ADVERTISEMENT

Trump's Pick to replace Flynn

Paul, I'll go with your version even though there are competing versions online. And I do respect him saying no. So many others should follow his lead. It's sickening to see the GOP and ChristieFan line up to kiss his ass.
 
Retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus has reportedly pulled his name from consideration to replace Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser.
 
reluctant_to_comment said:
Retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus has reportedly pulled his name from consideration to replace Michael Flynn as National Security Adviser.
Click to expand...
Oh no, that's terrible news. Markets are going to tank next week because of this. Nobody wants to work for that Trump guy. And no president has ever had people pull out of potential cabinet positions due to issues, never!!!!
 
njfan47 said:
Oh no, that's terrible news. Markets are going to tank next week because of this. Nobody wants to work for that Trump guy. And no president has ever had people pull out of potential cabinet positions due to issues, never!!!!
Click to expand...
nj I'm curious. To what degree do you think the strength of the Dow indicates the strength or health of the economy?
 
tulla said:
nj I'm curious. To what degree do you think the strength of the Dow indicates the strength or health of the economy?
Click to expand...
Tulla, the strength of the Dow is largely irrelevant in today's market. As you may know, the Dow is an index that is not tied to market capitalization of its 30 component companies, but instead reflects gains or losses in stocks based on their absolute price. The S&P 500 is the real index that we follow because movement is tied to market capitalization, meaning that a $3 move in Apple means a lot more than a $3 move by the 500th largest move in the index.

The markets are largely discounting mechanisms in the short-term, meaning that they anticipate (sometimes incorrectly, but usually not) upcoming news. The markets have rallied largely on the basis of Trump's easing of regulations and lower tax rates, both of which are huge positives for most businesses. However, after having no economic policy for the previous eight years, other than artificially low interest rates, much risk has been built into the economy; an example of this is all of the junk bonds that will be coming due over the next 2-3 years. Companies were able to capitalize on the artificially low interest rates and float bonds that had lower-than-normal yields, yet still attracted buyers. As these bonds mature, many companies might still, in spite of an improving economy, not have enough cash flow to make payments. So, instead, they will roll the bonds over. The only problem is that rates could be higher, causing the companies to take on more debt than they did in the past.

This is why the impact of presidents' policies are often felt years down the road. Trump has to figure out a way to navigate around this. As he says, he inherited a mess. However, that mess is why he got elected, so it's up to him to get it done, same as Obama never would have won had it not been for Bush and his wars and less-than-ideal management of the economy, although the Clinton Housing Bubble handcuffed Bush, without a doubt.

To me, late 2018-early to mid 2019 is going to be a potential minefield for Trump. That's when things could get interesting on the downside. The bull market can't go on forever, large amounts of junk bonds will be due, and, if the economy is growing at 4% (not certain), interest rates will be higher. At some point, a greater-than-20% correction will happen. Could it turn into a 40-50% bear market? Trump could well be a one-termer if the timing of this is correct. Dems will celebrate, but you have to be careful what you ask for, as there are not really any good candidates on their side, unless Howard Schultz somehow throws his hat into the ring. I bring this up because guys like him see that Trump can win, so they think they can do the same. The next ten years are definitely going to be interesting.
 
njfan47 said:
Tulla, the strength of the Dow is largely irrelevant in today's market. As you may know, the Dow is an index that is not tied to market capitalization of its 30 component companies, but instead reflects gains or losses in stocks based on their absolute price. The S&P 500 is the real index that we follow because movement is tied to market capitalization, meaning that a $3 move in Apple means a lot more than a $3 move by the 500th largest move in the index.

The markets are largely discounting mechanisms in the short-term, meaning that they anticipate (sometimes incorrectly, but usually not) upcoming news. The markets have rallied largely on the basis of Trump's easing of regulations and lower tax rates, both of which are huge positives for most businesses. However, after having no economic policy for the previous eight years, other than artificially low interest rates, much risk has been built into the economy; an example of this is all of the junk bonds that will be coming due over the next 2-3 years. Companies were able to capitalize on the artificially low interest rates and float bonds that had lower-than-normal yields, yet still attracted buyers. As these bonds mature, many companies might still, in spite of an improving economy, not have enough cash flow to make payments. So, instead, they will roll the bonds over. The only problem is that rates could be higher, causing the companies to take on more debt than they did in the past.

This is why the impact of presidents' policies are often felt years down the road. Trump has to figure out a way to navigate around this. As he says, he inherited a mess. However, that mess is why he got elected, so it's up to him to get it done, same as Obama never would have won had it not been for Bush and his wars and less-than-ideal management of the economy, although the Clinton Housing Bubble handcuffed Bush, without a doubt.

To me, late 2018-early to mid 2019 is going to be a potential minefield for Trump. That's when things could get interesting on the downside. The bull market can't go on forever, large amounts of junk bonds will be due, and, if the economy is growing at 4% (not certain), interest rates will be higher. At some point, a greater-than-20% correction will happen. Could it turn into a 40-50% bear market? Trump could well be a one-termer if the timing of this is correct. Dems will celebrate, but you have to be careful what you ask for, as there are not really any good candidates on their side, unless Howard Schultz somehow throws his hat into the ring. I bring this up because guys like him see that Trump can win, so they think they can do the same. The next ten years are definitely going to be interesting.
Click to expand...
I largely agree with you.
njfan47 said:
Tulla, the strength of the Dow is largely irrelevant in today's market. As you may know, the Dow is an index that is not tied to market capitalization of its 30 component companies, but instead reflects gains or losses in stocks based on their absolute price. The S&P 500 is the real index that we follow because movement is tied to market capitalization, meaning that a $3 move in Apple means a lot more than a $3 move by the 500th largest move in the index.

The markets are largely discounting mechanisms in the short-term, meaning that they anticipate (sometimes incorrectly, but usually not) upcoming news. The markets have rallied largely on the basis of Trump's easing of regulations and lower tax rates, both of which are huge positives for most businesses. However, after having no economic policy for the previous eight years, other than artificially low interest rates, much risk has been built into the economy; an example of this is all of the junk bonds that will be coming due over the next 2-3 years. Companies were able to capitalize on the artificially low interest rates and float bonds that had lower-than-normal yields, yet still attracted buyers. As these bonds mature, many companies might still, in spite of an improving economy, not have enough cash flow to make payments. So, instead, they will roll the bonds over. The only problem is that rates could be higher, causing the companies to take on more debt than they did in the past.

This is why the impact of presidents' policies are often felt years down the road. Trump has to figure out a way to navigate around this. As he says, he inherited a mess. However, that mess is why he got elected, so it's up to him to get it done, same as Obama never would have won had it not been for Bush and his wars and less-than-ideal management of the economy, although the Clinton Housing Bubble handcuffed Bush, without a doubt.

To me, late 2018-early to mid 2019 is going to be a potential minefield for Trump. That's when things could get interesting on the downside. The bull market can't go on forever, large amounts of junk bonds will be due, and, if the economy is growing at 4% (not certain), interest rates will be higher. At some point, a greater-than-20% correction will happen. Could it turn into a 40-50% bear market? Trump could well be a one-termer if the timing of this is correct. Dems will celebrate, but you have to be careful what you ask for, as there are not really any good candidates on their side, unless Howard Schultz somehow throws his hat into the ring. I bring this up because guys like him see that Trump can win, so they think they can do the same. The next ten years are definitely going to be interesting.
Click to expand...
I agree with you abut the S&P vs the Dow. But I think the bigger bubble with Clinton was the tech rather than the housing one. Bush 43 was another story altogether.

Lots of people who complain so much about the economy under Obama--if those people were active in the market--did pretty well, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that the health of the market equates with the health of the economy, but I suspect there was some real disconnect between what some people say about Obama leaving the economy in a mess and how well they did in the eight years of his presidency. I do fault him for not dealing more directly and effectively with the decline in manufacturing--though I think he mainly did the right thing with the auto industry--but I think Trump has raised expectations way too high. Let's see how many people are digging coal in four years or how many more people are manufacturing textiles.

Someone on here (maybe Paul?) referred to a $60b trade deficit with Mexico. But surely a lot of the profits derived from goods produced in Mexico came back to the U.S. That's small comfort to the person who saw his or her job go to Mexico, but it points to the complexity of the global economy. I would rather Trump had tried to improve TPP rather than scrap it. Why surrender so many Asian markets to China?
 
tulla said:
I largely agree with you.

I agree with you abut the S&P vs the Dow. But I think the bigger bubble with Clinton was the tech rather than the housing one. Bush 43 was another story altogether.

Lots of people who complain so much about the economy under Obama--if those people were active in the market--did pretty well, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that the health of the market equates with the health of the economy, but I suspect there was some real disconnect between what some people say about Obama leaving the economy in a mess and how well they did in the eight years of his presidency. I do fault him for not dealing more directly and effectively with the decline in manufacturing--though I think he mainly did the right thing with the auto industry--but I think Trump has raised expectations way too high. Let's see how many people are digging coal in four years or how many more people are manufacturing textiles.

Someone on here (maybe Paul?) referred to a $60b trade deficit with Mexico. But surely a lot of the profits derived from goods produced in Mexico came back to the U.S. That's small comfort to the person who saw his or her job go to Mexico, but it points to the complexity of the global economy. I would rather Trump had tried to improve TPP rather than scrap it. Why surrender so many Asian markets to China?
Click to expand...
Good points. But the tech bubble was one that formed by itself. The Clinton Housing Bubble was manufactured. It didn't have to be.

Good point on the markets having done well under Obama. He came in at a time when markets were down, a favorable point in the cycle for him, and kept rates artificially low, which, again allowed companies to issue junk bonds at artificially low rates, something which will have negative repercussions down the road. Also, the $10 trillion in debt that he added will have negative repercussions down the road. The markets were largely managed; for example, things looked bad from a technical standpoint in 2013, but another round of QE was invoked and it pushed markets higher. This sort of artificial stimulus usually has long-term repercussions. It's unfortunate that Obama took this action, as it makes him and the economy look good, but it fails to let markets work things out.

Good points on the Mexican trade deficit and the economy is certainly complex. But, look more closely at your point; it's hurting the underpinnings of the economy because manufacturing jobs are leaving. You must find it ironic that a Democratic president let this happen and a Republican president is trying to change it.
 
njfan47 said:
Good points. But the tech bubble was one that formed by itself. The Clinton Housing Bubble was manufactured. It didn't have to be.

Good point on the markets having done well under Obama. He came in at a time when markets were down, a favorable point in the cycle for him, and kept rates artificially low, which, again allowed companies to issue junk bonds at artificially low rates, something which will have negative repercussions down the road. Also, the $10 trillion in debt that he added will have negative repercussions down the road. The markets were largely managed; for example, things looked bad from a technical standpoint in 2013, but another round of QE was invoked and it pushed markets higher. This sort of artificial stimulus usually has long-term repercussions. It's unfortunate that Obama took this action, as it makes him and the economy look good, but it fails to let markets work things out.

Good points on the Mexican trade deficit and the economy is certainly complex. But, look more closely at your point; it's hurting the underpinnings of the economy because manufacturing jobs are leaving. You must find it ironic that a Democratic president let this happen and a Republican president is trying to change it.
Click to expand...
nj, It wasn't Obama who negotiated NAFTA--as I'm sure you know. Bill Clinton had a big hand in it, and both Reagan and Bush Sr. had major roles in laying the groundwork for it--partly through the free trade deal with Canada. You could go all the way back to the '60s and the auto pact.

I'm no expert about NAFTA, but I doubt it deserves to be essentially spat upon. There is an advantage to the U.S. in the development of decent manufacturing jobs in Mexico--less incentive to move illegally to the U.S., a better market for some American-made goods and American-provided services, etc. And there are disadvantages.

Let's see what Trump does. We know Mexico is not paying for whatever barrier gets built.
 
reluctant_to_comment said:
You must find it ironic that a President who produces his products in Mexico is yelling about jobs going to Mexico?
Click to expand...
I find it ironic that you haven't had at least a 30% paycut from Trump yet. I find it ironic that you said you were blocking me, but yet you are still responding!!
 
tulla said:
nj, It wasn't Obama who negotiated NAFTA--as I'm sure you know. Bill Clinton had a big hand in it, and both Reagan and Bush Sr. had major roles in laying the groundwork for it--partly through the free trade deal with Canada. You could go all the way back to the '60s and the auto pact.

I'm no expert about NAFTA, but I doubt it deserves to be essentially spat upon. There is an advantage to the U.S. in the development of decent manufacturing jobs in Mexico--less incentive to move illegally to the U.S., a better market for some American-made goods and American-provided services, etc. And there are disadvantages.

Let's see what Trump does. We know Mexico is not paying for whatever barrier gets built.
Click to expand...
Tulla, the term NAFTA doesn't appear once in my post!

Regarding who pays for the wall, Mexico could well pay in one way or another. Clearly, it's part of a negotiation, but some people want to take Trump literally; that's on them. But the point is largely moot, as the wall will pay for itself over time. Less welfare, less crime, less prison expense, etc. As just one example, through some extended family, we know of a family in Tampa that came to the US illegally from Costa Rica. The guy is probably about 50 years old and is on what appears to be lifetime disability for reasons unknown. People who don't come into contact with these situations just don't know how pervasive it is. Now, the counter argument is that many illegals come here and work hard, and that's true; but, many in central and south America see the USA as a handout waiting to happen. Not sure if you know much about the gang situation in LA, but it's been bad for 30 years. And it's largely illegals from Mexico, El Salvador, etc. These issues bring enormous costs.
 
njfan47 said:
Tulla, the term NAFTA doesn't appear once in my post!

Regarding who pays for the wall, Mexico could well pay in one way or another. Clearly, it's part of a negotiation, but some people want to take Trump literally; that's on them. But the point is largely moot, as the wall will pay for itself over time. Less welfare, less crime, less prison expense, etc. As just one example, through some extended family, we know of a family in Tampa that came to the US illegally from Costa Rica. The guy is probably about 50 years old and is on what appears to be lifetime disability for reasons unknown. People who don't come into contact with these situations just don't know how pervasive it is. Now, the counter argument is that many illegals come here and work hard, and that's true; but, many in central and south America see the USA as a handout waiting to happen. Not sure if you know much about the gang situation in LA, but it's been bad for 30 years. And it's largely illegals from Mexico, El Salvador, etc. These issues bring enormous costs.
Click to expand...
nj Isn't NAFTA at the heart of Trump's complaints about Mexico?

I don't know much about the gang situation in LA and would be interested in knowing what percentage of gang members are illegal. Overall, I understand that the crime rate among immigrants, including Mexican immigrants, is lower than the crime rate for native-born Americans. Of course, the devil is in the details. I would be happy to get a better sense of the big picture.

The problem I have with the example of the fellow from Costa Rica that you cite and the examples of people who were killed or injured by illegal immigrants that Trump cites is that they may be rare or very untypical. As you indicate yourself, you don't actually know the specifics of the guy from Costa Rica. The dangers of making policy on the basis of anecdotes are obvious. Trump and those around him gravitate to stories that confirm their world views--the Bowling Green Massacre and the Swedish terror incident included. Even when the anecdotes are factual, they remain anecdotes,
 
tulla said:
nj Isn't NAFTA at the heart of Trump's complaints about Mexico?

I don't know much about the gang situation in LA and would be interested in knowing what percentage of gang members are illegal. Overall, I understand that the crime rate among immigrants, including Mexican immigrants, is lower than the crime rate for native-born Americans. Of course, the devil is in the details. I would be happy to get a better sense of the big picture.

The problem I have with the example of the fellow from Costa Rica that you cite and the examples of people who were killed or injured by illegal immigrants that Trump cites is that they may be rare or very untypical. As you indicate yourself, you don't actually know the specifics of the guy from Costa Rica. The dangers of making policy on the basis of anecdotes are obvious. Trump and those around him gravitate to stories that confirm their world views--the Bowling Green Massacre and the Swedish terror incident included. Even when the anecdotes are factual, they remain anecdotes,
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It seemed as if you were asking a questions about my knowledge of the source. No doubt that it wasn't Obama, and that it was Clinton who signed it into law. Bad move.

You hit it exactly right that the "devil is in the details." I sincerely doubt that illegals commit less crimes than native-born Americans, as many sanctuary cities don't report crimes in the way that they should. Also, coming across illegally is a crime in and of itself. As for the guy from Costa Rica, I know enough about the situation and it's not good. And the daughter has an attitude that is questionable. Now this stuff can happen among native-borns as well, but the rate is higher among illegals, from my experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P

PA Preps High School Football Talk

Replies
0
Views
157
PaPreps Clubhouse - Subscribers Only!
PAPreps.com
P
R

Lehigh Valley Week 8

Replies
22
Views
803
Pennsylvania Football Talk
RoverNation05
R
B

SOL National Week 8

Replies
3
Views
2K
Pennsylvania Football Talk
bucksftball
B
P

PA Preps High School Football Talk

Replies
0
Views
654
PaPreps Clubhouse - Subscribers Only!
PAPreps.com
P
B

SOL National 2023 and Looking Ahead to 2024

Replies
27
Views
5K
Pennsylvania Football Talk
CAMoleskinner
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back