Trump 2.0

[sptrawler]

Nope don't like the Democrats either both have done 0 about the distribution of wealth to .5% of the population and little to everyone else.

Middle income is shrinking lower income expanding a beautiful thing for cheap labor.

Trump is not changing that.

The thing is, Trump is the only one saying he will try, the Democrats didn't even have the decency to try.

Whether he changes anything remains to be seen, as with labor here, he has to be given a chance.

The Democrats were and all that happened was conflict across the planet, but arms sales would have boomed.

As for wealth distribution, people have to have jobs to have any hope of money and that is the issue facing all western countries.

 

[IFocus]

The thing is, Trump is the only one saying he will try, the Democrats didn't even have the decency to try.

Whether he changes anything remains to be seen, as with labor here, he has to be given a chance.

The Democrats were and all that happened was conflict across the planet, but arms sales would have boomed.

As for wealth distribution, people have to have jobs to have any hope of money and that is the issue facing all western countries.

Trump actually isn't saying he will change wealth distribution other than to himself and fellow billionaires but he is saying he will cut government services to the lowest paid (already has) to cut debt.

 

[sptrawler]

Trump actually isn't saying he will change wealth distribution other than to himself and fellow billionaires but he is saying he will cut government services to the lowest paid (already has) to cut debt.

Again time will tell, we can only go on what we can derive from hindsight and really the U.S is in a mess, the last lot did very little.
So someone else is getting a go, to constantly attack everything someone does even before it is implemented is non sensical bordering on unhinged.
let's monitor and discuss how it goes, rather than just make random sound grabs.
Wealth distribution in the U.S isn't a new issue, it has been around for a very long time and the lack of addressing it isn't party specific.
Trying to stop the slide of the countries manufacturing is at least a new approach, let's see how it goes, it wont be easy but the alternative really isn't very good for the poor either.
There's a reason third world countries don't have welfare.

 

[investor13]

Nope don't like the Democrats either both have done 0 about the distribution of wealth to .5% of the population and little to everyone else.

Middle income is shrinking lower income expanding a beautiful thing for cheap labor.

Trump is not changing that.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico wont help.

Welcome to left wing economics
The wealth will be distributed, well the remaining 1% will the rest the bankers and wealthy will keep!

 

[IFocus]

Again time will tell, we can only go on what we can derive from hindsight and really the U.S is in a mess, the last lot did very little.
So someone else is getting a go, to constantly attack everything someone does even before it is implemented is non sensical bordering on unhinged.
let's monitor and discuss how it goes, rather than just make random sound grabs.
Wealth distribution in the U.S isn't a new issue, it has been around for a very long time and the lack of addressing it isn't party specific.
Trying to stop the slide of the countries manufacturing is at least a new approach, let's see how it goes, it wont be easy but the alternative really isn't very good for the poor either.
There's a reason third world countries don't have welfare.

Its not unhinged or sound bites its what's happening, how will attacking trans gender people help the economic out comes for middle incomes, that's what Trump is doing ahead of all else that's his priorities by his actions.

How will sacking inspector general’s help produce fairer economic outcomes? It wont but it will stop investigations into Musk... see the connection in priorities?

 

[sptrawler]

Its not unhinged or sound bites its what's happening, how will attacking trans gender people help the economic out comes for middle incomes, that's what Trump is doing ahead of all else that's his priorities by his actions

There you go again, I have been talking about re invigorating manufacturing to try to slow the de industrialisation of the country and the loss of manufacturing.
First you brought in the disparity of wealth in the U.S and now you are bring in the trans gender issues, what about actually debating the outcome of not trying to challenge China's manufacturing dominance?
If the U.S end up like us and like the way Germany is going, there wont be any money for any of the social causes, will there?

.

How will sacking inspector general’s help produce fairer economic outcomes? It wont but it will stop investigations into Musk... see the connection in priorities?

Again what has that got to do with the issue of reversing the manufacturing decline and the trade imbalance?

Like I said it is unhinged, you run off on tangents about social issues, when the discussion was about the financial decline and how to slow it.

The Western Worlds social issues will become far worse, if Trump is unsuccessful IMO.
China don't have a great track record on human rights from memory and if they end up being the only place on the planet that manufactures, everyone can be held to ransom.

 

[IFocus]

There you go again, I have been talking about re invigorating manufacturing to try to slow the de industrialisation of the country and the loss of manufacturing.
First you brought in the disparity of wealth in the U.S and now you are bring in the trans gender issues, what about actually debating the outcome of not trying to challenge China's manufacturing dominance?
If the U.S end up like us and like the way Germany is going, there wont be any money for any of the social causes, will there?

Again what has that got to do with the issue of reversing the manufacturing decline and the trade imbalance?

Like I said it is unhinged, you run off on tangents about social issues, when the discussion was about the financial decline and how to slow it.

The Western Worlds social issues will become far worse, if Trump is unsuccessful IMO.
China don't have a great track record on human rights from memory and if they end up being the only place on the planet that manufactures, everyone can be held to ransom.

From memory manufacturing had already taken off under Biden, US productivity is sky high again none of it goes to the middle class, Trump is threatening tariffs... who going to pay for the tariffs SP?

 

[sptrawler]

From memory manufacturing had already taken off under Biden, US productivity is sky high again none of it goes to the middle class, Trump is threatening tariffs... who going to pay for the tariffs SP?

Manufacturing in the U.S is going the same way as all western countries, if you hadn't noticed.

The tariffs were introduced by Trump last time he was in office, if your memory serves you correctly and Biden didn't remove them and he didn't do much else, which is the reason Trump is back in office with a huge swing.

As for who pays the tariffs, those consumers that purchase Chinese or overseas made gear over U.S made gear, I would have thought you would have been able to work that out.

 

[IFocus]

Biden is the one investing lets see what Trump does.

 

[IFocus]

Disconnect between productivity and wages guess who got the difference?

 

[sptrawler]

Biden is the one investing lets see what Trump does.

View attachment 192270

The clean energy and EV wave, hows that working out? Latest info it seems to have hit shallow water.
As you say, let's see how it goes, it is a big problem with no easy answers.
Decoupling from China and other low cost economies wont be easy.

 

[sptrawler]

Disconnect between productivity and wages guess who got the difference?

View attachment 192271

Looks like the disconnect has been pretty linear since 1980, about the same time ours started.

The reality is Trump for all his lack of class still got in with a landslide, which would indicate that despite terrible media coverage, he was preferable over the alternative, that really sums up public sentiment.

Whether it was a good choice, or a bad one, remains to be seen.

 

[moXJO]

You mean the punters / sheeple debt, again the US has never been wealthier there is pretty much no upward mobility in wealth its currently being accumulated by the wealthy elite.

Trump is doing 0 about this, you recon another round of unfunded tax breaks will solve the issues?

So is China rich and Russia oligarchs. Those guys are entrenched. At least in the US you have a shot at wealth.
Trump is setting the conditions for both employment and opportunities.

.

Renaming the Gulf of Mexico wont help.

I heard this was so they could drill or something. They made an agreement to not drill in the golf of Mexico. That's the rumour anyway. I only partly caught it.

 

[moXJO]

Its not unhinged or sound bites its what's happening, how will attacking trans gender people help the economic out comes for middle incomes, that's what Trump is doing ahead of all else that's his priorities by his actions.

How will sacking inspector general’s help produce fairer economic outcomes? It wont but it will stop investigations into Musk... see the connection in priorities?

All the unhinged leftist need to be removed from positions of influence. It's a cult like mentality that involved sabotaging anything Trump tried to achieve last term. I'd rather see merit based hiring.

 

[JohnDe]

Australia needs its own version of a Trump to cut wasteful red tape and spending, to get the cost of living down and encourage economic growth.

Red tape is proliferating because it is easy to come up with new rules—to protect against online scams or the warming of the planet—but very hard to get rid of them. From Buenos Aires and Delhi to London and Washington, politicians desperate for growth want to be rid of unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. Done right, this could usher in greater freedom, faster growth, lower prices and new technology. ​

​

As our Briefing sets out, Americans spend a total of 12bn hours a year complying with federal rules. Mr Trump is right to take the sledgehammer to these layers of bureaucracy, but he risks causing the sort of chaos and suffering that would give deregulation a bad name. The question, for him and others, is how to make reforms bold enough to count but coherent enough to succeed.​

Around the world, an anti-red-tape revolution is taking hold
Done right, deregulation could kick-start economic growth

IN HIS OWN inimitable style, President Donald Trump has identified something he dislikes and approached it with a wrecking-ball. Deprived of American funding by an executive order, aid programmes around the world are on the brink of collapse. But for the intervention of a judge at the 11th hour on January 28th, large parts of America’s federal government might have suffered a similar fate.

However, when it comes to another kind of cutting—of rules, rather than spending—Mr Trump is part of a global trend. From Buenos Aires and Delhi to Brussels and London, politicians have pledged to slash the red tape that entangles the economy. Javier Milei has wielded a chainsaw against Argentine regulations. Narendra Modi’s advisers are quietly confronting India’s triplicate-loving babus. Rachel Reeves, Britain’s chancellor, plans to overhaul planning rules and expand London’s Heathrow Airport. Even Vietnam’s Communists have a plan to shrink the bureaucracy.

Done right, the anti-red-tape revolution could usher in greater freedom, faster economic growth, lower prices and new technology. For years excessive rules have choked housebuilding, investment and innovation. But Mr Trump risks giving deregulation a bad name. His impulse to start by demolishing essential functions of government before reinstating the ones he likes is a formula for human misery and economic harm. The question is how to make reform bold enough to count, but coherent enough to succeed.

• Many governments talk about cutting regulation but few manage to
• Even in India, bureaucracy is being curtailed
• Donald Trump goes to war with his employees

Ambition is needed because of the sheer quantity of today’s rules. As our Briefing sets out, Americans spend a total of 12bn hours a year complying with federal rules, including those on marketing and selling honey, and following standards on the flammability of children’s pyjamas. The federal code runs to 180,000 pages, up from 20,000 in the 1960s. In the past five years the European Parliament has enacted more than twice as many laws as America. Businesses are required to make painstaking sustainability disclosures, filling in more than a thousand fields on an online form—an undertaking that is estimated to cost a typical firm in Denmark €300,000 ($310,000) every year. In Britain, well-meaning rules protecting bats, newts and rare fungi combine to obstruct, delay and raise the cost of new infrastructure.

This proliferation of red tape reflects how the world is changing. The rise of the internet means that countries need codes to protect people from online scams; the warming planet demands rules to limit carbon emissions. Governments, petitioned by interest groups, often find it convenient to load the cost of compliance onto others. After the global financial crisis dented faith in capitalism, trusting the market to encourage good behaviour has seemed naive. Voters have also sought more regulation. As they have grown older and richer, they have more to lose and have called on governments to protect their backyards and their nest eggs.

The trouble is that, even as particular groups benefit from each rule, society at large bears its costs. In much of the rich world getting anything built has become a daunting task, keeping house prices high. Highway projects suffer cost overruns and delays as they contend with endless judicial reviews. Proposals to dig mines in America, even for the metals needed for the energy transition, spend nearly a decade in permitting hell. Over-regulation most hurts small businesses, which lack compliance departments, deterring innovative newcomers from setting up shop. Incumbents, meanwhile, feel less incentive to invest because they know they are sheltered. And rules beget rules, as regulators find new things to regulate. Lumbered by regulation and ageing populations, economic growth and productivity in the rich world have slowed to a crawl.

That is why deregulation is so important. You need only look at history to see that it can be a magic potion which peps up the animal spirits. Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, India in the early 1990s and southern Europe in the 2020s all sped ahead after their leaders undertook pro-market reforms. Under Mr Milei, Argentina is growing again; deregulation has brought the prices of some imports down by fully 35%.

This is a rare moment when politicians of all stripes have got religion. On the right over-regulation has sparked a backlash that prizes economic freedom. On the left politicians have realised that, with high interest rates and towering public debt, rapid growth is the only way to make welfare states affordable.

Yet the path ahead is strewn with pitfalls. The conundrum is how to be bold without being reckless. If Mr Trump and his advisers persist in slashing indiscriminately at the state, firing workers and freezing federal loans and grants in the belief that this will unshackle the economy, they are making a grave mistake. Rules and government are essential in any society. Redistribution makes America fairer, and so more stable. Without rules on food safety, road markings or bank capital, and the bureaucrats to enforce them, life would be shorter and less secure.

Elsewhere the danger is timidity, especially in slow-growth Europe, which sorely needs its own Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cut back the bureaucratic undergrowth. That will require political courage. Each piece of deregulation brings small benefits to many, but imposes larger losses on a concentrated few, so reforms are often stymied by incumbent businesses, trade unions or environmentalists. No wonder then that, by the imf’s reckoning, half of all electricity and labour-market reforms for older workers discussed in the rich world over the past 30 years were never implemented.

Sticky tape​

One example to follow is Argentina. Mr Milei’s team came into office having spent 18 months working out how to extract the government from areas where it did not belong. Once in power, they wasted no time in using bold strokes to reset expectations about the economy. Europe needs DOGE-type ambition, while America needs Milei-type preparation. The danger is that neither will get this right.

 

[IFocus]

All the unhinged leftist need to be removed from positions of influence. It's a cult like mentality that involved sabotaging anything Trump tried to achieve last term. I'd rather see merit based hiring.

Its the US there are no leftests in positions of influence. Trump is going after critics.

 

[moXJO]

Its the US there are no leftests in positions of influence. Trump is going after critics.

There are those that were old school liberals, free speech, human rights types. Trump is going after wokies. We have a large group entrenched in Australia as well that need to be burned out.

They will destroy society through incompetence and ideology.

 

[Smurf1976]

Disconnect between productivity and wages guess who got the difference?

That chart looks awfully like what I'd expect to see in a service economy.

The very nature of basic services is they create little value, are highly competitive and rely upon trickle down economics from those with money.

I remember people warning of this outcome decades ago. At the time I wasn't sure, too young to get my mind around it really, but in hindsight they were spot on. Find anywhere that's wealthy and its either based on finance or otherwise bringing money from outside or it's based on some form of primary or secondary industry, it's not based on services.

 

[Smurf1976]

There are those that were old school liberals, free speech, human rights types.

Which I think most, including Trump supporters, would have no problem with.

They might disagree on the importance of it, but there aren't too many who'll say that free speech, human rights, equality etc are bad things as such.

 

[Knobby22]

Trump again threatening tarriffs on Mexico and Canada. 25% And only 10% on China.

Does not pay to be an ally. Hope we are OK.

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-says-us-will-place-25-tariffs-goods-mexico-canada-2025-01-30/