|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 8, 2024 23:31:35 GMT
The smartest guys in the room just pointed out the obvious, that Kamala and the Democrats have better ideas for boosting economic growth than the MAGA GOP. www.reuters.com/world/us/goldman-sachs-sees-biggest-boost-us-economy-harris-win-2024-09-04/Democratic administrations have a history of outperforming GOP when it comes to economic outcomes. Now that the GOP has embraced economic stupidity, expect this trend to continue if not hasten. There's a real tragedy here from a conservative political point of view. We've lived through a period of historic inflation. The GOP should be able to exploit the opportunity and paint themselves as saviors. But their own ideas are so bad the whole opportunity is lost. |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 8, 2024 23:50:36 GMT
Makes sense!
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 9, 2024 18:12:12 GMT
The smartest guys in the room just pointed out the obvious, that Kamala and the Democrats have better ideas for boosting economic growth than the MAGA GOP. www.reuters.com/world/us/goldman-sachs-sees-biggest-boost-us-economy-harris-win-2024-09-04/Democratic administrations have a history of outperforming GOP when it comes to economic outcomes. Now that the GOP has embraced economic stupidity, expect this trend to continue if not hasten. There's a real tragedy here from a conservative political point of view. We've lived through a period of historic inflation. The GOP should be able to exploit the opportunity and paint themselves as saviors. But their own ideas are so bad the whole opportunity is lost.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a 2005 American documentary film based on the best-selling 2003 book of the same name by Fortune reporters Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, who are credited as writers of the film alongside the director, Alex Gibney. It examines the 2001 collapse of the Enron Corporation, which resulted in criminal trials for several of the company's top executives during the ensuing Enron scandal, and contains a section about the involvement of Enron traders in the 2000-01 California electricity crisis.
"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoter of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," said Sen Levin.
Oh yeah. Goldman Sachs really has what's best for America in mind.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 9, 2024 19:03:55 GMT
Guys look Goldman Sachs.
Have the financial giants ever steered the people of middle America wrong?
This will be persuasive.
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 9, 2024 22:49:24 GMT
The smartest guys in the room just pointed out the obvious, that Kamala and the Democrats have better ideas for boosting economic growth than the MAGA GOP. www.reuters.com/world/us/goldman-sachs-sees-biggest-boost-us-economy-harris-win-2024-09-04/Democratic administrations have a history of outperforming GOP when it comes to economic outcomes. Now that the GOP has embraced economic stupidity, expect this trend to continue if not hasten. There's a real tragedy here from a conservative political point of view. We've lived through a period of historic inflation. The GOP should be able to exploit the opportunity and paint themselves as saviors. But their own ideas are so bad the whole opportunity is lost.
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a 2005 American documentary film based on the best-selling 2003 book of the same name by Fortune reporters Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, who are credited as writers of the film alongside the director, Alex Gibney. It examines the 2001 collapse of the Enron Corporation, which resulted in criminal trials for several of the company's top executives during the ensuing Enron scandal, and contains a section about the involvement of Enron traders in the 2000-01 California electricity crisis.
"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoter of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," said Sen Levin.
Oh yeah. Goldman Sachs really has what's best for America in mind.
Queshank
Pithy and fun but ultimately inconsequential. You first point is a non-sequitur. Nothing about my choice of words or Enron's history sheds light on the underlying question we are interested in here: is Goldman right about tariffs and immigration restrictions and their impact? To your second point, what investment firm can you point to that is working purely with America's best interest in mind? What kind of nonsense utopian standard is that? Goldman has been close to power for decades, far closer than any other private banking outfit and they didn't get there by being dumb or altruistic. Are they above criticism or incapable of being wrong? Of course not. These aren't big, radical or bold calls they are making. It is orthodox economic theory. It doesn't get more orthodox than understanding tariffs as a tax on growth and a source of inflation. Also consider Goldman is advocating against their direct self interest by weakening Trump on the economy as Kamala is talking about raising capital gains taxes and taxing unrealized gains, plus a whole lot more that would rub neo-liberals wrong. That gives Goldman's story more weight. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 9, 2024 22:58:24 GMT
Guys look Goldman Sachs. Have the financial giants ever steered the people of middle America wrong? This will be persuasive. You think they're wrong, Rabbit? Forget the messenger for a moment. Run 20% tariffs and immigration reductions through your mind and tell me what you think is gonna happen to GDP? Don't have to be specific in terms of quantitative amounts, just a general direction of change will do! I'll side with Goldman and say the economy shrinks. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Sept 9, 2024 23:00:57 GMT
I want my money spent on a wall.
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 9, 2024 23:26:28 GMT
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is a 2005 American documentary film based on the best-selling 2003 book of the same name by Fortune reporters Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind, who are credited as writers of the film alongside the director, Alex Gibney. It examines the 2001 collapse of the Enron Corporation, which resulted in criminal trials for several of the company's top executives during the ensuing Enron scandal, and contains a section about the involvement of Enron traders in the 2000-01 California electricity crisis.
"Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs were not simply market-makers, they were self-interested promoter of risky and complicated financial schemes that helped trigger the crisis," said Sen Levin.
Oh yeah. Goldman Sachs really has what's best for America in mind.
Queshank
Pithy and fun but ultimately inconsequential. You first point is a non-sequitur. Nothing about my choice of words or Enron's history sheds light on the underlying question we are interested in here: is Goldman right about tariffs and immigration restrictions and their impact? To your second point, what investment firm can you point to that is working purely with America's best interest in mind? What kind of nonsense utopian standard is that? Goldman has been close to power for decades, far closer than any other private banking outfit and they didn't get there by being dumb or altruistic. Are they above criticism or incapable of being wrong? Of course not. These aren't big, radical or bold calls they are making. It is orthodox economic theory. It doesn't get more orthodox than understanding tariffs as a tax on growth and a source of inflation. Also consider Goldman is advocating against their direct self interest by weakening Trump on the economy as Kamala is talking about raising capital gains taxes and taxing unrealized gains, plus a whole lot more that would rub neo-liberals wrong. That gives Goldman's story more weight.
Clearly my point with the "non sequitur" is they were considered the smartest guys in the room. How'd that work out?
So you acknowledge that what's good for Goldman Sachs isn't necessraily what's good for the American people. Let's take NAFTA for example. It "grew" the economy by approximately 0.8%. And somehow out of that 0.8%, Goldman Sachs' clientele walked away with something in the neighborhood of 20% of the gains.
Let me try on an argument you've been using to dismiss criticism of other foreign policy realms.
Isn't it more complicated than just "20% tariffs are bad for GDP growth?" Doesn't it matter where the growth occurs, or is growth for Goldman Sachs' clientele always good and income inequality can go fuck a rope?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 9, 2024 23:35:11 GMT
Pithy and fun but ultimately inconsequential. You first point is a non-sequitur. Nothing about my choice of words or Enron's history sheds light on the underlying question we are interested in here: is Goldman right about tariffs and immigration restrictions and their impact? To your second point, what investment firm can you point to that is working purely with America's best interest in mind? What kind of nonsense utopian standard is that? Goldman has been close to power for decades, far closer than any other private banking outfit and they didn't get there by being dumb or altruistic. Are they above criticism or incapable of being wrong? Of course not. These aren't big, radical or bold calls they are making. It is orthodox economic theory. It doesn't get more orthodox than understanding tariffs as a tax on growth and a source of inflation. Also consider Goldman is advocating against their direct self interest by weakening Trump on the economy as Kamala is talking about raising capital gains taxes and taxing unrealized gains, plus a whole lot more that would rub neo-liberals wrong. That gives Goldman's story more weight.
Clearly my point with the "non sequitur" is they were considered the smartest guys in the room. How'd that work out?
So you acknowledge that what's good for Goldman Sachs isn't necessraily what's good for the American people. Let's take NAFTA for example. It "grew" the economy by approximately 0.8%. And somehow out of that 0.8%, Goldman Sachs' clientele walked away with something in the neighborhood of 20% of the gains.
Let me try on an argument you've been using to dismiss criticism of other foreign policy realms.
Isn't it more complicated than just "20% tariffs are bad for GDP growth?" Doesn't it matter where the growth occurs, or is growth for Goldman Sachs' clientele always good and income inequality can go fuck a rope?
Queshank
It didn't work out good and that's irrelevant for this discussion we are having now. Sure, what's good for Goldman isn't always good for the American people but we aren't talking about bailouts or exotic financial engineering, we are talking about people who are already suffering under an inflation burden and then having that burden increased even further. Remember the farm bailouts? Now imagine that on a bigger scale and without the ability to bail everyone out. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 9, 2024 23:37:43 GMT
Have a laugh with me for a minute guys.
Ima bookmark this thread and in 18 months when I'm all flummoxed over sticker shock and flipping off the self-checkout kiosk at my local Wal-mart, I'm going to pull up this thread and explain to the store manager that since Enron blew up and Goldman pursued their narrow self-interest, they should let me shop at 2024 prices.
How persuasive do you think that'll be?
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 15, 2024 23:09:07 GMT
Clearly my point with the "non sequitur" is they were considered the smartest guys in the room. How'd that work out?
So you acknowledge that what's good for Goldman Sachs isn't necessraily what's good for the American people. Let's take NAFTA for example. It "grew" the economy by approximately 0.8%. And somehow out of that 0.8%, Goldman Sachs' clientele walked away with something in the neighborhood of 20% of the gains.
Let me try on an argument you've been using to dismiss criticism of other foreign policy realms.
Isn't it more complicated than just "20% tariffs are bad for GDP growth?" Doesn't it matter where the growth occurs, or is growth for Goldman Sachs' clientele always good and income inequality can go fuck a rope?
Queshank
It didn't work out good and that's irrelevant for this discussion we are having now. Sure, what's good for Goldman isn't always good for the American people but we aren't talking about bailouts or exotic financial engineering, we are talking about people who are already suffering under an inflation burden and then having that burden increased even further. Remember the farm bailouts? Now imagine that on a bigger scale and without the ability to bail everyone out. It's entirely relevant when someone argues that "the smartest people in the room" say something and therefore we should listen.
Sure I remember the farm bailouts. They were Trump buying off his voters in the same way Democrats try to buy off their own voters. (Insert discussion about student loan forgiveness here)
At least Trump's voter buyoff is cheaper. And goes to working folk not people with degrees in underwater basket weaving that suddenly can't find work to pay off their loans.
But I do notice you dodged "isn't it more complicated than that?"
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 15, 2024 23:10:32 GMT
Have a laugh with me for a minute guys. Ima bookmark this thread and in 18 months when I'm all flummoxed over sticker shock and flipping off the self-checkout kiosk at my local Wal-mart, I'm going to pull up this thread and explain to the store manager that since Enron blew up and Goldman pursued their narrow self-interest, they should let me shop at 2024 prices. How persuasive do you think that'll be?
Holy shit are you really this dumb? Or are you just tryin to dig deep for a "laugh?"
We are discussing the credibility of your sources. Are you really unable to see that?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 15, 2024 23:23:32 GMT
I want my money spent on a wall. A new prison just for Donald? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Sept 15, 2024 23:37:23 GMT
I want my money spent on a wall. A new prison just for Donald? Freon No, one up north to keep those damn Canadians out. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Sept 15, 2024 23:38:25 GMT
Canadians take the jobs we want. Latinos/Hispanics take the ones nobody wants.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Sept 16, 2024 0:00:22 GMT
A new prison just for Donald? Freon No, one up north to keep those damn Canadians out. I say we build one above us, to keep the aliens out. Freon |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 16, 2024 7:24:13 GMT
No, one up north to keep those damn Canadians out. I say we build one above us, to keep the aliens out. Freon
Who are these "aliens"?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 16, 2024 9:55:03 GMT
Guys look Goldman Sachs. Have the financial giants ever steered the people of middle America wrong? This will be persuasive. You think they're wrong, Rabbit? Forget the messenger for a moment. Run 20% tariffs and immigration reductions through your mind and tell me what you think is gonna happen to GDP? Don't have to be specific in terms of quantitative amounts, just a general direction of change will do! I'll side with Goldman and say the economy shrinks. The GDP is generally an awful metric that has tricked most Americans historically. Median real wages have been flat while GDP has skyrocketed for decades. I don’t think most Americans care if the GDP goes up if it means elites in DC, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley have bigger yachts. I think the Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Bros, and MAGA have all shared some of that same thread. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 16, 2024 11:36:40 GMT
It didn't work out good and that's irrelevant for this discussion we are having now. Sure, what's good for Goldman isn't always good for the American people but we aren't talking about bailouts or exotic financial engineering, we are talking about people who are already suffering under an inflation burden and then having that burden increased even further. Remember the farm bailouts? Now imagine that on a bigger scale and without the ability to bail everyone out. It's entirely relevant when someone argues that "the smartest people in the room" say something and therefore we should listen.
Sure I remember the farm bailouts. They were Trump buying off his voters in the same way Democrats try to buy off their own voters. (Insert discussion about student loan forgiveness here)
At least Trump's voter buyoff is cheaper. And goes to working folk not people with degrees in underwater basket weaving that suddenly can't find work to pay off their loans.
But I do notice you dodged "isn't it more complicated than that?"
Queshank
Nah, it really isn't relevant at all. It doesn't sound to me you remember the farm bailouts, which were specifically bailouts for failing companies. A buy off? Yes. But the difference between this bailout and student loan forgiveness is that tariff policy made it necessary from a macro-stability perspective. Of course that's not what you want to highlight here as someone defending economic irrationality. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 16, 2024 11:37:18 GMT
Have a laugh with me for a minute guys. Ima bookmark this thread and in 18 months when I'm all flummoxed over sticker shock and flipping off the self-checkout kiosk at my local Wal-mart, I'm going to pull up this thread and explain to the store manager that since Enron blew up and Goldman pursued their narrow self-interest, they should let me shop at 2024 prices. How persuasive do you think that'll be?
Holy shit are you really this dumb? Or are you just tryin to dig deep for a "laugh?"
We are discussing the credibility of your sources. Are you really unable to see that?
Queshank
Oh I saw it I just thought it was a dumb response. |
|
