Obama losing the crowd....on immigration?

[Tom]

We do not need any reform.
We need to enforce the laws we have now.
We do not need the workers - we have millions out of work.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

There is no doubt that the rich has done very well under Obama. Whether he intended to or not, he has proved once and for all that "trickle down economics" don't work. But that won't stop the GOP from pushing that theory going forward.

It doesn't work when you are inflating financial assets with easy money from the Fed to finance deficit spending. That's a bubble that gets the rich richer (at least temporarily) and confiscates money from savers who aren't getting an appropriate interest rate.

It works when the wealthy have incentives to invest in America by building new factories, new buildings, starting new businesses etc... But if you raise the cost of doing business with bad health care laws, increased costs of regulation, higher taxes at any level etc... capital flows away towards a better deal. Companies and many individuals are sitting on massive piles of cash right now but they won't put it to work in the US because the environment is hostile.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Clocker

There is no such thing as a theory of "trickle down economics". It is a political term used to disparage policies of the other side.

Inequality of income has increased more under Obama than under Bush or any other recent president. The rich are getting richer because the economic and social policies of this president, combined with the fiscal policies of the Federal Reserve, have made it much more profitable to invest in the stock market than to invest in new businesses that create jobs.

Bingo! At least the old lie that investing in the stock market was creating is gone by the way side too. A lot of American business is void of new ideas for new and better products. The one thing I will say that the stock market is not too high when you look at P/E ratios. Stock prices are a little bit on the cheap side if you at that. I always worry about what the banks are up to. Every recession in my lifetime and my Dad's was caused by the banks. I think the banks must recruit their officers from Gamblers Anonymous. If you took a look at the 2008 banking crisis, you would seen a bunch of bankers acting like problem gamblers.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

Bingo! At least the old lie that investing in the stock market was creating is gone by the way side too. A lot of American business is void of new ideas for new and better products.

It CAN work via the stock market IF the money flowing into stocks and bonds is financing new business, business expansion, etc... as intended. The entire purpose of the stock market is to raise capital. But that is not happening now on a wide basis because as I said in the previous post, the business environment in the US is hostile relative to alternatives.

Instead, companies are using cash to buy back their own shares and increase their EPS and stock prices that way, to buy foreign companies to avoid higher US taxes, to pay down expensive debt and refinance etc.. They are using their inflated stocks as currency to buy other businesses. They are engaging in financial transactions that create wealth for themselves because it's a better deal than actually building something in a country like the US right now. Change the environment and you will get a change in the behavior.

Bankers are not just gamblers. They are gamblers backstopped by the Fed and the government.

Imagine yourself as a horseplayer that gets to bet on whatever you want with your own money. You'd probably manage your bankroll carefully.

Then imagine a situation where if you win you get to keep the money, but if you lose, the Fed lowers interest rates, prints money, and bails you out. In that situation you'd probably play the game as aggressively as you could. So do banks. They know if they screw up the Fed will transfer wealth from savers like you and I to the banks by lowering interest rates and buying bad loans off their balance sheet. And if they screw up badly enough Uncle Sam will transfer even more from us by borrowing, giving them the money, and passing the tab onto the next generation.

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It CAN work via the stock market IF the money flowing into stocks and bonds is financing new business, business expansion, etc... as intended. The entire purpose of the stock market is to raise capital. But that is not happening now on a wide basis because as I said in the previous post, the business environment in the US is hostile relative to alternatives.

Instead, companies are using cash to buy back their own shares and increase their EPS and stock prices that way, to buy foreign companies to avoid higher US taxes, to pay down expensive debt and refinance etc.. They are using their inflated stocks as currency to buy other businesses. They are engaging in financial transactions that create wealth for themselves because it's a better deal than actually building something in a country like the US right now. Change the environment and you will get a change in the behavior.

Bankers are not just gamblers. They are gamblers backstopped by the Fed and the government.

Imagine yourself as a horseplayer that gets to bet on whatever you want with your own money. You'd probably manage your bankroll carefully.

Then imagine a situation where if you win you get to keep the money, but if you lose, the Fed lowers interest rates, prints money, and bails you out. In that situation you'd probably play the game as aggressively as you could. So do banks. They know if they screw up the Fed will transfer wealth from savers like you and I to the banks by lowering interest rates and buying bad loans off their balance sheet. And if they screw up badly enough Uncle Sam will transfer even more from us by borrowing, giving them the money, and passing the tab onto the next generation.

I see your point, but if you have watched a problem gambler in self-destruct mode, you know it doesn't matter that it is own money or not. I doubt if it matters much to the bankers either. If you go back to 19th century and early 20th century before there was anyone to bail them out, they acted exactly the same.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Obama losing the crowd....on immigration?

The phrase "losing the crowd" assumes that he had control of the crowd previously. The secret of leading from behind is to determine where the crowd wants to go and then get out in front of them and act as if they are following you.

Obama thought he had a grip on the issue, and apparently had planned a major grant of amnesty by executive action. Reaction was all over the map, including a lot of opposition within the White House. The right policy had nothing to do with it, it was all about the November elections.

So he decided to do nothing, because in his infinite wisdom, we needed to have a national debate on amnesty before we did anything. And we all lived happily ever after.

[dartman51]

If he can't get them one way, he'll get them another.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/03/you-w...ring-business/


Culinaire International unlawfully discriminated against employees based on their citizenship status, the Justice Department claimed, because it required non-citizen employees to provide extra proof of their right to work in the United States.

Culinaire has agreed to pay the United States $20,460 in civil penalties, receive training in anti-discrimination rules of the Immigration and Nationality Act, revise its work eligibility verification process, and create a $40,000 back pay fund for “potential economic victims.”

“Employers cannot discriminate against workers by requiring them to produce more documents than necessary in the employment eligibility verification and reverification processes,” Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights division, Molly Moran, said in a statement.