The Economy Thread.

[Rookie50]

It simply isn't defensible to suggest attacking someone's livelihood because they hold views one finds distasteful or even "reprehensible".

Well, I disagree. When it comes down to it, I'm never going to do business or work with someone who's views I find reprehensible. I'm surprised anyone would, but I guess for some people making money is more important than morality.

I'd be careful with that, although each has the right to make that choice.

Is it then OK for Pro - Trump employers to seek out and blacklist non - supporters?

Just curious if that works both ways in your view.

[Rockie]

Trump is refusing to divest himself of his business and refuses to tell Americans what his business interests are. He's already mixing his businesses with his presidency as his meetings so far indicate.

So the question is, does anybody believe his decisions while in office will be for the country first or his own interests? What about when there is a conflict? He's already discovered conflict of interest laws don't apply to him so legally he's free to do whatever he wants and there's not a thing anybody can do about it.

Perhaps his long history of putting others before his own self-interest will make folks feel better about what is to come....

[CpnCrunch]

Well, I disagree. When it comes down to it, I'm never going to do business or work with someone who's views I find reprehensible. I'm surprised anyone would, but I guess for some people making money is more important than morality.

I'd be careful with that, although each has the right to make that choice.

Is it then OK for Pro - Trump employers to seek out and blacklist non - supporters?

Just curious if that works both ways in your view.

I never mentioned political affiliation. Read my comment again. I meant *precisely* what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.

[B208]

Trump is refusing to divest himself of his business and refuses to tell Americans what his business interests are. He's already mixing his businesses with his presidency as his meetings so far indicate.

So the question is, does anybody believe his decisions while in office will be for the country first or his own interests? What about when there is a conflict? He's already discovered conflict of interest laws don't apply to him so legally he's free to do whatever he wants and there's not a thing anybody can do about it.

Perhaps his long history of putting others before his own self-interest will make folks feel better about what is to come....

The one thing that I'm fairly confident of is that he won't put Saudi interests ahead of American interests. I can't say the same for Hillary.

I never mentioned political affiliation. Read my comment again. I meant *precisely* what I said. Nothing more, nothing less

Political Affiliations are very much a subset of views. Nice try at sophistry, but not effective. Your way of thinking is an order of magnitude more dangerous to a healthy society than Trump will ever be.

[CpnCrunch]

Political Affiliations are very much a subset of views. Nice try at sophistry, but not effective. Your way of thinking is an order of magnitude more dangerous to a healthy society than Trump will ever be.

No they're not, and the recent US election has proven that. Most of the people who voted for Trump don't agree with his views, according to polls.

[Rockie]

The one thing that I'm fairly confident of is that he won't put Saudi interests ahead of American interests. I can't say the same for Hillary.

Neither did Clinton, but the reason you know about the Saudis in the first place is because Clinton reported it. You'll never know about Trump because he refuses to report it. And lest you've forgotten, he's the next President not Clinton.

[complexintentions]

It simply isn't defensible to suggest attacking someone's livelihood because they hold views one finds distasteful or even "reprehensible".

Well, I disagree. When it comes down to it, I'm never going to do business or work with someone who's views I find reprehensible. I'm surprised anyone would, but I guess for some people making money is more important than morality.

Your statement is nonsensical. Of course you can choose to do business with whomever you please. But you do not have the right to try and interfere with someone else's livelihood because you disagree with their views. That's a massive distinction. The original statement was musing about trying to punish individuals in the industry for their views, not about boycotting a business. You're just rewritten it to give yourself an opportunity to preach about morality. As B208 said:

Your way of thinking is an order of magnitude more dangerous to a healthy society than Trump will ever be.

And oh...in this intricately-connected global village, I can assure you 100% you are already "doing business" with people whose views you find reprehensible, you just don't know it.

Here's the thing. All of this incessant backwards-looking analysis of how bad Trump is, and speculation about how bad it will be going forward. How about instead of taking endless shots at one another, we have a discussion about what we will actually DO, in practical, real, terms in the Trumpian future? Or does the ideological left have anything to offer beyond sole claim to the moral high ground, and tantrums? Rockie? Lots of name calling ("man-child", etc), zero substance in the way of ideas. We don't need links to youtube videos, we need some practicality.

Like it or not, even with the high-handed comments about "washing his stain" and so on, we are ALL going to be "doing business" with the "reprehensible" Donald J. Trump for the next four years (at least). If you think you can avoid being affected by his policies (that of the USA, that is), you are living in the most naive world possible. When exactly, will you move past the hand-wringing phase?

Thanks to Trump my entire portfolio has had been goosed

Good. Sell some of it. This is the honeymoon phase for Trump.

Its all about bonds for me. You know I rechecked what a Govt Canada 10 year bond yields? 1.5%.

Absolute lunacy. Like buying Pets.com in 1999. Should be easily 4%

And EVERYTHING in the end is priced off that.

Yeah, I "have a guy" who monitors allocations (under my scrutiny) and is busily rebalancing as we speak. The beauty of a diversified portfolio. Bonds, as you say, are on sale. But equities should continue to spike especially if Trump opens the infrastructure spending taps. I just try and keep it prudently balanced. And minimize my Canadian exposure.

Say, what happened to Trudeau's own plans along those lines, anyway? Where's all those new building projects promised in the election?

[Rockie]

Lots of name calling ("man-child", etc)

That's rich. In the first place the term is not only accurate, but probably the kindest thing that could be said about him. Secondly, if he wants respect he's going to have to show some. To know what I mean there I suggest you actually watch him in action. "Name calling"...Hah, that's a good one.

If you think you can avoid being affected by his policies (that of the USA, that is), you are living in the most naive world possible. When exactly, will you move past the hand-wringing phase?

Why do you think anybody outside the US cares about who the President is? It's because they aren't naive, and they do know that every time he farts at 0630 and gets on his tweet machine he sends ripples throughout the world. Never mind what he'll actually do in his office.

But believe me, the world would love to have a serious discussion about policy and issues. If you can name one detailed policy Trump has let's have that discussion. Since this is a thread on the economy let's start there then move on to all the other wonderfully thought out proposals Trump offers.

[pelmet]

But believe me, the world would love to have a serious discussion about policy and issues. If you can name one detailed policy Trump has let's have that discussion. Since this is a thread on the economy let's start there then move on to all the other wonderfully thought out proposals Trump offers.

First of all, Trump is starting to impress me with his inclusiveness. Dr. Ben Carson has been offered several positions in the administration. I knew the racism stuff was a lie. Next we finally have someone willing to scrap the Paris climate deal and the 100 billion dollars per year that all Canadians are proud contributors to. While I tend to be more of a free trade person, he definitely has a policy on TPP which is similar to Hillary's opposition to it during the campaign. The Obama administration deported more than 2.5 million illegals, more than any other administration. It appears that this will continue.

[Rockie]

But believe me, the world would love to have a serious discussion about policy and issues. If you can name one detailed policy Trump has let's have that discussion. Since this is a thread on the economy let's start there then move on to all the other wonderfully thought out proposals Trump offers.

First of all, Trump is starting to impress me with his inclusiveness. Dr. Ben Carson has been offered several positions in the administration. I knew the racism stuff was a lie. Next we finally have someone willing to scrap the Paris climate deal and the 100 billion dollars per year that all Canadians are proud contributors to. While I tend to be more of a free trade person, he definitely has a policy on TPP which is similar to Hillary's opposition to it during the campaign. The Obama administration deported more than 2.5 million illegals, more than any other administration. It appears that this will continue.

So if he opens a woman's door that erases a lifetime of mysogeny too?

[complexintentions]

Rockie, fine. Forget the name-calling. How about the other thing - the actual concrete things YOU'RE going to do, in a post-Trumpian world?

Or is this is? Rant on the internet?

Because if it is, I doubt it will change much.

(PS it's "misogyny". If you're gonna use cliche buzzwords, best to spell them properly. Just think "gyno", and you're golden.)

Sincerely,

complexintentions (cisgendered privileged white male, somewhat pragmatic, likes long walks on the beach, dislikes extremist views of all varieties. Including liberal ones.)

[Beefitarian]

he opens a woman's door

Was that a euphemism?

[Rockie]

Rockie, fine. Forget the name-calling. How about the other thing - the actual concrete things YOU'RE going to do, in a post-Trumpian world?

Or is this is? Rant on the internet?

Because if it is, I doubt it will change much.

(PS it's "misogyny". If you're gonna use cliche buzzwords, best to spell them properly. Just think "gyno", and you're golden.)

Sincerely,

complexintentions (cisgendered privileged white male, somewhat pragmatic, likes long walks on the beach, dislikes extremist views of all varieties. Including liberal ones.)

I don't call out spelling errors for a reason, we all make them. Including you.

What am I going to do? I'm going to support (yes, financially) a free press and the ACLU, both of whom Trump views as enemies. I'm going to ensure my own government hears my voice telling them to not get dragged into Trump's cesspool, and to defend our nation against his form of nationalism with everything they've got. I'm going to denounce Trump any time his name comes up for exactly what he is.

And When the s@@t starts to hit the fan because of him, I'm going to lay the blame precisely where it belongs.

[pelmet]

But believe me, the world would love to have a serious discussion about policy and issues. If you can name one detailed policy Trump has let's have that discussion. Since this is a thread on the economy let's start there then move on to all the other wonderfully thought out proposals Trump offers.

First of all, Trump is starting to impress me with his inclusiveness. Dr. Ben Carson has been offered several positions in the administration. I knew the racism stuff was a lie. Next we finally have someone willing to scrap the Paris climate deal and the 100 billion dollars per year that all Canadians are proud contributors to. While I tend to be more of a free trade person, he definitely has a policy on TPP which is similar to Hillary's opposition to it during the campaign. The Obama administration deported more than 2.5 million illegals, more than any other administration. It appears that this will continue.

So if he opens a woman's door that erases a lifetime of mysogeny too?

Notice how I mentioned several Trump policies and the supposed talk of wanting a serious discussion disappears never to be mentioned again. It appears that you are as much of a blowhard as Trump is. Mindless gibberish intermixed with the occasional reasonable idea.

Anyways, cancelling the TPP on the first day in office is a hell of a policy regardless of whether you believe it is good or not. But seeing as the Democrats campaigned against TPP, it appears that Trump is bringing Americans together like he promised. At least for a day. Then there is the wonderful idea he had on his YouTube address of removing two regulations for every new one implemented. While the "devil is in the details", it is certainly a step in the right direction when one considers that the tax code alone in the US is unbelievably complex. have to admit, I liked that one and I had actually thought about that one earlier as a great idea.

Anyways, like you said, Trump is opening doors. He now appears to be having a multi-cultural team. I think you should consider supporting him Rockie. I hear he is a good father as well. And apparently his dog is quite loyal.

But if you do feel like condemning him every time his name or similar comes up. My suggestion is that every time you fly to America, remember that each and every customs office has a picture of the president. Perhaps an appropriate rant to the officer will have an effect. let us know how it works out.

['97 Tercel]

This is basically like the other thread...that got locked...

Arguing about religion and politics is like two bald men fighting over a comb.

[Rockie]

I said detailed policies. You know, ones with detail, analysis, and more than 7 seconds thought behind them. Ones that can't be summed up in a 3 word chant at one of Trump's rallies.

[pelmet]

I said detailed policies. You know, ones with detail, analysis, and more than 7 seconds thought behind them. Ones that can't be summed up in a 3 word chant at one of Trump's rallies.

Ok Then. Issue #1. You wanted to talk about the economy, so start talking. Let's compare what is by far the biggest issue that will happen immediately after Trump enters the oval office. Cancelling the TPP. This is huge. Years were spent negotiating it. Elections were fought over it. Countries tried hard to be a part of it. Economies are affected by it. Job gains and losses are hang on it.Other issues may not be as colourful as it but they are dwarfed by it.

Could you make a comparison for me of Trumps "detail, analysis and thought behind it" as compared to Hillary's "detail, analysis and thought behind it". I haven't done so myself but I suspect that you will find that Hillary's "detail, analysis, and thought" on the subject from an economic point of view were little more than Trumps.

Don't get me wrong, of course Trump is a blowhard. Always has been. Don't like him. We are going to have endless controversies based on statements and tweets made. My point though....much of what you are saying lacks credibility or is hypocritical. Don't worry, same with many of the Trump supporters.

[complexintentions]

@Rockie

Well, maybe give him a chance to be sworn in to actually get a look at the details before you get all hot and bothered. He's been president-elect for what, five minutes? Rush to judgement, all that.

"Trump's cesspool" ah, such inflamed rhetoric. Careful, you're gonna blow your av medical on blood pressure alone. And for what? Someone you can't vote for or against, in a country that isn't your own. Not exactly the best use of your energy and yes, evident intelligence. Good luck on the whole "getting your government to hear your voice" thing.

If it's any consolation, many leaders that history has deemed to be great had a lot of "moral" failings: racist, bigoted, mysogynist alcoholics, many of them. Yet they managed to accomplish a great deal of good in spite of themselves. I long ago stopped trying to hold "leaders" to some artificial standard that their followers don't adhere to. (And that I doubt even the most ardent liberals could actually live up to.) The hypocrisy was too overwhelming.

And I so do not ever make spelling errors. You take that back.

[Rockie]

Could you make a comparison for me of Trumps "detail, analysis and thought behind it" as compared to Hillary's "detail, analysis and thought behind it". I haven't done so myself but I suspect that you will find that Hillary's "detail, analysis, and thought" on the subject from an economic point of view were little more than Trumps.

Clinton's position changed towards Sander's side likely to draw in more of his supporters than anything, but in essence she thought it needed more work, not be thrown out. TPP along with the Canada/EU trade agreement took 7 years to negotiate and she felt it needed more. Not surprising given the scale of the agreement.

Trump's main complaint was that it was too long to read (5600 pages) . Later he tried to get more specific with deficiencies he pulled out of his ass - just like everything else he says. That included the ability of signatory countries to engage in currency manipulation particularly citing China - who is not a signatory. Proving that the agreement actually was too long for anyone in his campaign to have read.

Like every agreement there are supporters and detractors who actually know what they're talking about having studied it. Supporters acknowledge the areas where the agreement comes up short, but also state that overall the agreement levels the playing field for all and will result in a net benefit for all. And as in all agreements it can be tweeked over time. Throwing it out wholesale is no solution.

Well, maybe give him a chance to be sworn in to actually get a look at the details before you get all hot and bothered. He's been president-elect for what, five minutes? Rush to judgement, all that.

I think you've been living outside of democracy for too long Complex, details matter before you buy. You wouldn't buy a used car from just looking at it from the sidewalk, why would you elect the leader of your country that way? People tried very hard to get details from Trump, and in fact to get some discussion going between the candidates on issues besides groping women's genitals and Trump's outrageous tweet storms. Couldn't be done because that's all Trump is - and people bought him anyway. After an election is a pretty crappy time to consider actual details don't you think?

"Trump's cesspool" ah, such inflamed rhetoric.

Again you're criticizing somebody else for inflamed rhetoric? "Cesspool" is exactly what a Trump envisioned society would look like, and given that one of his most beloved characteristics - the one his supporters loved the most - was his railing against political correctness, just consider my statements about him and his administration as adhering to his own policy. I'm just "telling it like it is".

[pelmet]

We know Trump's lack of details on many subjects. The argument no longer need be made as it is accepted as fact. But who really believes that Hillary was going to actually change the TPP or oppose it. She called it the "Gold standard" in earlier days when she strongly supported it. I realize that there could have been final details that would have been unknown at the time but I think the only really important detail was.....beating Bernie Sanders and then Trump on an issue that could cost her significant votes from her general supporters. So she changed her position and found a few unpopular items to supposedly back up her reason for changing her mind.

Of course, this can never likely be proven but ask yourself in honesty, was Hillary really going to re-open negotiations or cancel it? Not likely. In world where you are trying to re-inforce the image that Trump is just saying anything to get elected(although, I thought many times that he was saying things so that he wouldn't be elected), people say the same thing about Hillary and feel that neither can be trusted for this and other reasons.

Swing voters are the ones that decide the election. I think a large percentage of them saw Hillary as willing to say anything on the economy to get back into the white house. That was my opinion.

[Rockie]

Of course, this can never likely be proven but ask yourself in honesty, was Hillary really going to re-open negotiations or cancel it?

I can't say, but I completely agree that politicians (US ones especially) bash things like NAFTA and then somehow see the light after the election and Clinton may have been the same with TPP - maybe not. We'll never know.

She does at least know about it. Trump does not. Clinton knows a lot of stuff - Trump does not. Clinton came into the election prepared to debate extensively on every issue effecting Americans - Trump did not. Trump didn't even prepare for the first debate, and had to be confined to his high chair like a recalcitrant 2 year old to do any kind of preparation for the last 2. In the final week they had to take his twitter account away from him. Let me repeat that - they had to ground the future President from his twitter account. Man, I feel truly sorry for anybody in his administration tasked with teaching him anything. Better not be a woman with big boobs anywhere in sight.

[pelmet]

She does at least know about it. Trump does not. Clinton knows a lot of stuff - Trump does not. Clinton came into the election prepared to debate extensively on every issue effecting Americans - Trump did not. Trump didn't even prepare for the first debate, and had to be confined to his high chair like a recalcitrant 2 year old to do any kind of preparation for the last 2. In the final week they had to take his twitter account away from him. Let me repeat that - they had to ground the future President from his twitter account. Man, I feel truly sorry for anybody in his administration tasked with teaching him anything. Better not be a woman with big boobs anywhere in sight.

All this stuff has been repeated over and over again and was a known quantity prior to the election. So why would Hillary and the democrats lose to Trump. You are not telling us anything new except to lose credibility with statements like "Clinton knows a lot of stuff - Trump does not." Then you put yourself in the Trump category of exaggerated silly statements.

Of course, this can never likely be proven but ask yourself in honesty, was Hillary really going to re-open negotiations or cancel it?

I can't say, but I completely agree that politicians (US ones especially) bash things like NAFTA and then somehow see the light after the election and Clinton may have been the same with TPP - maybe not. We'll never know.

Great. Now that we have looked into this and sorted it out. Lets stay on the economy. My point in this part of the post......You have basically said that Trump has no policy. Once again, you are wrong. You may not agree with the policy which is just fine but basically saying that there was no more than seven seconds of though in the policy is just a Trump-style exaggeration.

To quote the BBC, you can read a comparison of policies here....

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37013670

"Trump v Clinton: Comparing their economic plans

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have laid out their visions for the US economy and, unsurprisingly, they are very different. Mr Trump is focusing on cutting taxes, eliminating regulation and ending trade deals. Mrs Clinton, on the other hand, wants to raise taxes on the wealthy, increase spending on job training and lower taxes on companies that hire more Americans. Here are some of the ways they differ.

Taxes: Slash v spend

Mr Trump favours cutting taxes for everyone and reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three. He would reduce the top rate of tax to 33% from 39.6%.

Mrs Clinton would keep taxes the same for most Americans but add an additional bracket for the highest earners. The income from that would be used to pay for programmes like free university education for students from low- and middle-income families. Her campaign is calling the higher taxes on the wealthy - 4% on people who earn more than $5m - the "fair share surcharge".

Both candidates have proposed closing tax loopholes that typically favour the rich. Mr Trump proposes a child care deduction that would cover the average cost of child care, while Mrs Clinton favours limiting the number of deductions taxpayers can claim at 28%. Tax deductions allow people to subtract some of the income they are taxed on - effectively lowering which bracket they fall into. They typically favour the rich who can take more, while the 43% of Americans who currently pay no income would be unaffected by the change.

Mr Trump also proposed eliminating the estate tax or "death tax" completely. The tax only applies when a family member passes on more than $5.45m worth of assets to an individual or $10.9m to a married couple. The Republican candidate said he would also reduce the US corporate tax rate to 15% from the current rate of 35%, one of the highest in the world.

Mr Trump's campaign said the plan would reduce the amount of income the government collected by $4.4tn over a decade. This is far below the $9.5tn calculated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in August. The Center said Mrs Clinton's plan would add $1.1tn in revenue over the next 10 years.

Neither candidate has proposed significant reductions in spending on public pension and healthcare programmes like social security, Medicaid and Medicare. The funding needed for those is expected to balloon over the next decade and its unclear where the money to pay for them will come from without tax increases. An analysis performed by Tax Foundation last month found that while Mr Trump's plan would lower taxes for all Americans it would lower them most for the highest earners.

Mr Trump has done his best to capitalise on the discontent around trade deals. His economic proposal suggests renegotiating trade deals using "negotiators whose goal will be to win for America". He has not spelt out what that "win" looks like, but he has promised to step away from deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) if a good deal cannot be reached. Mr Trump has also promised to get tough with countries that violate trade agreements, applying new tariffs and pursuing cases against them in the World Trade Organization. He has specifically said that he will label China a "currency manipulator".

Tariffs
Mr Trump has called for a 35% tariff on Mexican goods and a 45% tariff on Chinese goods. That would mean a $100 television from Mexico would cost $135. This could encourage US consumers to buy more products made in America, but it would also likely encourage Mexico to place an import tax on US goods, making it hard for US companies to sell their goods abroad. Mexico purchased $267.2bn in US goods in 2015, making it the second largest export partner for the US.

Mrs Clinton has said these tariffs will lead to a trade war making it harder for the US to compete on a global stage. Clinton has gone back and forth on trade. She previously supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) but has said in her campaign that she doesn't think it's the best deal for America. Her plan focuses more on increasing production in the US by offering tax incentives to companies that build there rather than barring imports out. While she has criticised some trade deals, she hasn't ruled out signing new ones if elected.

Trump on trade
Renegotiate trade deals to favour the US
Walk away from trade agreements if a good deal can't be reached
Add tariffs on some of the America's largest trading partners including Mexico and China

Clinton on trade
Changed her mind on TPP, which she helped negotiate
In 2007 criticised trade deal with South Korea, then supported it as Secretary of State
Supported Nafta but has since been critical of it

Who's hiring?
Both candidates have promised to put Americans back to work, though unemployment has hovered around a low 4.9% since the beginning of the year. Mr Trump's employment plan focuses on encouraging more businesses to open in the US. He has suggested that investing in infrastructure, cutting the trade deficit, lowering taxes and removing regulations will make it easier for companies to hire.

Mr Trump has focused mostly on increasing manufacturing jobs, which have declined by around 5 million since 2000. Much of that decline has been caused by improvements in technology, however, not outsourcing. He has promised to create 25 milli on jobs over 10 years and achieve annual economic growth of 3.5%. US GDP growth reached 2.4% in 2015.

Mrs Clinton's policy for jobs growth is a little more specific. She has called for increasing jobs training - in part paid for by tax revenue from wealthier Americans. She has pushed for infrastructure spending and investment in new energy to lift the number of jobs in those sectors.

Some room for agreement
Despite their many areas of disagreement, there a few things both candidates are pushing for. Ending corporate inversion - or transactions where US companies move their corporate headquarters abroad to avoid US taxes Eliminating carried interest tax - a tax that mostly benefits hedge fund investors Opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Mr Trump has not addressed how he will pay for these cuts, other than saying the changes will boost the economy and that will increase the tax base. Mrs Clinton has said most of her spending increasing will be covered by tax increases, but it is unclear if those numbers entirely match up. She will give her own economic policy speech on Thursday."

[Rockie]

You have basically said that Trump has no policy.

I've said Trump has no detailed policy several times now, beyond what fits into a 3 word chant at his rallies. By detailed I mean actually thinking through the benefits and consequences of what he proposes, not to mention whether his ideas are even possible. You and millions agree with that and inexplicably accept it as sufficient, but 3 word chants don't contain the exhaustive evaluation normally required to make the best policy. Since being elected Trump has also been all over the map in temperament and policy direction leaving the world further confused about which direction he'll take America in. Metaphorically he's the unhinged Captain erratically sailing a munitions ship around the harbour. He's got the world pulling back out of range and battening down the hatches.

[B208]

Political Affiliations are very much a subset of views. Nice try at sophistry, but not effective. Your way of thinking is an order of magnitude more dangerous to a healthy society than Trump will ever be.

No they're not,

Really, you are positing that someone's political affiliations is divorced from their views?

[B208]

.....he's the next President not Clinton.

Glad to see you're finally coming to terms with that.

Ref the rest of your comment. You are correct. I don't know if Trump is in a foreign government's pocket. This puts him ahead of Clinton who has given very strong indications that she is a Saudi flunky.