2714

Seriously, the best argument that Scott could come up with in his whole speech was, “no matter how unqualified she is, she can’t fuck up education too much, so whatev’s!”

Why even give a speech at all at that point?

2715

Because not all regulations have to do with how you lend money and to whom. We’re basically in the middle of an economic recovery that isn’t really showing the wage lift and job expansions as we’ve seen in the past. The idea that lifting bank regulations would somehow automatically great some great boom is misguided and grossly dangerous. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would love to see a boom they can jump into and jump out of without giving a shit about long-term growth or stability, but that’s a large assumption. Wealth creation can actually just be guided straight to the top 1%, again… showing an economic growth pattern that means almost nothing to the masses. And where houses have been growing at 10% a year, and wages are flat, or jobs have been lost, not even bank magic can suddenly give those people jobs and money they don’t have for houses they can’t afford.

It’s a error in judgment to assume that right before a big crash we’'d always have a big boom. That kind of thinking is right up there with this idea that housing prices can only ever go up. And lest we forget, there are still a number of people underwater with their mortgages. They still haven’t recovered from that.

Maybe over a period of say a 100 years you can say prices only go up for something like housing, but most of us assume things that happen in our lifetime… what do I care what my house price will be in a 100 years… I’ll be dead.

2716

Since this is the optimism thread, for the sake of optimism we should hope he’s right.

Has any Senator who supported her come out and said it’s because she’s qualified, and explained why they think that? Portman gave some bullshit, empty answer that says a whole lot of nothing.

2717

Many economists felt a recession was likely even under Hillary- as they think the fundamentals made one in the next two or three years quite likely as part of a normal business cycle.

Many of those same economists think Trump is going to lead to a bigger boom then bust, leading whoever wins in 2020 to deal with a big mess.

America may need some shock therapy in the 2020’s, and that’s going to be bad.

Also, Tim Scott is from South Carolina. Unfortunately, he’d be an improvement over Tillis (though not Burr).

2718

[quote=“Timex, post:2714, topic:126890, full:true”].
Holy shit, right now, Tim Scott is literally making the argument for DeVos on the basis that secretary of education isn’t that powerful and she can’t really do much.
[/quote]

Think I found it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trm1jUg3zG0

LOL

2719

A framed version of this needs to be sent to Trump

2720

Ya, that’s it. Why did he even bother speaking on the floor? It’s such an absurd speech, containing nothing of value, and it took place at freaking midnight.

2721

This. I’ve got relatives like this as well. One who has explicitly said he does not like Trump, but voted for him and is glad that liberals are so upset.

2722

Or they cared more about sticking it to the establishment in general and wanted things to be shaken up.

2723

Oh the irony

2724

I was half expecting that YouTube clip to be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mf3Bypyk8

2725

2726

January NonFarm Payrolls came in at +227K vs consensus for +175K, up from +157K in December (revised up from +156K). Headline unemployment ticked higher to 4.8% from 4.7% due to labor force participation rising to 62.9% from 62.7%, a healthy move. However, wage growth slowed a tad. Average hourly earnings increased by 3 cents an hour to $26, after a 6-cent-an-hour increase in December. This isn’t much, but it’s notable for the direction it moved rather than for the magnitude of the move. This near full employment, labor should be able to demand higher wages. The figure should be moving up not down, and its pace of moving up should be accelerating.

The underlying trend of wage growth has been higher, the January report notwithstanding. Some economists say the report was affected by the timing of when the Labor Department ran its survey, and should be ignored until it can be put in context of additional monthly reports. If recent employment gains continue, the labor pool should shrink and wages should rise at an increasing pace.

Econoday wrote this past Friday: "The January employment report offers good news for those still out of work: employers are hiring. But though it’s hard to find the right person for the right job, employers are not yet bidding up wages which isn’t such great news for most everyone except the FOMC. The lack of wage pressures could, like it did last year, allow the Fed to delay raising rates and allow the workforce to build without slowing. But how much the nation’s workforce can continue to expand, however, is an unfolding story.”

2727

I’m one of those people. I wrote Portman (my senator) through his email to implore him to change his vote. It was a calm and even email, pointing out all the known issues with DeVos, and the optics of how it would look for any senator voting to confirm her. I pointed out that I know hundreds of people in his own congressional district, conservatives and Republicans, who think DeVos is hands down the worst choice for the job. People with kids in both public and private schools. Literally no one wants to see her confirmed. I finished up by reminding him that this could very well be a pivotal career decision, that voting to appoint DeVos will certainly come back to haunt him in the next election, and that there is no way I would vote for him again knowing he voted to confirm.

I know I’m not the only one, and I know Ohio isn’t the only state imploring their senators to vote NO, so maybe just ONE person will think more about reelection than about appeasing the Trump Administration and do the ethical thing.

I doubt it though.

2728

I’m actually glad you bring up these points @RoyalWe, because the fundamentals paint an interesting picture. The broad takeaway is that wage growth should be higher, but its not. We also see employment, as you noted, at pretty near full. So the question becomes: why is wage growth lagging employment so much, and what policies could encourage greater wage growth.

Which is where I fundamentally break from the Republican position. The idea that deregulating the banks would encourage wage growth I find dubious at best. It would increase capital markets, but in generally would favor capital over labor. Or, more explicitly, the wealthy over the working. It would also accelerate any bubble, and provide mechanisms for upward transfers of wealth. Because, remember, during the last recession it was exactly this we saw play out.

2729

Grassley is voting for her. Because private schools are such a big thing in Iowa (they really aren’t). I’m sure the $21k she threw his way doesn’t factor into his calculations.

2730

I fired off a few last ditch tweets this morning. Unfortunately (as I’m sure you’re well aware) we just reelected Portman – with six years to go he has no incentive to care. He’ll be 67 in 2022 when he has to run again and for all we know may decide to hang it up at that point anyway.

2731

Well, it would theoretically make it easier for small businesses to get loans. I think at this point, based on my current experience, this could result in additional jobs, as it’d give a bit more cushion for safely expanding.

My company is small, and we’ve got a really solid chunk of work that we’ve won recently. Enough that we are likely going to need to hire additional engineers. But we’re always reluctant to hire folks that we don’t know we’ll be able to keep on for at least 2 years (we’ve never had to lay anyone off for this reason). But making taking out loans easier would probably make us more willing to make those hires, since we’d be able to take out loans if things get leaner down the road.

I think the bigger issue with deregulation, and on the flip side, regulation… is that it’s not really well thought out. The issue is much more complex than folks seem to want to admit. Certain things, like allowing banks to mix savings and investment, was a huge fucking mistake. And it’s not required. But additional paperwork and regulation placed on small banks isn’t really benefiting anyone.

I don’t have a lot of faith that the government is competent enough to do this stuff.

2732

Well, it might and it might not. Lots of bank regulation has nothing to do with small business lending. And if deregulation, eg a reduction in capital requirements, led to a wave of regional bank collapses, then small businesses in those regions would find it hard to get loans (that’s basically what happened in the UK during the crisis).

Conversely, lending to small businesses could be incentivised by more regulation, by making other aspects of banking offer lower ROE (which is basically what’s happening with the changes to Basel’s trading book rules).

It’s by no means a simple relationship between bank regulation in the abstract and lending to businesses, let alone to jobs.

2733

Indeed. The last time banks were bailed out with the thought they they would lend, they decided to just keep the handout and enrich themselves. Your tax dollars at work.