Trump, Trump supporters, Socialism, and the Economy

[Fueri]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.

Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.

If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.

For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.

 

[imawhosure]

The real answer is-------->the swamp, is the swamp, and it is populated by BOTH of our political party's.

Once you point at Democrats or GOPers, the other side starts defending their swampiness. Gets us NOWHERE!

You would think the American public would be smarter than this, but they have chosen their corners and stick with them.

I know you Leftists hate Trump, but who/whom is the last politician to take on this swamp? Who is the ONLY group that really takes on spending?

As Mac stated; or was it someone else------------------>not many want to take on the AMOUNT of spending, they just want the power to dictate what it is spent on!

While I always believed divided government was the way to go to stop the pendulum from going to far right or left, I now have changed my mind. I believe that eventually, one of these groups is going to address this situation for not only the country's self preservation, but their political self preservation.

But, when you see one party trying to figure out how to talk people into spending 60 to 100 trillion over 10 years above and beyond what we already spend, it makes it obvious that at this point in time, it AIN'T them!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That sounds awesome...yet during the two years that the Repubs held the House, the Senate and the White House deficits rose by 33%.

Quit being a parrot for your party, look at reality.

You seem to have forgot some democrat votes were needed to pass the budget. And those same democrats are the ones that shut the government down because they didn’t get the money they wanted to spend.

And this is why we have a 23 trillion dollar deficit. The party loyalist will never, ever blame their own party, it is always the other side's fault. This has been going on for decades and you sheep have not figured it out yet.

When one side is 90% of the problem and the other is 10% I can always count on you to charge in and blame both equally.

If only that were true. But it is not. Neither side spends more than the other, the only way they might differ on is what it should be spent on.

Your god sitting the the White House submitted the largest budget request in history, by almost a trillion dollars. But he is not the problem...

I'm sure it's someone else's fault.


.

It always is with the partisan sheep.

 

[Mac1958]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.

Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.

If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.

For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.

That would be an argument against real socialism, and I'd certainly agree.

The issue here is that Trump and his supporters are proudly boasting about the economy, when it's clear that some of the stimulus and assistance to the system is being provided by government spending and Fed intervention - two actions that these same people would have been attacking just four years ago as being "socialist" (please note the quotation marks).

If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.

But as we're seeing on this thread, they are not. And I'm certainly not surprised.
.

 

[Norman]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.

Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.

If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.

For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.

That would be an argument against real socialism, and I'd certainly agree.

The issue here is that Trump and his supporters are proudly boasting about the economy, when it's clear that some of the stimulus and assistance to the system is being provided by government spending and Fed intervention - two actions that these same people would have been attacking just four years ago as being socialist.

If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.

But as we're seeing on this thread, they are not. And I'm certainly not surprised.
.

There is no issue with Trump supporters proudly boasting about the economy. The economy is good as you yourself stated. There is no requirement to inspect every reason for why it is good to make that observation.

The Fed's intervention during Trump was already shown to be a lie, yet you still present it as fact, which is a problem with you, not the Trump supporter.

 

[Mac1958]

The Fed's intervention during Trump was already shown to be a lie, yet you still present it as fact, which is a problem with you, not the Trump supporter.

Only in your mind.

I believe that you believe that, though, and that's fine.
.

 

[Norman]

The Fed's intervention during Trump was already shown to be a lie, yet you still present it as fact, which is a problem with you, not the Trump supporter.

Only in your mind.

I believe that you believe that, though, and that's fine.
.

Not in my mind. According to the Fed's balance sheet, an OBJECTIVE FACT.

 

[Mac1958]

The Fed's intervention during Trump was already shown to be a lie, yet you still present it as fact, which is a problem with you, not the Trump supporter.

Only in your mind.

I believe that you believe that, though, and that's fine.
.

Not in my mind. According to the Fed's balance sheet, an OBJECTIVE FACT.

You've been ignoring my posts and proof, including where I pointed out that it's the NEW YORK Fed.

I'm done. I've lost patience with the Trumpian mix of ignorance and arrogance. Believe what you will.
.

 

[Norman]

The Fed's intervention during Trump was already shown to be a lie, yet you still present it as fact, which is a problem with you, not the Trump supporter.

Only in your mind.

I believe that you believe that, though, and that's fine.
.

Not in my mind. According to the Fed's balance sheet, an OBJECTIVE FACT.

You've been ignoring my posts and proof, including where I pointed out that it's the NEW YORK Fed.

I'm done. I've lost patience with the Trumpian mix of ignorance and arrogance. Believe what you will.
.

The balance sheet I posted is the balance sheet of the entire federal reserve system. Do I need to send the balance sheet statements provided by the Fed or what is the issue here?

You are the ignorant one here, lying about something happening that simply DID NOT EVER HAPPEN. When pointed out that you are wrong, you STILL insist it happened.

 

[task0778]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

First of all, socialism is actually both an economic model and a political government model. As an economic model, socialism totally sucks; through out history one need only look at the socialist economies the world over to see the truth of that compared to the wealth generated by capitalist countries.

Which brings us to socialism as a governance model, and here again we see it's utter failures both past and present. Venezuela, Cuba, etc., when you subjugate the individual's human rights to the gov't you end up with a very bad situation indeed. Hence the attacks on socialism from either perspective - it's a losing proposition for the people. Nice for those in charge, not so nice for everyone else.

Now - there are an awful lot of Trump supporters and others who do not support massive gov't spending and the resulting huge deficits and increasing debt. Almost two-thirds of federal spending goes toward paying the benefits required by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are part of mandatory spending. Those are programs established by prior Acts of Congress and are consdered by many to be socialist in nature. Trump said in his SOTU that he wasn't going to touch those programs but there are more than a few of his supporters and others who do believe something needs to be done to curb those outlays before they become too large to manage.

I don't know that the Fed's QE policies are socialistic, since they essentially prop-up a capitalistic economy. It could be that the impact of what they're doing isn't that stimulative, I think there's a lot of debate going on about that.



If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.

Economic growth is dependent on a bunch of factors, but when you look at the growth under Obama compared to what it is under Trump and you have to wonder why. Trump's tax cuts and deregulation may not be the only reasons for an improved economy, but many people think they are among the most impactful ones. We had massive spending and Fed QE under Obama but not the resultant growth, why is that? Maybe it isn't just the tax cuts and de-reg, maybe some of it is attitude and greater support one way or another for businesses to expand or start-up in the 1st place. Which is manifest in the tax cuts and de-reg and other policies.

 

[Fueri]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.

Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.

If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.

For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.

That would be an argument against real socialism, and I'd certainly agree.

The issue here is that Trump and his supporters are proudly boasting about the economy, when it's clear that some of the stimulus and assistance to the system is being provided by government spending and Fed intervention - two actions that these same people would have been attacking just four years ago as being socialist.

If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.

But as we're seeing on this thread, they are not. And I'm certainly not surprised.
.

Yes, I know you understand economics and finance, so I wondered a bit why you were asking the question.

Anyhow, I think what we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin, and it boils down to partisanship.

If, as you say, that these actions would have been decried 4 years ago by the same people supporting them now, that's partisanship.

If the same people that supported the previous administration and are still giving it credit for the current economy are criticizing these actions, that's partisanship.

We can argue, I suppose, that other actions of the 2 administrations have distinguished themselves from one another and there I'd have to agree.

Obama was all about Obamacare, carbon credits (the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket he famously said and that factor would have without question have slowed the economy) and other things that took us further down the path of Govt sponsered/controlled this or that (eg. Socialism).

Trump has seemingly gone the other direction on a lot of this. He pulled out of the Paris accord and other things that were in the works that may have impacted the economy negatively, he has rolled back regulations etc., so the argument, I think, can be made that while the inputs in terms of stimulus could be considered similar, it is the playing field that has changed through these actions, and we will hope to see improved returns on this stimulus due to a more friendly to business (less Socialistic) business environment.

True or not, I don't know. It's also pretty clear that the modern brand of capitalism has some serious holes in it which don't by any means guarantee that these benefits will accrue here, as companies take these benefits, use them to their advantage, and then bolt for other venues as soon as those are more lucrative.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Economic growth is dependent on a bunch of factors, but when you look at the growth under Obama compared to what it is under Trump and you have to wonder why. Trump's tax cuts and deregulation may not be the only reasons for an improved economy, but many people think they are among the most impactful ones. We had massive spending and Fed QE under Obama but not the resultant growth, why is that? Maybe it isn't just the tax cuts and de-reg, maybe some of it is attitude and greater support one way or another for businesses to expand or start-up in the 1st place. Which is manifest in the tax cuts and de-reg and other policies.

Exactly what "growth" have we seen under Trump that was not already happening under Obama?

 

[Mac1958]

So perhaps Trump supporters can explain why they're so against socialism. Two of the largest three contributing stimulative factors -- massive government spending and the Fed's actions -- would have been considered terrible just four years ago, yet the attacks on socialism (whatever the hell the definition is that the person is using) are only escalating.

Can someone explain this, reasonably, civilly, intelligently, and with original, independent thought?
.

Because all of that stimulus and incentive, if dumped into a socialist system, would not be having similar impact.

Capitalism, for all of its flaws, encourages competition to generate profits, which generates activity. It is this resulting reaction to stimulus that takes these incentives and turns them into results.

If we take away the potential for returns on these efforts, we take away the activity which generates the actual growth.

For all of the govt money pouring in individuals and corporations still have to assume some risk in order to undertake the activities necessary to grow and compete. In the classic risk-return relationship if the return is reduced or removed there will be no reason to take the risk and therefore no activity and therefore no growth.

That would be an argument against real socialism, and I'd certainly agree.

The issue here is that Trump and his supporters are proudly boasting about the economy, when it's clear that some of the stimulus and assistance to the system is being provided by government spending and Fed intervention - two actions that these same people would have been attacking just four years ago as being socialist.

If they want to brag about the economy - and by the way, that's fine with me, as I pointed out in the OP - at least they can be intellectually honest enough to admit that this isn't just about tax cuts and deregulation.

But as we're seeing on this thread, they are not. And I'm certainly not surprised.
.

Yes, I know you understand economics and finance, so I wondered a bit why you were asking the question.

Anyhow, I think what we're seeing here is two sides of the same coin, and it boils down to partisanship.

If, as you say, that these actions would have been decried 4 years ago by the same people supporting them now, that's partisanship.

If the same people that supported the previous administration and are still giving it credit for the current economy are criticizing these actions, that's partisanship.

We can argue, I suppose, that other actions of the 2 administrations have distinguished themselves from one another and there I'd have to agree.

Obama was all about Obamacare, carbon credits (the price of energy will necessarily skyrocket he famously said and that factor would have without question have slowed the economy) and other things that took us further down the path of Govt sponsered/controlled this or that (eg. Socialism).

Trump has seemingly gone the other direction on a lot of this. He pulled out of the Paris accord and other things that were in the works that may have impacted the economy negatively, he has rolled back regulations etc., so the argument, I think, can be made that while the inputs in terms of stimulus could be considered similar, it is the playing field that has changed through these actions, and we will hope to see improved returns on this stimulus due to a more friendly to business (less Socialistic) business environment.

True or not, I don't know. It's also pretty clear that the modern brand of capitalism has some serious holes in it which don't by any means guarantee that these benefits will accrue here, as companies take these benefits, use them to their advantage, and then bolt for other venues as soon as those are more lucrative.

Another HONEST, reasonable, thoughtful, civil response.

Thank you!
.

 

[Mac1958]

Any expressions of Trumpian gratitude for this "socialism" to grease the financial system?

Despite St. Louis Branch Warnings, New York Fed Pumps $108 Billion Into US Economy - Bitcoin News
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/fed-repo-overnight-operations-level-to-increase-to-120-billion.html
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...at_he_wants_but_it_quacks_like_qe_103948.html
The Fed's $4 trillion experiment is growing - CNN
Fed Will Purchase Treasury Bills at Least Into Second Quarter of 2020
The Fed Has Quietly Started QE4

Anyone?
.

 

[Norman]

Any expressions of Trumpian gratitude for this "socialism" to grease the financial system?

Despite St. Louis Branch Warnings, New York Fed Pumps $108 Billion Into US Economy - Bitcoin News
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/23/fed-repo-overnight-operations-level-to-increase-to-120-billion.html
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/ar...at_he_wants_but_it_quacks_like_qe_103948.html
The Fed's $4 trillion experiment is growing - CNN
Fed Will Purchase Treasury Bills at Least Into Second Quarter of 2020
The Fed Has Quietly Started QE4

Anyone?
.

Yes, here are the facts

Mac was duped by fake news... although in this case it was possibly him interpreting the news in a way he thought was correct, but was not even to the ballpark.

 

[Norman]

Mac, if you believe that the official federal reserve balance sheet statements are wrong, please provide your reason for why you believe so.

 

[Mac1958]

US Federal Reserve starts “quantitative easing forever”
Fed Admits Failure of ‘Plan A’ to Control Money Market Rates, Shifts Back to Repos (which was ‘Plan A’ till 2008)
Whether You Call It QE or Not the Fed Is Monetizing the US Debt

 

[Norman]

US Federal Reserve starts “quantitative easing forever”
Fed Admits Failure of ‘Plan A’ to Control Money Market Rates, Shifts Back to Repos (which was ‘Plan A’ till 2008)
Whether You Call It QE or Not the Fed Is Monetizing the US Debt

Yes, we get it, you read lots of news and did not understand what they meant, ignored all proportions and history.

But now that the official data is provided, you should correct your error.

 

[Mac1958]

Fed's QE4 is pushing stocks higher
A Major Bank Admits QE4 Has Started, And That Stocks Are Rising Because Of The Fed's Soaring Balance Sheet
Gold Falls Despite Fed’s QE4 and Reckless Policies - ZIRP Now Tied To Unemployment - GoldCore News
FED PRESSED THE NUKE BUTTON: QE4 UNDERWAY!


.

 

[Mac1958]

The Federal Reserve is stuck in quantitative-easing hell
Two key moves from the Federal Reserve have boosted stocks, but they could come with a price
Renewed expansion of Fed balance sheet will not be QE but will affect markets
Fed Fuels Rise in Assets Via ‘Derivative’ of QE, Kaplan Says


.