Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 11:48 am

rickyp wrote:Womp womp. Womp womp womp.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 3:56 pm

rayjay
However, I do believe his regulatory changes impacted 1st qtr. growth and had an important effect on growth since then.


Since Fate has nothing, as usual, perhaps you could respond to my question.Since it was you who made the original claim.
Which of the regulations that Trump rolled back contributed to growth?
Do you have any evidence of this? I am in agreement with you that there are thousands of regulations that need review, revisions and perhaps deletion. But do any that Trump actually rolled back really contribute economically?


"reducing regulation " has become a shibboleth .
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Feb 2018, 4:26 pm

rickyp wrote:rayjay
However, I do believe his regulatory changes impacted 1st qtr. growth and had an important effect on growth since then.


Since Fate has nothing, as usual, perhaps you could respond to my question.Since it was you who made the original claim.
Which of the regulations that Trump rolled back contributed to growth?
Do you have any evidence of this? I am in agreement with you that there are thousands of regulations that need review, revisions and perhaps deletion. But do any that Trump actually rolled back really contribute economically?


"reducing regulation " has become a shibboleth .


Dud (sic), I have nothing because you want to take a slice of the regulation pie, then ask me to prove something I NEVER ASSERTED.

So, as usual, put a sock in it.

You're just being a jerk. Then again, that's baked in.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Feb 2018, 8:25 am

Fate
I have nothing


Doesn't stop you from drive-by insults and infantile noise though.
Once you are challenged to actually provide evidence to support any of your comments you always retreat into this nonsense. Because, essentially, all you have are the unsupported talking points from Hot Air, Town Hall and Fox news.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Feb 2018, 9:36 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
I have nothing


Doesn't stop you from drive-by insults and infantile noise though.
Once you are challenged to actually provide evidence to support any of your comments you always retreat into this nonsense. Because, essentially, all you have are the unsupported talking points from Hot Air, Town Hall and Fox news.


You are an idiot.

You can’t “challenge” me on claims I don’t make. Your MO: I challenge you to prove what I think you should prove.

My response: take a hike.

Tell you what: why don’t you prove that the government regulations Trump removed are actually bad for business? In other words, show that regulation increases economic activity in the private sector.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 19 Feb 2018, 10:38 am

No one is going to able to provide a direct causal link showing cutting regulations promotes economic growth (or showing it doesn't). It's more an article of faith. The proof is in the pudding. If the economy starts averages 3.0% growth from now until 2020 people will start putting up pictures of Trump's smirking face in their home...even if it creates some three-eyed fish and we need to carry around oxygen containers to breathe the air. And if they don't work...Trump will be a bum. Well, even if they do work he will be a bum...but he'll get reelected. If he doesn't get impeached...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Feb 2018, 5:04 pm

freeman3 wrote:And if they don't work...Trump will be a bum. Well, even if they do work he will be a bum...but he'll get reelected. If he doesn't get impeached...


He'll always be a bum.

My hope: he won't run for reelection. Spare us all.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Feb 2018, 8:09 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
However, I do believe his regulatory changes impacted 1st qtr. growth and had an important effect on growth since then.


Since Fate has nothing, as usual, perhaps you could respond to my question.Since it was you who made the original claim.
Which of the regulations that Trump rolled back contributed to growth?
Do you have any evidence of this? I am in agreement with you that there are thousands of regulations that need review, revisions and perhaps deletion. But do any that Trump actually rolled back really contribute economically?

"reducing regulation " has become a shibboleth .


Here's some stuff that I've already posted in the tax policy section:

From 1/27/18:

One of the things that the Trump administration has done is require that a cost-benefit analysis is done before releasing new regulations. Although that is the law, it has often not been followed by the regulatory state.


There's an awful lot of regulation involved with forcing the mixing of ethanol into gasoline. It's bad for the environment, it makes no economic sense, and is basically a sop to some political interests over others.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald ... b7586a37e6
Many refineries are owned or are legally connected to gas stations. For example, ExxonMobil XOM +0.71% owns refineries and gas stations. Saudi Aramco, which owns Motiva (the largest U.S. refinery) also owns Shell gasoline stations across the southeastern United States. Such refineries can ship unmixed gasoline to their own gas stations where upon the gasoline is mixed with ethanol when the consumer purchases it.
However, Philadelphia Energy Solutions is an independent refinery and doesn’t own gas stations, nor is it legally connected to a larger operation that owns gas stations. As a result, the Philadelphia refinery says it has faced liabilities in the form of a requirement to either purchase ethanol credits or pay a fine to the U.S. government. According to news reports other similar refiners have managed to succeed and people in the industry say that Philadelphia Energy Solutions has been plagued by poor management decisions. However, the U.S. government played a role in regulating one of the most important U.S. refineries into bankruptcy
.


Obama era decisions were often a drag on the economy. Removing that drag has enabled more normal growth. I posted this on p 29 on 1/31/18.

For example, regulators had put Met Life on the too big to fail list. It was challenged and they lost in court. Then they wanted to appeal. Trump stopped this nonsense. Met Life is not the same as Lehman Brothers once was.

The CFPB was prohibited from regulating auto finance. This was the Dodd Frank law that you talk so highly about. The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy. Congress couldn't stop them.


On 2/1/18 p 30 I posted this:

In today's WSJ in the back pages, we learn about the CFPB going after PHH Corp for $109 million. This is a company with a $300 million market cap. (It was lower before the decision.)The appellate court, with a majority of Democratic Judges, rules that the CFPB use incorrect legal interpretations and applied them retroactively. I'll leave it to Freeman to explain the legal nuances.


and on 2/14 I posted this:

Here are some changes in the first 100 days from Wikipedia that impacted economic policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_100 ... regulation


One of the first acts by the Trump administration was an order signed by Chief of Staff Reince Priebus on January 20, under the subject "Regulatory Freeze Pending Review" to all Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies ordering agencies to immediately suspend all pending regulations and to "send no regulation" to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OFR) until the Trump administration can review them except for "emergency situations" or "urgent circumstances" ...
On January 30, Trump signed his seventh Executive Order "Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs." ...


Finally, I never said that Trump's regulatory changes are the only thing leading to increased growth. Trump has also used carrots (and sticks). By telegraphing his regulatory intent, companies have gained confidence that staying in the US will lead to positive results, and deploying resources elsewhere may lead to negative results. (I have mixed feelings about the last part.)
At a January 23 meeting with leaders of the United State's largest corporations, including Ford's Mark Fields, Dell Technologies' Michael Dell, Lockheed Martin's Marillyn Hewson, Under Armour's Kevin Plank, Arconic's Klaus Kleinfeld, Whirlpool's Jeff Fettig, Johnson & Johnson's Alex Gorsky, Dow Chemical's Andrew Liveris, U.S. Steel's Mario Longhi, SpaceX's Elon Musk, International Paper's Mark Sutton, and Corning's Wendell Weeks promised to reward the companies who stay in the United States with aggressive cuts on U.S. federal regulations governing their companies by "75 percent or more." ...

He also lifted a 14-month-old halt on new coal leases on federal lands


The last thing I want to add is that sometimes businesses can move very quickly if governments get out of the way. Even if construction hasn't started, there's still economic activity that must happen including consultants, executive travel, feasibility studies, legal work, financing work, etc.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Feb 2018, 3:05 pm

RAyJays quote
There's an awful lot of regulation involved with forcing the mixing of ethanol into gasoline. It's bad for the environment, it makes no economic sense, and is basically a sop to some political interests over other


Can you confirm that the regulation actually changed?
I've found lots on his proposal to do this...
But not that it has been put into action. Below is quote from January 9...2018.
By the way, Ethanol was originally a Bush program.

(And I agree, a boondoggle, taken advantage of by people like Carl Icahn and propped up by Iowa corn farmers primary votes..)

The Renewable Fuel Standard, ushered in by former President George W. Bush as a way to help U.S. farmers, requires refiners to blend increasing amounts of biofuels like corn-based ethanol into the nation's fuel supply every year.

Refining companies say the EPA-administered policy costs them hundreds of millions of dollars annually and threatens to put some plants out of business. But their proposals to change the program have so far been rejected by the Trump administration under pressure from the corn lobby.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/trumps- ... -2018.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Feb 2018, 8:52 am

Ricky:
Can you confirm that the regulation actually changed?
I've found lots on his proposal to do this...
But not that it has been put into action. Below is quote from January 9...2018.
By the way, Ethanol was originally a Bush program.


Good points ... Trump froze Ethanol regulation when he entered office, but the freeze expired. The swamp fought back and Trump caved.

Re Bush starting Ethanol mandates, you are correct. That's the point I made earlier that Bush was not a deregulator.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Feb 2018, 10:50 am

So lets take another one of your examples ....

Rayjays quote
The CFPB was prohibited from regulating auto finance. This was the Dodd Frank law that you talk so highly about. The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy. Congress couldn't stop them
.

What the CFPB was trying to accomplish was to end racial discrimination by auto lenders. No, that wouldn't have that much to do with the economy. (Although allowing black and latino families more more money at the end of the month because their car loans were priced the same as white people, might mean they spend the money on other things and boost the economy. Admittedly not much)
So if ending discriminatory loan practices had nothing much to do with the economy, how would allowing them to be maintained do anything for the economy?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Feb 2018, 1:15 pm

rickyp wrote:So lets take another one of your examples ....

Rayjays quote
The CFPB was prohibited from regulating auto finance. This was the Dodd Frank law that you talk so highly about. The CFPB decided to go after the $900 billion auto loan industry anyway by going after the banks that do some of the loans. This had nothing to do with protecting the economy. Congress couldn't stop them
.

What the CFPB was trying to accomplish was to end racial discrimination by auto lenders. No, that wouldn't have that much to do with the economy. (Although allowing black and latino families more more money at the end of the month because their car loans were priced the same as white people, might mean they spend the money on other things and boost the economy. Admittedly not much)
So if ending discriminatory loan practices had nothing much to do with the economy, how would allowing them to be maintained do anything for the economy?


Ricky, there was no proof of discrimination. Auto lenders don't collect race information, and the government was guessing based on where people live. When government uses its power to assault businesses it creates huge compliance costs for business. These costs are a drag on productivity and they are a drag on entrepreneurship..
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Feb 2018, 3:26 pm

Rayjay
Ricky, there was no proof of discrimination. Auto lenders don't collect race information, and the government was guessing based on where people live. When government uses its power to assault businesses it creates huge compliance costs for business. These costs are a drag on productivity and they are a drag on entrepreneurship


There's no definitive proof because
unlike mortgage applicants, auto-loan applicants don’t have to disclose their race or ethnicity; it’s strictly prohibited under the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA)


Would it be a huge compliance cost to have auto-loan applicants disclose race, or ethnicity? Like one more box on a form?
Here's what the National Automobile dealers Association did ..
.
NADA complained to Congress that the CFPB’s methodology of determining discriminatory pricing was inaccurate, and has been lobbying Congress heavily, with nearly $3 million in campaign contributions to members in the 2014 election cycle, and another $3.2 million in lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.


Note: they didn't ask for the ECOA to be repealed so they could provide accurate information. They fought the CFBPs involvement, period. Smoke - fire.
I think, that once again the shibboleth of "excessive government regulation" was raised to protect an industry "scam".
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 27 Feb 2018, 7:07 am

Ricky:
Would it be a huge compliance cost to have auto-loan applicants disclose race, or ethnicity? Like one more box on a form?


Yes, if done 1 million times a year.

Ricky:
They fought the CFBPs [sic] involvement, period. Smoke - fire.


Yes, they fought the CFPB because it engaged in illegal activities. No, in a democracy smoke does not equal fire. And it was only a wisp of smoke in that we are talking about very small amounts ($200) over several year loan terms.

Does CFPB's smoke of going after cases illegally = fire?

Ricky:
I think, that once again the shibboleth of "excessive government regulation" was raised to protect an industry "scam".


Yes, you have many strong opinions on many things that you know nothing about.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Feb 2018, 10:08 am

rayjay
Yes, if done 1 million times a year


BS.

And its interesting that this supposed cost you find burdensome but
very small amounts ($200) over several year loan terms.


is inconsequential. I think the thousands of people who paid the extra $200 (or probably more) would like to have the money back.
Its okay of black people have to pay a little more for the same car as a white? But god forbid a car dealership add one box to their loan form?

This is simply a case of one large industry taking advantage of consumers, and using a technicality to fight the one agency willing to take up the cause of protecting the consumers..

This is supposedly one of your examples of how Trump deregulation has "sparked" economic activity... Its a remarkably thin list you have offered to support the notion that Trump's "deregulation" has contributed anything much.
The few things he proposed, he never carried through on, because of congressional push back. The only business who really got relief were those that felt that looser pollution standards would be a benefit to their business.