Guest Author -- Business Cycle Blues
Program Note: A while back, I issued a challenge to guest authors to send in submissions, if they were tired of me writing "filler" pieces on days when there wasn't much else to comment on in the world of politics. Today, I'm running a submission from ChrisWeigant.com commenter "neilm," who responded to my challenge with a very well-written piece.
I should mention, for anyone else interested, that I'll always consider guest author pieces if they're well constructed and relevant, so if you'd like to take me up on the offer, just let me know via email. For today, please enjoy the following, which was written by Neil McGovern.
-- Chris Weigant
Business Cycle Blues
Recently, Salon (not a right wing outlet, let's say) published a series of charts that show how much better the economy does under Democratic versus Republican administrations. This is a popular meme that appears regularly in the news feeds of the left-inclined, such as myself.
Even Donald Trump chimed in on this (although I think he has probably changed his tune since). In an interview with Wolf Blitzer in 2004 he commented that: "I've been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
But, as the old saying that doesn't even need quotes points out, statistics are not always reliable. And in fact a fairly rigorous study into this very issue by Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson of the Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Economics Princeton University in July of 2014 concluded that: "it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP [total factor productivity] performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the nearterm [sic] future."
So, it looks like luck (oil shocks, productivity, international growth, and wars) is key, although it seems that the timing of wars might not be completely random (would we have gone into Iraq if Gore had won in 2000?).
This of course does not stop the speculation on both sides with the approaching Trump administration. Paul Krugman in a recent New York Times opinion piece thinks that the Republicans were wrong to block spending in the early Obama years when the majority of economists were clamoring for a federal stimulus, and are wrong again in 2017 to be contemplating a large infrastructure bill when government spending is likely to crowd out business spending in a heated economy, thus stifling future growth. On the other side of the equation, many of the market gurus have switched from doom to delight, with Stanley Druckenmiller, a hedge fund manager, leading the way, selling all his gold holdings on the night of the election and suddenly becoming a believer in the U.S. economy again. However, I trust Barry Ritholtz's view on market predictions -- that they are not worth the pixels that display them. Ritholtz's 100% definite list of predictions hilariously sends up all the grandstanding, and he also performs post-mortems on predictions versus the reality of selected "market gurus" (for example, he highlighted the accuracy, or lack thereof, of Mark Faber, editor of the cheerily titled Gloom, Boom & Doom Report).
So the takeaways so far are that luck is more important than the political affiliation of the current resident in the White House, and that prognosticators are seldom right. This, then, is the perfect point for me to ignore all the wisdom I've read from smart people like Ritholtz, etc., and to list some potential crises that could happen in the next four years. Regardless of reality, Trump will either get credit or blame where it isn't due. Fortunately, Trump has proven to be a man of great intellectual rigor and impeccable morals, so I'm sure he won't strut about like a pigeon channeling Mussolini if things happen to go well, or blame everybody else if there is any misfortune.
China
Despite Trump's vitriol, China is currently propping up its currency. There is a sound case that China was a currency manipulator until fairly recently, however their policy to peg the yuan to the dollar is costing them a king's ransom at the moment. Trump is upsetting them, and it would be fairly easy for China to destabilize the Treasury market by announcing that they are selling U.S. Treasuries every month in random, but significant, amounts.
But nefarious activities are not the only worries from China. Their economy is very fragile and has been running full-out for too long. Beijing is trying to let some steam escape, but the provinces are more concerned about short term growth, and are in a classic "tragedy of the commons" situation where if one province eases back, others will just grab their market share. Property prices are also very high based on fundamentals, and thus the possibility of the merrymaking coming to an end sometime in the next four years is far from negligible. (I would have said "party coming to an end," but I like visiting China and don't want Beijing to think that by "party" I meant something else -- they get very touchy about that.)
Middle East
The Middle East has been the random event generator par excellence for the last 30 or more years, and is always capable delivering some crisis or another that could trigger U.S. involvement. With the departure of No-Drama Obama and the arrival of Trigger-Happy-Tweetin' Trump, the prospects of overreaction are already high, but add General Flynn into the pot with a soupcon of Rudy Giuliani and we have a witches brew desperate to explode. If we start calling french fries "freedom fries" again because Paris is telling us to cool our jets, we are probably in silly territory again. The obvious irony of Trump running for president on his fictional warnings against going into Iraq, then creating his own quagmire, would normally be a measure of comfort, but Trump's ability to let himself off any hook is legendary, and irony seems to be a word that would send him to a dictionary, if he has one.
Business Cycle
The economy waxes and wanes, and while everybody is sure they know why the last recession came about, and some actually do predict it and act on it, for the most part the powers that be fail every six to ten years to avoid some sort of catastrophe that spreads to Main Street and causes real pain and suffering. We are told both that the current bull market is getting long in the tooth, and that it is only just getting started. We are sure our property is priced fairly, or maybe even a bit low and that it will be worth more next year. We are spending future income on cars, education and other stuff at a good whack, growing our personal debt. Our government is spending with its usual carefree gusto, and the deficit doomsayers on the right suddenly went quiet when a chance to slash taxes and slay the Obamacare dragon came along. Who knows if any of these will be the next villain of our hindsight, or if something else will pop up unexpectedly instead (AfD winning in Germany, hard Brexit, oil price collapse, etc.), but what seems most unlikely is that we have fixed the economy for good and there will be no more recessions in our future.
Summing Up
Actions by Trump that crash the economy are far less likely than just bad luck, and we may have four years where Trump manages to do nothing to trigger a downturn and his luck holds. Right, or wrong, this will be a strong factor in the 2020 election. A lackluster four years or a worsening economy will probably spell doom for the businessman who was going to show all those stupid politicians how to run the country. A good economy will play into his narrative. If China tanks the world economy, it will be interesting to see how the electorate play Trump's "China bad" with his "I will turn the country around" messages.
-- Neil McGovern
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Very nice piece, Neil!
I agree that luck will play a role in determining how the economy rolls and there are many and varied international crises that will impact Trump's first term - favourably or negatively, depending upon how they are managed by the Trump administration. But, I do still believe that the way Republicans think about and act on economic/tax/fiscal policy plays a bigger role than luck in how the US economy will fare over the next decade.
While reading, I kept thinking of a quote from the early days of the Obama presidency ...
"Be wary of the benefits of hindsight and be skeptical of the capacity for foresight."
It was said in the midst of testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services in March, 2009. The speaker? Why, none other than the savoir of Main Street, aka Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. :)
Speaking of quotes, here is another one that came to mind while reading your piece but, I'll have to paraphrase my favourite vice president when he spoke to a group of Barack Obama's biggest donors and supporters in October 2008 ...
Mark my words. There will be an international crisis that will test the mettle of the new president. We will see that Barack Obama has a backbone of steel. But, remember how you feel now, remember how you are supporting him now when he is faced with difficult decisions that will challenge your support for him at a time when he will need your support the most. Because, he will make those hard decisions and they may not be the popular decisions but they will be the right decisions...
Sorry, I don't like missing opportunities to quote those two guys. Ahem.
Anyway, thanks for writing this - it should spark a very good discussion ...
Hey neil
I am a bit dismayed that you seem to have set aside so much of what we have discussed recently.
On economic policy, the "left-inclined" are not represented by the duopoly of the establishment.
It would seem to be the luck of both parties that a left-inclined writer would help maintain the myth the pretends otherwise.
In any case, when the pain from economic downturns (or let's say a massive fraud) is spread to the masses and the benefits from growth (or let's say government handouts) are concentrated among the few, is the business cycle really just a handy scapegoat or distraction from badly needed discussions on policy changes needed to change that reality?
I would also take issue with the "random event generator" bit about the Middle East.
You seem to be (probably inadvertently) absolving the decision makers for the events they create.
They aren't rolling dice when deciding.
Out of curiosity instead of criticism, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind the "until recently" comment on currency manipulation by China. You seem to be saying it has ceased.
Thanks for giving CW a break.
A
Now, that's what I call great timing! :)
Liz
"none other than the savoir of Main Street, aka Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner."
... aka the anti-capitalist bankster bailout king and crime accountability denier.
"they may not be the popular decisions but they will be the right decisions"
Pfffffttt.
A
I don't know much about business stuff, this much everyone knows. So I am speaking from ignorance regarding business, I readily admit that..
But I DO know this country... And the idea that things are better now than they were in 2008 is simply ludicrous...
Sure, if one cherry picks a stat here or a stat there, one can make an "iron clad" case that this country is on the precipice of a glorious economic boom...
But all one has to do is ask Joe and Jane Sixpack if they are better off.. They will give a loud and resounding HELL NO to such a claim..
One only has to look at the euphoria and hope that has sprung from Donald Trump's election to realize how bad things were...
Like I said, one can paint a rosy picture if one picks all the facts that supports the rosy picture and ignores all the facts that don't...
"But here's the thing and there's just no getting around it.."
-Sam Weinberg, A FEW GOOD MEN
If things were so good under Democrats, we would be talking about President Elect Hillary Clinton and I would be crying incessantly every day...
The biggest indication that Democrats blew it??
President Elect Trump...
Great commentary, Neil.. I didn't understand a word of of which is why I know it was good.. :D heh
Day after tomorrow, the long 8 year nightmare will come to an end and the new era of hope and prosperity and American prestige and honor will begin.....
I, for one, cannot wait... :D
If things were so good under Democrats, we would be talking about President Elect Hillary Clinton
For the ONLY stat that matters, the ONLY poll that's relevant is the one at the Ballot Box...
And, since 2010, the American people have passed judgement on the Democratic Party and it has been found wanting...
Of course, the standard response from the Left..
"It's all because of gerrymandering and Russian hacking and Jedi Mind tricks.. NOTHING that the Democratic Party is doing is bad or wrong.. EVERYTHING the Democratic Party is doing is perfect and correct..."
Ya'all just HAVE to know how utterly inane and ridiculous that sounds...
Ya'all just GOTS to....
Speaking of business...
Yes, Trump can make Mexico pay for the border wall. Here’s how.
And here is the really brilliant part: There is nothing Mexico could do about it. Mexico might find ways to retaliate over specific measures targeting it — such as increased fees for visas or taxing remittances. But with the border adjustment, Mexico would have no recourse to complain, because such a measure is global in nature and would affect all U.S. trading partners equally. Plus, how could Mexico object when it is one of the 160 countries around that world that has a “border adjusted” VAT of its own?
So yes, thanks to the border adjustment, Donald Trump can indeed make Mexico pay for the BLEEP-ing wall. And Mexico would be powerless to stop him.
Mr. President-elect, what’s not to love?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-trump-can-make-mexico-pay-for-the-border-wall-heres-how/2017/01/17/7edf7872-dcbf-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.ffabda5910e3
Under the Border Adjustments part of the GOP's new Corporate Tax Reform package, the US Government will get an extra $13 BILLION dollars a year from Mexico..
That will more than pay for a nice shiny border barrier with all sorts of awesome bells and whistles... :D
Trump is just simply fantastic!!! :D Let's hope Trump has the wisdom and foresight to embrace the Border Adjustment.. As a businessman, Trump has stated he doesn't like the Border Adjustment..
As President, Trump would be a fool not to fall in love with the Border Adjustment...
Michale,
This is just for you, in the spirit of generosity and grace in which it was written ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/opinion/retweeting-donald-trump.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
Too bad Trump would never take this advice because he won't change his spots, I fear ...
I can't read the article because it's behind a pay wall..
But I can say that Thomas Friedman giving Trump advice is like me giving Nancy Pelosi advice.. :D
OK I was able to read it.. I can "hack" the Times into giving up it's secrets.. :D
Pretty much what I thought...
It advises Trump to take the high road... Would mean a LOT more if I didn't know that Freidman and the rest of the Left Wingery LOVES to wallow in the mud of the low road...
If Friedman and the rest of the Left wants Trump to take the high road and turn the other cheek, perhaps they can show Trump how it's done....
Yea, when monkees fly outta my arse... :D
This is just for you, in the spirit of generosity and grace in which it was written ...
It's as much generous and graceful as *MY* advice to the Democratic Party on how to win elections.. :D
In other words, simply another form of gloating. :D
Beginning to see some changes here!! :D
As to politics..
Let's face reality.. The reason the Leftist MSM doesn't like Trump using Twitter is because it allows the President to bypass the media and talk directly to the American people..
The MSM has proven that it cannot be objective about Trump.. The MSM came flat out and STATED that they view their duty as stopping Trump, journalistic ethics be damned...
The Media simply cannot be trusted to be objective and stick with just the facts.. WaPoop's actions of publishing total and complete bullshit has proven that beyond any doubt..
So, since it's a fact that we cannot trust the media, Trump being able to talk directly to the American people is a good thing..
In short, in the here and now, the Leftist MSM is struggling for relevance and will viciously attack anyone who stands in their way in their quest for relevance..
Like President Donald Trump...
Take a step and look at it logically without any partisan blinders..
The Leftist MSM is doing *EXACTLY* what ya'all accused the GOP of doing..
Ignoring their duty to the American people and hysterically pursuing, to the exclusion of all else, the take down of a freely, fairly and legally elected President....
Now, when it's a President with a '-D' after his name, ya'all were mortified....
When it's a President with a '-R' after his name, ya'all are cheerleaders...
Do you see the inherent inconsistency here??
If there is a fault in my logic...
"I'm all ears.."
-Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates
On economic policy, the "left-inclined" are not represented by the duopoly of the establishment.
It would seem to be the luck of both parties that a left-inclined writer would help maintain the myth the pretends otherwise.
Maybe I'm not left-inclined Altohone. I've stated that I'm probably center or maybe center-right by European standards, however the political spectrum is shifted to the right in the U.S. so my thinking lines up with establishment Democrats, thus I think of myself as left-leaning.
In any case, when the pain from economic downturns (or let's say a massive fraud) is spread to the masses and the benefits from growth (or let's say government handouts) are concentrated among the few
This is a theme I've been harping on about with my Gini co-efficient posts. I also posted an article about Branko Milanovic recently with the "Elephant" graph. Addressing inequality and the business cycle seem to me to be separate, but maybe I'm missing the point - or perhaps the point is that the downturns are used to eliminate any wealth gained by the masses during the booms and transferred to the wealthy. I don't think it is that type of zero sum game however.
I would also take issue with the "random event generator" bit about the Middle East.
You seem to be (probably inadvertently) absolving the decision makers for the events they create.
They aren't rolling dice when deciding.
My point was the same as yours, that is it the timing of the ME random event generator that is outside of our control for the most part, but this is where I differ from the Princeton paper in that our response to e.g. 9/11 is under our control.
Out of curiosity instead of criticism, I'd like to hear your reasoning behind the "until recently" comment on currency manipulation by China. You seem to be saying it has ceased.
I will need to review my research on China's currency again to go into the details, but I concluded a few months ago after reading in some depth that the Chinese were trying to prop up their currency. This was based on the rate within the acceptable band (i.e. it wasn't jammed hard against the lower limit) and the actions of the Chinese government in the currency markets.
But all one has to do is ask Joe and Jane Sixpack if they are better off.. They will give a loud and resounding HELL NO to such a claim..
Asking people how they feel is usually the worst way of gauging economic realities. People are generally miserable or mostly miserable about the economy, and only think the economy was better in the distant past (when they were only mostly miserable at the time).
I've seen this time and time again and share your experience: if you asked somebody in 2006 what they thought of the economy they would have grumbled, but ask them again in 2009 and they would have been downright miserable.
Numbers, not feelings, my friend.
One only has to look at the euphoria and hope that has sprung from Donald Trump's election to realize how bad things were..
Firstly you have forgotten again that the majority voted for Clinton, not Trump. Also, the Trump swing voters were the people who have been getting least out of the economy in the last 20+ years, however they are still richer and have higher income than Clinton's supporters.
What you are measuring is the relative wealth changes - i.e. (all numbers inflation adjusted)
Family A: 2000 income = $50,000; 2016 income = $60,000
Family B: 2000 income = $25,000; 2016 income = $35,000
Family C: 2000 income = $25,000; 2016 income = $30,000
In this scenario, Family A and B both got +$10,000, but the % increase was much larger for family B, so in relative terms Family B feel things are better for them than Family A.
Family C got 1/2 as much as Family A, but also got the same percentage increase. If Family A already had a car and used their income to buy a nicer car they might feel fairly happy. But if the extra $5,000 allowed family C to get a car wen they didn't have one before they are going to see a much bigger improvement in their lifestyle.
Basically, my point is the Trump supporters like Family A (which describes Trump supports fairly well) are more upset at losing their relative position on the social scale than being happy at their individual circumstances, or upset that the 90% are only getting a meager amount of the new wealth (for example from 2000-2012 alone the wealth increase per person in the U.S. was $70,000 - source: Credit Suisse Wealth Report 2012).
To head off what I see as a very valid point Altohone is going to make, yes:
Family D: 2000 income = $25 M; 2016 income = $50 M
Family D should have been taxed to allow Family A-C get better schools, roads, pay less taxes, etc. And Trump supporters should realise that:
a/ Trump is more like Family D than any of them
b/ All the Family D's are putting a fraction of their wealth into buying our politicians of all colors
Your belief that Trump is going to change that is sasd only because you have been hoodwinked by a con man - just look at his cabinet - do you see any regular Joe's and Jane's who are experts in their fields lifted into power - no we see Price who has been insider dealing, Rick "smart Glasses" Perry at Energy, a billionairess running public schools, etc.
I wish Trump has surprised me and brought in some outsiders who were experts, but poor like the rest of us to oversee these and other agencies.
Great commentary, Neil.. I didn't understand a word of of which is why I know it was good.. :D heh
Thanks anyway :)
The long 8 year nightmare will come to an end and the new era of hope and prosperity and American prestige and honor will begin.....
that's what you said in 2008. for that matter, so did i. after what happened in the subsequent 8 years, i for one will take a wait and see attitude. maybe donald will be successful - i sincerely hope so, but i'm not holding my breath either way.
JL
Asking people how they feel is usually the worst way of gauging economic realities. People are generally miserable or mostly miserable about the economy, and only think the economy was better in the distant past (when they were only mostly miserable at the time).
I disagree..
Picking stats here and there is the worst way of gauging economic realities because invariably only the states that "prove" the theory are chosen..
How people feel is THE best way to gauge economic success...
Firstly you have forgotten again that the majority voted for Clinton, not Trump. Also, the Trump swing voters were the people who have been getting least out of the economy in the last 20+ years, however they are still richer and have higher income than Clinton's supporters.
ANd if the popular vote were the way we picked a POTUS, it would be relevant..
But my point is, we would not have this euphoria we have, this confidence we have, this HOPE we have if Hillary had been elected..
JOSHUA!!!! :D
I was afraid ya had gone to greener pastures.. :D Glad ta see ya here with us..
that's what you said in 2008. for that matter, so did i. after what happened in the subsequent 8 years, i for one will take a wait and see attitude. maybe donald will be successful - i sincerely hope so, but i'm not holding my breath either way.
I know.. I know.. I could be setting myself up for a HUGE disappointment, like in 2009...
If Trump disappoints like Obama disappointed, I will be the first to point it out...
But for now... HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!!! :D
Also, the Trump swing voters were the people .......
.....who voted for Obama in the last elections...
Here's the problem with cherry picking states..
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/15977665_10208347720679315_2271686760879799728_n.jpg?oh=f1a1e558ad9ea58ed46027415bbd46fc&oe=5904455F
One looks at those stats, one would conclude that the Democratic Party are scum of the earth...
I have always used truck traffic to determine when we are in a recession.
Where I live I use my commute time. I've been working out of the same office for over 15 years and seen a crescendo in traffic in 2006-8, then a significant drop, then a larger increase 2012-present.
Even taking into account the rising population locally, it is getting crazy round here. I don't expect things to get better when they put in the Lexus Lane they are building - unless you want to pay $5-8 to go 12 miles.
How people feel is THE best way to gauge economic success...
Well if you are going to use how people feel, then Trump's dismal approval rating should be grounds for resignation on the spot :)
Picking stats here and there is the worst way of gauging economic realities because invariably only the states that "prove" the theory are chosen..
That isn't the way science works, even the dismal science*. Take the misery index (unemployment + inflation) which is used over decades (it was invented by Arthur Okun during the Johnson administration).
I always read the Credt Suisse World Wealth Report (I put a link up late last year when the latest one was released). The Economist/i> also publishes several pages of stats every week.
* http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/why-economics-is-really-called-the-dismal-science/282454/
Very fine article, Neil. Well written.
You'll appreciate this, I'm sure:
Trump says dollar is "too strong"; Dollar then drops in value.
Balthasar [31]
Thanks.
Interesting take on the Border Adjustment - there was an article that Michale also read that this was how Mexico was going to pay for the wall - the problem is that this is a simply import tax that applies to all nations, so France, Canada, Bulgaria and Swaziland will also be paying for the wall - sort of takes the fun out of it.
The big plus in the Republican plan is that it exempts income from the calculation encouraging U.S. jobs and higher wages. But it only works if all the parts are in place - remove one link in the chain and it all falls apart.
Trump wants to remove one of the key links because it isn't simple enough for him. Maybe Sesame Street can do a program on it for him.
Well if you are going to use how people feel, then Trump's dismal approval rating should be grounds for resignation on the spot :)
If the Leftist MSM didn't use polls heavily laden with Democrats, you would have a point..
But they do so you don't...
What part of THE MSM DOES NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY do you not understand??
That isn't the way science works, even the dismal science*.
I know that isn't the way REAL science works..
But it IS the way Democrat "science" works..
Ignore the facts that don't support the agenda...
We saw that clearly with the last Presidential election..
And in other news, Odumbo commutes the sentence of a known terrorist...
Gods, this nightmare that has been the Obama administration is almost over!
Great article, Neil!
It's scary to think how easily Twitler might destroy our economy. Russia's economy should improve tremendously under Trump's puppetry.
Why else would the CEO of Exxon decide after 40 years of corporate life that he suddenly wanted a government job if not to see one of his biggest $$$ projects finally get the chance that was so quickly taken away thanks to government sanctions??? Rex's Russian oil project is worth an estimated 3 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! While he is no longer with Exxon, what do you wanna bet that his contract stipulates that he will be given the bonuses he would have received from the deal once sanctions are lifted, regardless of whether he is still employed by Exxon???
Trump's cabinet picks are nothing short of letting the foxes run the hen houses! Let's have the anti-vaccine guy running the vaccination program, a climate change denier heading up the EPA, a charter school troll running the Dept. of Education.... about all that is left is for Trump to pick El Chapo to head up the DEA!
I finally figured out why Republicans have been so quick to let Putin get away with interfering with our elections -- they view his government as a paradise for unbridled capitalism to do as it pleases without the fear of regulations hurting their profits. It's their Zion!
It's scary to think how easily Twitler might destroy our economy. Russia's economy should improve tremendously under Trump's puppetry.
TRUMP IS TOAST-esque prediction #598
Why else would the CEO of Exxon decide after 40 years of corporate life that he suddenly wanted a government job if not to see one of his biggest $$$ projects finally get the chance that was so quickly taken away thanks to government sanctions???
Patriotism...
Something the Left Wingery denigrates at EVERY opportunity...
Trump's cabinet picks are nothing short of letting the foxes run the hen houses!
As opposed to Obama's picks where he put in charge the people that CAUSED the financial meltdown in 2008..
Michale [14]
Saying things like this:
The Media simply cannot be trusted to be objective and stick with just the facts.. WaPoop's actions of publishing total and complete bullshit has proven that beyond any doubt..
After linking a story from them to support your arguments in [9] doesn't lend too much credibility to either of your statements.
WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.
The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.
The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html?_r=0
And the hysterical outcry of indignation from the Left Wingery???
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It's ALL about the '-X' after a person's name...
If Trump had done this, the denunciation from the Left would have been immediate and hysterical...
Michale,
Patriotism? I doubt it is that Rex feels that much patriotism for Russia as much as it is that he simply wants his money... But if you say so....
“If you only listen to people who agree, you will start making mistakes.”
-President Barack Obama
Of course, Obama would be the expert at that...
I doubt it is that Rex feels that much patriotism
I know you do..
As I said, the Left Wingery has been denigrating patriotism for the last 50 years...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/18/why-am-still-democrat-even-though-cant-stand-my-party-right-now.html
Here's what a Democrat thinks about the Democratic Party...
Worst. President. Ever: Obama First President EVER to Not Reach 3% GDP Growth
In February 2011 (Fake News) Time Magazine Implied that Obama was like Reagan. This couldn’t have been further from the truth, especially when considering economic growth. Ronald Reagan brought forth an annual real GDP growth of 3.5%. Barack Obama will be lucky to average an annual 1.50% GDP growth rate during his two terms in office.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/worst-president-ever-obamas-historically-low-gdp-growth-rate-working-on/
One of those stats that gets ignored in the EVERYTHING IS AWESOME Obama spiel....
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/trump-inauguration-protesters-work-hard-re-election/
Anti-America Anti-Trumpers working hard to re-elect Trump in 2020.. :D
More power to 'em.... :D
oh come on, i haven't been away THAT long. just personal stuff i've been having to deal with. as to obama being the best or the worst of anything, i think both of those points of view are not grounded in reality. first of all, the president generally has minimal impact on the business cycle. second, january 2008 saw the worst place the economy has been since the 1920's.
obama's impact, like his impact on most things during his tenure, has been mostly positive and very small. he's taft!
https://youtu.be/pENWP8r1-7M
oh come on, i haven't been away THAT long.
Sure seems like it.. :D
first of all, the president generally has minimal impact on the business cycle. second, january 2008 saw the worst place the economy has been since the 1920's.
OK... Since the president has "minimal impact on the business cycle" then the dismal state of the economy in 2008 was not Bush's fault..
Is that accurate?? :D
obama's impact, like his impact on most things during his tenure, has been mostly positive and very small.
I doubt that Joe and Jane Sixpack would agree with you on the "mostly positive" part..
And those who have seen their insurance premiums rise 400% would disagree with the "very small" part...
https://youtu.be/pENWP8r1-7M
hehehehehehehe :D
neil
"Maybe I'm not left-inclined Altohone. I've stated that I'm probably center or maybe center-right by European standards, however the political spectrum is shifted to the right in the U.S. so my thinking lines up with establishment Democrats, thus I think of myself as left-leaning."
You wrote in the column that you are left-inclined, and we've been discussing that you support economic policies to the left of the Dems.
So, your thinking DOES NOT line up with the center right (on economic policy) Dems.
By claiming allegiance with them, you are supporting those with whom you actually disagree.
This is at the core of a problem we face in America.
It is artfully depicted by our resident troll who calls Dems and the Wall Street boot licking mainstream media "leftist".
Obama wasn't a leftist on economics.
Hillary isn't a leftist on economics.
Our corporate media isn't leftist on economics.
I just want you to stand up and be willing to set yourself apart from them in a guest column the way you've been willing to do it in comments.
Instead, you were (admittedly just subtly) perpetuating the same myth as the troll.
This intentional distortion of reality to perpetuate the center right economics we've been subjected to for decades regardless of which party is in control is a pet peeve.
It will be an uphill struggle to address this issue, so it hurts more when someone who should be an ally (based on what you've said in the past) participates in the establishment's game.
It pisses me off when CW does it too.
A