The fine line between corruption and stupidity
I’ll say this for Trump, he’s far and away the most entertaining president in history. Hardly a day goes by without a new outrage:
Mr Trump said in a tweet at 7.21am US eastern time that he was “looking forward to seeing the employment numbers” which were due for release at 8.30am. His decision to refer to the numbers before the release prompted a backlash, given that he had advance sight of the one of the world’s most market-sensitive pieces of economic data and was discussing it publicly.
First of all, the jobs report is not one of the most market sensitive pieces of information, it is the most market sensitive. On average, the jobs report moves the bond market more than any other piece of government data. Second, why is any president given this sort of inside information? It increases the chance that the data will leak out before the official release. Third, why is it given to Trump of all people, who has already shown an inability to keep highly confidential information secret?
Asked if the tweet was appropriate, Sarah Sanders, the White House spokeswoman, said that it was. “He didn’t put the numbers out,” she said. The president had been briefed on the number on Thursday night, she said.
Can I use that excuse if the Feds ever prosecute me for conspiracy to trade on inside information?
Every time I see Sarah Sanders talk I wonder whether she’s actually as clueless as she looks or if she is just pretending to be a moron. I guess we’ll have to wait for her memoir to find out.
I’d be very interested if a commenter could explain to me why the President needs to know this information before 8:30am.
Tags:
1. June 2018 at 08:13
So he can trade on it before everyone else, obviously.
1. June 2018 at 08:14
Much better to put out the number randomly and unexpectedly the way Trump did it than the current rigged system where the entrenched trading institutions (who have spent 10s of millions on faster computers and communication links) get a free lunch on the announcement.
1. June 2018 at 08:21
dtoh, But Sanders says he didn’t put out the number.
1. June 2018 at 08:26
When a close relative of mine served on the CEA under Obama the members would receive the jobs report the day before it came out, so this is a long standing practice. Like many other pieces of information the president does not of course *need* to know it ahead of the public release, but the information has generally been available to presidents on the assumption that they could/would keep their mouths shut for a few days/hours.
1. June 2018 at 08:30
dtoh, Seriously, it’s less wasteful for the announcement to be made publicly to everyone precisely at 8:30am. No one is disadvantaged. If released randomly, those with the resources to monitor all possible release points will have an advantage over me, who is only aware of the 8:30 announcement.
Someone is only disadvantaged if someone else has the info and they don’t when a trade occurs. But normal people don’t trade in the nanosecond after the 8:30 announcement, they’d wait until they heard the news a nanosecond later. But a normal person might trade between a Trump tweet they don’t see and the 8:30 announcement.
Who follows Trump on twitter? Mostly Republicans, and now the financial insiders. Good luck if you are not a Republican and not an insider.
1. June 2018 at 08:30
Policy wank, Yes, but why?
1. June 2018 at 08:40
– Quite simple. Because he wants to claim credit for achieving a reduction in unemployment and send out a tweet. Assuming the numbers are good. As if he personally is responsible for the improvement.
– And if the numbers are bad then send out a different tweet blaming other people for the bad numbers.
– Remember that he’s “like a stable genius” ? (Mind the word “like”)
1. June 2018 at 09:05
“I guess we’ll have to wait for her memoir to find out.” But it will be ghost-written, and aimed at a particular audience’s tastes and preconceptions rather than at the truth.
1. June 2018 at 10:01
At least a tweet is public. Last I checked, Fed officials suffered no repercussions from sharing confidential information privately. And that’s just the case we know of. Leaking of private info is rampant…if it were all tweeted instead it’d be a step in the right direction.
1. June 2018 at 10:08
The reason has always been to give the WH time to craft their message (spin). The same reason reporters get the info 30 minutes ahead of time.
However, perhaps it’s time to stop that. If those responsible for keeping this info secret cannot do that, this creates all kinds of problems. I mean, if one is willing to give this much of an unveiled tip publically, one can only imagine how veiled they keep things to friends, family and supporters privately.
This is made even worse because the current fella has decided not to disclose his sources of income.
This unreal.
1. June 2018 at 10:16
We can all agree that Trump would never give inside information to his family members, business associates, or friends, right? I mean, it’s not like he’s made a career out of the most dishonest business practices imaginable, likely broken various financial laws, and had to settle a large fraud case immediately after becoming President.
1. June 2018 at 10:23
I’m surprised he tweeted about it. I would have been less surprised that his friends and family were using the inside info to make profits. Still might.
1. June 2018 at 11:09
Tell you what though… there is a lot less talk about tariffs and trade war this morning and much more about the jobs numbers now. That’s what this was really about.
1. June 2018 at 11:33
At some point I think we have to admit that all of Trump’s uninformed, impulsive nonsense isn’t strategic. Maybe I just don’t see the genius of constantly covering up idiotic foibles with more idiotic foibles.
If Trump has a grand strategic vision, it’s just realizing that he can do whatever he wants because Republican largely care only about partisan and cultural domination.
1. June 2018 at 12:48
A mitigating factor: When Trump tweets something the market isn’t sure whether to believe him.
1. June 2018 at 14:07
Scott,
Well yes. If Trump regularly tweeted economic numbers, people would game that system as well.
That said, the current system is rigged. Normal people get screwed ALWAYS. The only people who were hurt by the tweet were the ensconced institutional “nanosecond” traders who got less than their customary vig on the announcement.
1. June 2018 at 14:35
Student, That sounds plausible, and I agree it’s good reason to stop the practice.
Acebojangles. That’s right.
dtoh, I don’t see how normal people are hurt. I don’t trade in the interval before I get the data, but after the big institutions already have it (which is less than one second). So how am I hurt?
1. June 2018 at 16:54
Because it’s a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent to suggest that any government agency full of unelected officials should ever withhold data from the highest elected official. Are you drinking crazy juice here???
Trump can be the most irresponsible person in the world and I think it would be an undesirable precedent for the BLS to (try…they would fail) to withhold information from the President’s office, for however long. (Should the EPA be able to do this? The SEC?) Crazy juice. Hatred of Trump trumping common conservative sense.
1. June 2018 at 18:43
Agreed. And FOMC policy meetings should be broadcast on C-SPAN.
2. June 2018 at 02:57
Scott,
So let’s assume you there is unexpectedly positive economic news which is negative for bond prices. In the nanosecond (actually it’s milliseconds) after the announcement, JP Morgan shorts the 10 year selling it to some investor….let’s say the Bentley College faculty retirement fund. The investor pays a higher price for the bonds than they would have if they had the information at the same time that Morgan did. Morgan covers the short 2 minutes later. They make $1.5 million on the trade. You and the other investors lose the same amount.
2. June 2018 at 04:15
dtoh, why is the “Bentley College faculty retirement fund” trading milliseconds *before* they have the information? Seems dumb!
A more plausible scenario is that some investors have limit orders on the books. But the speed of the trading only determines which trader gets the free money. Slowing down trading would not prevent limit orders from being exploited, but it would eliminate the socially useless cost of high speed trading.
2. June 2018 at 04:28
(My fantasy market reform is to restrict financial trading to one trade per day. That should be often enough. I can’t think of any reason why it wouldn’t work, but there’s zero chance of it happening).
2. June 2018 at 07:25
Because it’s a terrible, terrible, terrible precedent to suggest that any government agency full of unelected officials should ever withhold data from the highest elected official.
That might hold water if the employment report wasn’t made public, but it is so it’s bollocks.
2. June 2018 at 08:20
If you believe the market is a fair game, I got a bridge to sell you.
2. June 2018 at 10:13
Releasing the number all at once seems like asking for trouble. Here is an alternate approach.
Let’s say the number of jobs is J. Let t=0 correspond to Monday at 8am and t=1 to Tuesday at 8am. Let B_t be a Brownian bridge (i.e. Brownian motion conditioned on B_0 = B_1 = 0).
Pick a number C >> J and publish
C B_t + t J
continually from t=0 to 1.
2. June 2018 at 12:25
Why did u post the graph??? To counteract your argument?
2. June 2018 at 13:57
[…] Scott Sumner called it literally an “outrage” that Trump tweeted that he was looking forward to the jobs report at 7:21am, when the numbers […]
2. June 2018 at 18:43
Clearly Sumner overdosed on the idiocy pills yesterday.
2. June 2018 at 23:25
Scott Sumner raises an interesting question and here some thoughts by me. I say “thought” because i will not really deliver a verdict.
1. No public servant should announce something before the event is scheduled because any economic information is sensitive for markets.
2. It is common practice all over the world that such inside information will be given to government officials and also journalists which all should not use this information before the official announcement.
3. But it is also a common practice that officials and journalists give this information to selected traders who have now an advantage over the general public. This has been proven several times by statistical analysis (sorry for the lack of sources). As consequence the Destatis (German Statistic Agency) does not give any information before the event to journalists anymore and in Sweden nobody has any piece of information before the event. And do not forget subscribers to Bloomberg or Reuters (?) also get the news some seconds before the general public.
4. We can now really debate if the hint by Trump gave the info away but at least he has leveled the playing field. Everybody had now an hint. We have three group of victims:
a) Traders who relay on inside information
b) Subscribers to news agencies
c) Trump haters who believe Trump nothing
My favourite solution: Sweden
3. June 2018 at 06:13
‘… why is any president given this sort of inside information?’
Oh, maybe because, under the Constitution, he’s The Boss. People in the Executive Dept work FOR him.
I have to say, I’ve never seen anyone like Trump before, with the uncanny ability to unhinge intelligent, educated people.
‘Can I use that excuse if the Feds ever prosecute me for conspiracy to trade on inside information?’
I rest my case.
3. June 2018 at 09:08
Presidents don’t have unlimited power over the executive. Anyone who suggests otherwise immediately exposes their deep ignorance and lack of modicum of adult thinking in general.
This was never an issue for prior administrations, which had more or less normally functioning ethics offices and Presidents who were not personally on the take. Going forward, the President should not get jobs numbers ahead of public release.
There should be an investigation to find out whether Trump illegally disclosed this information to anyone who could’ve traded upon it.
3. June 2018 at 09:34
‘This was never an issue for prior administrations, which had more or less normally functioning ethics offices and Presidents who were not personally on the take.’
You mean guys like Bill Clinton, whose net worth today must be at least a thousand times what it was before he became POTUS?
3. June 2018 at 10:06
Patrick,
It should be simple to notice that the Clintons didn’t get rich until they left office. Then, they earned lots of money through writing books, generating speaking fees, etc.
There’s no evidence they did anything illegal in the process.
3. June 2018 at 10:10
Acebojangles, above:
“At some point I think we have to admit that all of Trump’s uninformed, impulsive nonsense isn’t strategic. Maybe I just don’t see the genius of constantly covering up idiotic foibles with more idiotic foibles.”
I don’t think we should admit that, at all. Trump’s emission of uninformed, impulsive nonsense is clearly a strategy – it’s too systematic to not be.
The more interesting question is not whether it’s a strategy, but to what extent it’s a conscious, thoughtful, strategy, and to what extent it’s simply his personality, and how this has evolved over time.
My “model” of Trump is that if you’re a real estate developer (at least one of the Trump variety), and someone tells you that you can’t do something, or that something is a bad idea, you should – generally – go ahead and do it.
Afterwards you can usually avoid the bad effects of a decision by throwing your lawyers at the problem – if you have the deeper legal pockets, you can usually avoid the adverse consequences of bad decisions.
All this has the great benefit of keeping your opponents – people you owe money to, government officials, etc. – skittish and off balance. The crazier you are, the more effectively you can intimidate them.
“If Trump has a grand strategic vision, it’s just realizing that he can do whatever he wants because Republican largely care only about partisan and cultural domination.”
Hmmm, well, actually I think there’s a lot of evidence that other Republicans care about many things, but Trump’s constant emission of uninformed, impulsive nonsense has kept them on the back foot. They don’t know how to react to him – sometimes they try working with him, sometimes they try opposing him. Some of them have become toadies, while others I think just try to say as little as possible and keep out of the way.
Notice that in this model Trump’s cabinet and White House staffers and policy apparatus have taken the place of his lawyers – Trump doesn’t use them in the way normal presidents do, he uses them to avoid the consequences of bad decisions. If Trump is taking heat for one dumb thing, he just does some other dumb thing and attention immediately shifts.
Again, the interesting question is how calculated all this is – maybe by now it’s better described as “habitual behavior” than “strategic behoavior.” Another question is how aware he is when he’s being truly ridiculous – in Real Estate, I think it’s hard to be truly ridiculous because of the “no one ever went broke underestimating the taste…” thing, but in the area of politics, he does at times seem surprisingly unable to avoid looking really foolish.
I guess if you’re Trump you’ve learned how not to be embarrassed by anything – maybe it’a as simple as “oh yeah, who’s having sex with this porn star” now having been replaced by “oh yeah, who’s President.”
Of course this entire analysis might be pretty silly, I’ve been trying to get back to not paying attention to anything happening in the real world….
3. June 2018 at 12:13
dtoh, Why would the retirement fund do that trade if they knew JP Morgan had the data a millisecond before they did?
Christian, The graph supports my argument—did you even look at it?
Tullius, No, he did not “level the playing field”, he gave an advantage to those who follow his blog. Gee, I wonder if they are typically Republicans or Dems?
Patrick, But why give it to Trump a few hours before the public announcement? What is the purpose?
Mike, You said:
“It should be simple to notice that the Clintons didn’t get rich until they left office. Then, they earned lots of money through writing books, generating speaking fees, etc.”
When people are that biased, they don’t see what is obvious to the rest of us.
Anon/Portly, You said:
“I don’t think we should admit that, at all. Trump’s emission of uninformed, impulsive nonsense is clearly a strategy – it’s too systematic to not be.”
There’s a big problem with this view. The advisors who see him in private also think he’s an idiot, and say so behind his back to reporters. That means in private conversation he sounds just as clueless as in public. So I doubt he’s some sort of evil genius; just a third world-type demagogue.
Oh wait, according to half my commenters even Trump’s own advisors have an irrational hatred of the man. It’s all Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Deep State and fake news. Only Sean Hannity can be trusted.
Everyone, Government officials are often fired for doing what Trump did with that tweet. Amazed how many people don’t understand this.
3. June 2018 at 16:01
“At some point I think we have to admit that all of Trump’s uninformed, impulsive nonsense isn’t strategic. Maybe I just don’t see the genius of constantly covering up idiotic foibles with more idiotic foibles.
If Trump has a grand strategic vision, it’s just realizing that he can do whatever he wants because Republican largely care only about partisan and cultural domination.”
—-
My god, you people are right brained. So filled with emotions. YEESH.
Here is the smart take for you free marketers who don’t like Trump:
1. It turns out Obama REALLY had his foot on neck of the Economy. Farmer is of course right, Trump’s policies of dereg, shoot EPA dead in street etc… this is a NEW EQUILIBRIUM – clearly more ANIMAL SPIRITS. This is A LOTOF GAS.
2. After securing the big FILLED GAS TANK, Trump is YES putting his foot on some brakes… BUT THE BRAKES BENEFIT TRUMP VOTERS DIRECTLY.
So the SMART take from you wahoos is that Trump is PROVING that YES there is a NEW POLICY BASKET that meets two conditions:
1. Is better for OVERALL ECONOMY
2. Is better for TRUMP VOTERS vs rest.
You don’t like this. Scott just moved to CA and GOP tax policy rapes him.
Others of you don’t like finding out Brahmin are never in charge.
But nobody can argue with my NUANCED POINT.
Selah.
3. June 2018 at 17:53
I wonder why everyone(traders?) see those lagging indicator.Fashion?
3. June 2018 at 18:24
Trump supporters,
When the President’s lawyers start to argue that it’s legal for the President to obstruct justice, it could be seen as an implicit admission of obstruction.
3. June 2018 at 18:53
Morgan,
Changes in market prices suggest that there was a bump in GDP growth expectations of a small fraction of 1% through the end of last year. Year-to-date, the stock market’s been flat, due to GDP growth expectations being down. This is largely due to the tariff threats. Most of the progress so far has been erased.
This is exactly what I’d expect from someone who had no idea what he’s doing and was unstable to boot. I think we’ll see mostly the equivalence of randomness at best in terms of benefits to economic growth from Trump. We could get a similar result by throwing darts on a board of actions Presidents have the authority to take that could effect the economy.
By the way, putting statements in ALL CAPS doesn’t make them anymore true, but it does make the author seem more crazed. This is even more true when that author acts as if he has some special insight that people with varying perspectives utterly lack.
3. June 2018 at 19:12
“Christian, The graph supports my argument—did you even look at it?”
It does not. The bump just after the tweet is almost entirely indistinguishable from random noise. At least the idiocy pills haven’t blunted you to the reality of how the Clintons made their money.
3. June 2018 at 19:17
In fact, the idiocy pills Sumner’s taken have made him blind to the fact the tweet on its face suggests the President HADN’T seen the employment numbers at the time the tweet was posted! Idiocy upon idiocy upon idiocy. How does Sumner survive?
3. June 2018 at 21:17
Harding,
The fact you advocated for and voted for someone you’ve since admitted is an idiot, and for the highest office in the land, would force some humility upon you, if you possessed at least one redeeming quality.
4. June 2018 at 07:22
Scott,
You asked… “dtoh, Why would the retirement fund do that trade if they knew JP Morgan had the data a millisecond before they did?”
Why would you buy a used car from a salesman who had more information than you? Unless you know what information the counter-party has (and not just that they have information,) doing the trade earlier or later does nothing to improve the expected outcome for the investor.
4. June 2018 at 07:34
Of course, the most important thing is that short term investors are idiots anyway and deserve what happens to them.
4. June 2018 at 08:01
Patrick,
While I suspect you’d happily throw markets overboard even if you understood them, if it were consistent with supporting Trump, it’s obvious also that you don’t understand markets.
Not only do short-term speculators provide much needed liquidity in markets, but not all timed trades are made by short-term investors. Sometimes longer-term investors are trying to time their trades.
You’re ignoring option traders, for example, entirely. Some of them trade to speculate. Some trade to hedge. Either way, short-term market movements can be critical at various decision points. Do you not want an options market?
4. June 2018 at 08:08
Patrick’s comments are very typical of what I see from Trump supporters who were formerly self-described free market conservatives/libertarians. They never supported free markets. They always just had their own preferences with regard to government intervention.
And, some Democrat-leaning voters who voted for Trump have also exposed themselves. Some of them were always racist, but it just wasn’t a dominant priority until Trump ran. A large percentage of Republicans have been racist since racists started changing parties in the 60s.
Just as was the case with the financial crisis and Great Recession, the Trump tide has exposed all those who were morally and philosophically skinny-dipping, to borrow a phrase from Buffett. We see now who the true conservatives, libertarians, and non-racist Democrats were all along.
4. June 2018 at 09:49
Sandifer,
Farmer agrees with me. Trump clearly has driven the Stock Market. And I’m sure if we put Scott under an fMRI and pointed gun at his head, he’d agree with this:
Trump is PROVING that YES there is a NEW POLICY BASKET that meets two conditions:
1. Is better for OVERALL ECONOMY
2. Is better for TRUMP VOTERS vs rest.
Obama COULD HAVE ripped all the regs down, killed the EPA, altered Tax Code so corporations bring cash home…
HE DID NOT.
Those are great things and they MAKE UP for anti-market things that harm BLUE STATE “capitalists”
Thats it.
You still haven’t responded to my exact point. If your only argument is Trump is bad for Economy… then you are an IDIOT.
Trump is bad for the things that you care about that the market doesn’t care about.
4. June 2018 at 09:54
Morgan,
Show me your quantitative calculation for the expected effects of Trump policies on economic growth. You have none. I know you have none, otherwise you wouldn’t make the silly claims you’re making. Prove me wrong.
Also, I didn’t say Trump was bad for the economy. I said that markets expected some good, and now some bad. The effects have left a slightly positive effect on growth expectations. Most of the minor effects of the tax cuts and deregulation have been offset by the tariff threats. That’s why markets have been flat overall this year, with increased volatility. I’ve been making money since Februrary on straddles, for example.
Try reading what I said, which is that I expect the net effect of Trump’s policies to be more or less like that of random policy choices.
4. June 2018 at 10:09
“There’s a big problem with this view. The advisors who see him in private also think he’s an idiot, and say so behind his back to reporters. That means in private conversation he sounds just as clueless as in public. So I doubt he’s some sort of evil genius; just a third world-type demagogue.”
I wasn’t saying he was an evil genius; nor was I saying that he’s not clueless. It’s just my belief that instead of just saying “he’s an idiot,” it’s more fruitful to dig a tiny bit deeper.
Maybe instead of “strategy” a better word would be “instincts.” As far as I can tell, Trump’s life/career is marked by the following:
1. The development of a Trump “brand,” which sort of combines “expensive” with “glitzy.” Which of course really means “tacky” but Americans are not allergic to tackiness. Trump even stays on point with his selection of mistresses, choosing Playboy Playmates and porn stars instead of, say, French ingénues.
2. Filing lots and lots and lots and lots of lawsuits. (or bankruptcy, whatever – there’s always a way out of a dilemma).
3. Failure and survival.
I think Trump’s instincts (or strategy, if you want) are surprisingly sound. On politics, he’s taken one part Pitchfork Pat, one part a lazy-but-arrogant Wharton MBA’s lazy take on Lester Thurow and other economic ideas that were around 30 years ago, and one part right-wing talk radio conspiracy theory – clearly a losing formula – and turned it into a winning formula. Sure, he got lucky with a crowded and weak Republican field in the primaries, and then got even luckier with the collective decision of the Democratic Party to nominate someone people don’t really like, but luck is the residue of design, as Branch Rickey said.
Sure, Trump’s an idiot, but the world is full of idiots – I’m definitely an idiot. Like most idiots, I’m full of self-doubt and tend to act tentatively and dither a lot. But Trump, he’s extremely aggressive in his idiocy and it works! It’s the fox/hedgehog thing, he knows one big thing, which is that there’s the world of appearances, and the world of reality, and in the first one you can’t get away with stuff and you should listen to what people say but in the second one you can get away with anything and you should just ignore what everybody says.
To some extent maybe this is just instincts or a lack of self-control, but really I think there’s some actual thinking of a certain sort going on, something at times maybe worthy of the term “strategy,” That’s all I’m saying….
4. June 2018 at 11:39
People are losing sight of the simple fact, these data are embargoed until 8:30am.
Statistical Policy Directive on Compilation, Release, and Evaluation of Principal Federal Economic Indicators, comments are not supposed to be made until one hour after release.
Statistical Policy Directive #4 (section 6.d.) Embargo means that pre-release access is provided with the explicit acknowledgement of the receiving party that the information cannot be further disseminated or used in any unauthorized manner before a specific date and time.
Those rules seem not to have been folllowed.
Anything beyond that seems like the Stock Act might be relevant as well.
4. June 2018 at 16:13
policy_wonk wrote:
“When a close relative of mine served on the CEA under Obama the members would receive the jobs report the day before it came out, so this is a long standing practice. Like many other pieces of information the president does not of course *need* to know it ahead of the public release, but the information has generally been available to presidents on the assumption that they could/would keep their mouths shut for a few days/hours.”
Could Obama keep his mouth shut? Not always:
http://adam.curry.com/enc/1528055771.35_obamatelegraphsjobsreport.mp3
4. June 2018 at 17:25
Christian, The graph supports my argument—did you even look at it?
No it doesn’t. It just shows that Trump tweets had zero impact. There’s an ascending trend line since before 9:00. Trump’s tweet does nothing to the trend line. You can test this hypothesis by removing the captions. You wouldn’t find the correct place of Trump’s tweet in your lifetime. Or move the label “Trump tweets” up and down the trend line. It could be nearly anywhere. It’s basically random noise with zero impact on the trend line. You are just too blinded by bias to see it.
Second your whole outrage looks fake to me. I bet Obama did very similar things but (nearly) nobody was interested in it back then.
The WSJ says the same thing by the way.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-obama-and-the-jobs-report-1528137323
I also think (and I said this before) that you are underestimating the importance of policy in general. In the end it’s all about policy. I look at Trump’s policies and judge them, nothing else. I think a lot of people with some sympathies for Trump do that.
In my opinion you do a lot of meta-debate, social shaming, some name-calling here, some ad hominem there. And all just because you hate his policy, which is totally fine but then attack his policy directly. That would make a lot more sense to me.
4. June 2018 at 17:43
Scott,
To answer your last question, I saw some political consultants on Twitter say that the President normally receives material like the unemployment report early so that public statements can be crafted ahead of time.
4. June 2018 at 17:43
That is crafted ahead of time, to be clear, not commented on ahead of time.
5. June 2018 at 02:43
Donald the trade economist has again showed his sharp mind by tweeting this few days ago:
Donald J. Trump
When you’re almost 800 Billion Dollars a year down on Trade, you can’t lose a Trade War! The U.S. has been ripped off by other countries for years on Trade, time to get smart!
2:23 PM – 2 Jun 2018
It’s time to get smart! Why haven’t other presidents tried getting smart before?!
Another Trump word vomit from couple of days ago:
Donald J. Trump
There was No Collusion with Russia (except by the Democrats). When will this very expensive Witch Hunt Hoax ever end? So bad for our Country. Is the Special Counsel/Justice Department leaking my lawyers letters to the Fake News Media? Should be looking at Dems corruption instead?”
10:43 AM – 2 Jun 2018
This was one of those tweets that I actually had to think for few seconds if this is real or am I in some sort of black comedy dream. Imagine some other world leader writing something like that.
5. June 2018 at 05:10
Andy,
Yes, Trump tweets to and about the media, Democrats, and investigators like some unmedicated, bipolar, narcissistic 14 year-old tweets to the boyfriend who dumped her for being crazy.
Complete with claims about being a “stable genius” in the process, who can’t be punished, because he can pardon himself.
To some large number of commenters here, this is not only acceptable, but perhaps even evidence of some strategic intelligence.
5. June 2018 at 06:58
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-obama-and-the-jobs-report-1528137323?mod=cx_picks&cx_navSource=cx_picks&cx_tag=collabctx&cx_artPos=5#cxrecs_s
————–quote————-
The Congressional Record for February 6, 2009 includes the relevant passage from Mr. [Harry] Reid’s remarks on the Senate floor about his talk with then-President Obama:
“Mr. REID. Mr. President, around midnight last night I was in conversation with the President and some others, and the President indicated that this morning, unemployment numbers would come out, and they would be somewhat scary. That was absolutely true. At 8:30 this morning, the unemployment numbers were reported for January, and they hit a 16-year high of 7.6 percent.”
Who were the others? And did they talk to anyone else about the jobs report between the time they heard about it from Mr. Obama and its formal release?
As it happens Mr. Obama had been discussing the forthcoming release long before midnight. On February 5, 2009, the Associated Press reported that in remarks to employees at the Department of Energy, Mr. Obama said, “Tomorrow, we’re expecting another dismal jobs report on top of the 2.6 million jobs that we lost last year. We’ve lost 500,000 jobs each month for the last two months.”
The same day, a Congressional Quarterly transcript quotes Mr. Obama offering similar remarks at a gathering of the House Democratic Caucus.
Five months later in July of 2009, according to a speech transcript from Congressional Quarterly, Mr. Obama said that “when we receive our monthly jobs report next week, it’s likely to show that we’re still continuing to lose far too many jobs.”
—————-endquote————–
Shall we talk more about TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome]?
Btw, Mike Sandifer, before opining more about how markets work, you might want to read Malkiel’s classic ‘A Random Walk Down Wall Street.’
5. June 2018 at 08:13
Patrick,
To quote Milton Friedman:
“If the market were 100% efficient, nobody could make any money making it efficient, and then it wouldn’t be efficient again. So in a way it’s self-contradictory to suppose that there really is an efficient market.”
5. June 2018 at 09:32
WAIT Sandifer,
“Morgan,
Show me your quantitative calculation for the expected effects of Trump policies on economic growth. You have none. I know you have none, otherwise you wouldn’t make the silly claims you’re making. Prove me wrong.
Also, I didn’t say Trump was bad for the economy. I said that markets expected some good, and now some bad. The effects have left a slightly positive effect on growth expectations. Most of the minor effects of the tax cuts and deregulation have been offset by the tariff threats. That’s why markets have been flat overall this year, with increased volatility. I’ve been making money since Februrary on straddles, for example.
Try reading what I said, which is that I expect the net effect of Trump’s policies to be more or less like that of random policy choices.”
THS IS EXACTLY MY POINT and was in both posts.
Trump is “good” and “bad” vs Obama and in mix, he’s BETTER.
My second point and this is the CRITICAL one, Trump is ALSO bad for non-Trumpers and GREAT for Trumpers(vs. Obama). This is why I said, poor Scott moved to CA and is suddenly dealing with the new tax policy changes.
Here’s my question:
How did we miss this? You missed what i said and I don’t thinK I missed what you wrote.
So I did deep dive on this thread:
1) Look dude, POTUS is Unitary executive, he’s got vast powers bc the office is POLITICAL… you want him out vote him out.
This gets to something UGLY and TRUE about our founding, and it’s admitted to ANYTIME anyone on left wants to do an honest analysis of what they’d change about America.
We are basically set up as the hegemony of small states, since the founding. 12 small states wanted to ensue that IF a federal govt ever cam into power it would be THEIR frankenstein monster to control. We got EC, Senate, no real Federal tax for 150 years, a checks and balances system that ties shit in knots…
The FOUNDERS TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD there could be a small state Golgothan named Trump who their kind of guys might send to DC to pass laws that RAPE THE SH*T OUT OF VIRGINIA. They planned it!
Such was the threat of small states being able to tax and spend the big state to death, the big ones spent the first 150 years being the biggest supporters of States’ Rights.
This idea that a few big blue states might somehow use DC to boss around 38 small ones is DUMB, thats how DUMB the Dems are…
So Yes the Founders wanted to make sure when a POTUS go into office he DID WHAT THE WINNING TEAM WANTED and IF and only if he is nailed buy House and Senate he keeps stepping on toes.
REPEAT AFTER ME SANDIFER: A Unitary POTUS is an anti-democratic rule that great benefits small states WHO SET YP THIS COUNTRY FOR THEMSELVES.
—
Look man, these are the facts.
As to the first issue, Yes, Trump is on avg BETTER than Obama…
BUT I’d like you to admit that Trump is GREAT for the small states who are all dancing in streets over him, and he’s gutting NY, CA, etc
So the avg is just a bit better, but FOR THE HOME TEAM – it’s A LOT BETTER.
5. June 2018 at 10:37
It’s ok when Obama does it, because he means well.
5. June 2018 at 15:52
Morgan,
To quote you, from two comments ago to me:
” If your only argument is Trump is bad for Economy… then you are an IDIOT.”
So, I think this more recent comment from you is incorrect:
“How did we miss this? You missed what i said and I don’t thinK I missed what you wrote.”
Obviously, you missed what I wrote, but I digress.
First, I don’t agree Trump is good for small states, even economically. The retaliatory tariffs are going to hurt some small Trump states more than others. Also, the steel and aluminum tariffs hurt former blue wall states like Michigan.
Second, I don’t think such a simplistic breakdown is useful. Not all small states share many interests relevant for this discussion. I think it’s safe to say Hawaii, for example, is pretty different in this respect from Iowa or Mississippi.
Third, even if I thought Trump would be good for “small states” and even if I thought that analytical breakdown was useful, Trump is a huge net negative for the republic, given his attempts at undermining the rule of law in favor of unconstrained executive power. Even if he had the intelligence and at least some of what might be considered noble goals, like say, Napolean, I would strongly, strongly oppose him. As it is, Trump is merely a self-interested fool who isn’t even good at pursuing his own self-interests, even with the advantages the office provides.
5. June 2018 at 17:10
Hawaii doesn’t count, Island nations are parasites to host.
—-
I’m not simplistic, I’m BASE ROOT. I’m the lizard brain of the founding.
But you are wrong here:
Trump si OVERALL better – market is UP YUGE, turns out Obama was bad for market, he could have had Trumps gains a year before and kept trump from being elected… but he didn’t realize WHO WE ARE (you dont get it either, who mentions HAWAII?)
Look man you are blue team, you are OTHER. The normative hegemony in America you find oppressive…
It is what it is… even Obama admits this now.
5. June 2018 at 20:56
Morgan,
The market is not up “HUGE”. Look at a 10 year chart of the S&P 500, and you’ll see that’s the case. Or, translate the increase in S&P 500 into the expected change in economic growth, and you’ll see it’s very minor, and that was before the expected deficit increases and tariffs. Before the tariffs and higher deficits, the increase in expected GDP did not exceed about .4%.
6. June 2018 at 08:33
dtoh, You said:
“Why would you buy a used car from a salesman who had more information than you?”
I would not, if I knew that one millisecond later I’d have all the info he has.
anon/portly, You said:
“Sure, Trump’s an idiot, but the world is full of idiots – I’m definitely an idiot.”
Sorry, but your comments here prove otherwise.
I accept your claim, however, that he has populists instincts that match up with 50% of the electorate.
Christian, You said:
“an ascending trend line”
Please take a course in finance, and stop making a fool of yourself.
6. June 2018 at 11:07
Scott,
I don’t think that’s correct. If the outcome is that there is an equally likely outcome that the car is going to be $100 more or less expensive, then waiting does not improve your expected outcome at all….it just increases your risk.
6. June 2018 at 13:57
Scott, I bet you needed a course in tying your shoelaces, too. I stand by my comment. The trend line is not 100% textbook but that’s true for most trend lines. Without captions you wouldn’t find the correct place of Trump’s tweet in your lifetime. It could be any bump and none. Even the official announcement doesn’t really change the overall ascending trend which could mean that there are many insiders which knew way before 9:00 am (in the graph).
The real answer to the overall insider problem is that officials should release information like that asap. Or even better: Some kind of information market (and maybe prediction market) so that the relevant information is always out there without bureaucrats and politicians as gatekeepers. Maybe we can agree on that?
@Mike Sandifer
Stop being investigator, prosecutor, and judge in one person. You are none of these. So Trump committed a 100,000 crimes according to you? How come he’s not even impeached yet? So everybody is corrupt and blind except you Trump Derangement Syndrome guys? —> Now that’s a really plausible conspiracy theory.
You guys love to talk about liberal democracy and “Rechtsstaat”. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty” and “ei incumbit probatio qui dicit”?
6. June 2018 at 18:57
Christian,
I don’t think a dialogue between us on this topic will be productive.