5 hurricanes, and after several years of <3% growth count? What does it take?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-09, 17:56, said:

Great! Then with your education and experience you must have a solution to the Middle East problems. Would you mind sharing them because I certainly don't see them.

I don't think that anyone has a "solution" to the issues in the Middle East, however, I think that its pretty trivial to improve the trajectory.

To start with, I'd re-empower the state department rather than relying Trump's dim witted son-in-law to make "a deal"...
That seems like a pretty good idea.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-09, 18:12, said:

I don't think that anyone has a "solution" to the issues in the Middle East, however, I think that its pretty trivial to improve the trajectory.

To start with, I'd re-empower the state department rather than relying Trump's dim witted son-in-law to make "a deal"...
That seems like a pretty good idea.

I am not so sure. The State Department has had many years to try to effect a solution and has had little or no success. What would make you think they would do any better now? As Einstein has been quoted: "Doing the same thing over again and again and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity".

Perhaps it is time to try radically different approaches.

[ldrews]

It is really fascinating to watch this group and other liberal/left leaning groups. Each day Trump tweets something in the morning that outrages or offends the left and the media and they spend the rest of the day reacting to it. Meanwhile Trump is busy making the kinds of changes that he intends without acquiring a lot of notice.

For example:

Quote

Trump has one Supreme Court justice, nine circuit court appeals judges and six district court judges. These conservative men and women will serve for decades on the courts, shifting the balance rightward long after Trump's time as president ends, and with it the tenure of several GOP senators.

"The #Senate has confirmed 3X the amount of Circuit Judges for @POTUS in his first year than President Obama," McConnell crowed in a tweet crediting Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

And the various agencies have been instructed to and are busy rolling back regulations.

One report indicated that about 75% of Obama's accomplishments were by Executive Order. Trump is busy reversing a significant portion of those EOs.

So you guys keep fuming about Trump's demeanor, appearance, twitters, and lack of unity with foreign and international allies/groups, etc. Meanwhile the landscape is being altered right under your feet.

[Winstonm]

For centuries, the Nile flooded every year. In modern times, human sacrifice to the god Ra to prevent Nile flooding would certainly qualify as a radically different approach to flood control, but the action that finally worked was the Aswan High Dam, accomplished after multiple failures of other dams - so doing the same thing slightly differently turned out to be a much wiser and more successful approach.

Then there is the fellow who holds all the cards, owns the dealer, owns the casino, owns the chips, and has no opponent, yet still can't figure out how to win a hand - and his supporters talk about how clever he is at distractions because he is able to accomplish something that his opponents have zero power to prevent.

[ldrews]

I was reading that in the 2018 elections, 23 Democratic senators are up for re-election, 10 from states that voted for Trump in 2016. 8 Republican senators are up for re-election. Unless the Democrats get their act together between now an the 2018 elections, it is quite probable that the Republicans will increase their majority in the Senate. And the Democrats are not demonstrating that they will get their act together.

As James Carville noted many years ago: "It's the economy, stupid!" If the Democrats continue to focus on social issues, such as sexual misbehavior, or continue to push the "Russian collusion" story, I don't think they will do well. Their only hope is that Trump is found guilty of such a crime that he is impeached and removed from office. After a year of investigation there is still no apparent evidence that Trump did anything illegal much less impeachable. Anyone want to place a bet on that?

[Winstonm]

With a 32% presidential approval rating, a 63% presidential disapproval rating, and a presidential popular vote loss of almost 3 million votes, it's easy to see why Trump supporters can't figure out how they can lose any Congressional seats. When the reddest of red states is in panic mode because a Democrat has a 50-50 shot of being elected as their senator, it is easy to understand why there should be nothing but optimism on the right. When red state red district seats keep getting flipped, it is an obvious sign that Trump is on the right path.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-09, 19:02, said:

With a 32% presidential approval rating, a 63% presidential disapproval rating, and a presidential popular vote loss of almost 3 million votes, it's easy to see why Trump supporters can't figure out how they can lose any Congressional seats. When the reddest of red states is in panic mode because a Democrat has a 50-50 shot of being elected as their senator, it is easy to understand why there should be nothing but optimism on the right. When red state red district seats keep getting flipped, it is an obvious sign that Trump is on the right path.

Want to lay on a bet?

[ldrews]

Wow! The first ever audit of the Department of Defense. I bet Obama planned this and Trump is just the errand boy.

https://www.defense....dget-certainty/

[ldrews]

Apparently the US has spent >6 trillion dollars on wars in the Middle East. http://www.politifac...ddle-east-wars/

Just think what the US could have done for social programs and infrastructure with that money.

Thank you Clinton, Bush, Obama, and now Trump.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-09, 18:07, said:

I was under the impression that Trump has signed some 80+ bills into law, something of a record pace. Is this incorrect?

I have no idea. I was very careful to say "significant legislation that he spearheaded". Just signing bills that come from Congress doesn't require any leadership, just agreement.

Quote

Unemployment is at a 17 year low, wages ticked up slightly the recent quarter, stock market is at record highs, consumer confidence is at record highs, 200,000+ new jobs were just added including a significant number of manufacturing jobs. Perhaps Trump is not responsible for this but it is happening on his watch. I think I would stick with the guy enjoying good luck. As my grandfather told me, "I would rather be lucky than talented".

I think all those things could have been said a year ago, too. All this means is that Trump hasn't caused the country to implode. The President isn't a dictator, and the economy has enormous inertia.