How many more 2008 collapses have to happen before you guys realize that regulation type matters? It isn’t about deregulation as a whole, it’s about proper regulation.
I have spelled out a million times how bank charters work, and how the regulations basically made banks unable to switch them in the time of crises. Instead, they relied on the paths that would get them the highest CRA rating. A cra rating is separate from CRA loans. Say you were having financial issues and wanted to balance out your loans with auto loans, and they wouldn’t let you switch because you didn’t give enough loans to low income borrowers. It was in the metrics, loan distribution had to include low income borrowers or you would get a low rating. This is why the bad loans were given, and why they couldn’t shift to save themselves.
Regulation can indeed cause harm, just because you don’t understand what republicans are doing when they get rid of say the Dodd Frank law which was re setting up the collapse, doesn’t mean that republicans were just saying “deregulimifcations!”.
Which political party had a president from 2000-2008 leading up to the 2008 collapse again? It’s probably relevant to remember which party was responsible for that collapse, since they’re the same party pretending that they care about preventing the next one now.
OCTOBER 18, 2019 AT 2:15 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Here it is one more more time for y’all. Comments, no matter how otherwise valid, will be deleted if they contain personal insults and/or are off-topic. These insults might include liar, Basement Boy, puffy chested (whatever that is), Kangaroo, idiot, pervert, slow learner, Lefty, crazy, mentally ill, fool, pathetic, old man, etc. And if your comment only exists to address, criticize or belittle another commenter or person as opposed to addressing the issues or articles, it will be deleted. Try disagreeing with or questioning the arguments or “evidence” of others without insulting them personally and without projecting what you perceive to be their motive, morals or character. I swear some of you insult so often you aren’t even aware you are doing it– it’s automatic. If your comment is worthwhile, it should stand on its own without support from insults or innuendo. In short, speak to the issue, facts and article. If you can’t do that, please do not post. And stop complaining if you are caught and deleted but someone else gets away with it. Life’s unfair.
Captain Planet is not an expert on these issues and neither am I. But that doesn’t stop CP from slandering Trump about lies and morals and it doesn’t stop Andrew from leaving up that post.
Obama lied about lots of stuff. Doesn’t mean his every decision was wrong.
Many people think the greatest economic growth tool implemented by Trump was cutting regulations. He promised to cut 2 for every 1 new regulation. The number is more like 11 to 1.
Like the economy? (Partisan liberals: “no, we hate the working class and would rather their wages were not going up since it helps Trump”.)
Do I know if this changes is good? Nope. But I also can read and the article cites everyone against this decision as an “advocate”. Everyone in favor of it is “aligned with Republicans”.
Based on that bias alone, it is probably a good decision.
Good one Craig. Democrats are really good at killing jobs. Regulations and Obamacare are very good examples. Our country is doing just fine under our great President. Despite efforts to remove him and negate 63 million voters preferences, they have failed big time. Can’t wait until 2020. If CP can’t stand it, recommend he move to Canada or Venezuela.
Yeah, those pesky regulations. We want profits and jobs. If a couple thousand workers get killed because we cut corners, that’s just a cost of doing business.
Agent wrote, “Democrats are really good at killing jobs.”
Bill Clinton 18.6 million jobs created (which puts him in first place). Jimmy Carter 9.8 million jobs created. President Obama 8.9 million jobs created.
Darn those pesky facts getting in the way of a false narrative again!
Reagan is #2 at 16.5 million. Nixon is #8 at 9.4 million. Tramp added 4.7 in his first 2 years.
November 25, 2019 at 4:35 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
6
3
PS – hardly a bias when it was Agent who made the comment about Democratic administrations. Did you expect me to prove him wrong by detailing Republican job creation efforts?
November 25, 2019 at 4:43 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
It looks like there’s a mix of both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who have done a great job adding jobs. This holds true if you look at new jobs created or percentage increase of new jobs created.
So Planet posted a direct answer to your question, and only listed Democrat Presidents in his 3:50PM post because he was refuting your point that “Democrats are really good at killing jobs”
Do you have any issue with the numbers he posted?
Would you prefer to look at both total increase and percentage increase (see my link below)?
Sorry Craig – I attributed Agent’s comment to you. That was my mistake and I apologize.
My question still stands: Do you have any issue with the numbers Planet posted?
November 25, 2019 at 5:12 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
6
Obama created an average of about 1 million jobs per year. This was coming out of a deep recession, when we usually see a boom in job creation naturally.
Trump has created an average of almost 2.5 million jobs per year.
But otherwise, you’re a REAL fair guy. (P.S. Comparing Nixon to Obama isn’t close to fair; the country had a MUCH smaller population then.)
November 25, 2019 at 5:20 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Would you prefer to discuss percentage increases, then? (see my link below)?
I didn’t compare Nixon to Obama. You wanted me to post his job creation numbers, so I did. Prior to that, I was busy proving Agent wrong about Democratic administrations being really good at killing jobs. Be well, Craig!
November 25, 2019 at 5:27 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Also, Craig, to be fair about Obama, the following should be noted:
“President Obama created 8.9 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 6.2 percent increase. There were 152.3 million people employed at the end of his term. That’s compared to 143.4 million working at the end of the Bush administration.
But that doesn’t give the total picture. The economy lost 8.5 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until December 2009. Since that low point, Obama created 16 million jobs, a 11.6 percent increase. If measured that way, Obama was the third-largest job creator in terms of numbers.”
November 25, 2019 at 6:47 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
@Rosenblatt; the deep recession Obama inherited allowed him to post fairly large PCTG increases due to the Coefficient of Variation involved in the ‘deep recession’ from the norm. IOW, a large or moderate increase over a SMALL base will yield a larger pctg increase than a large or moderate increase over a ‘less small’ base. This is basic arithmetic, but it requires a bit of intelligence to be able to understand the COV concept involved in this comparison.
November 25, 2019 at 7:08 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
6
I just LOVE your spin job on behalf of Obama!
Let’s judge every other President on their time in office. But let’s judge Obama on ONLY when the recession ended!
By the way, how did that “stimulus” work out? You know, Obama said you could judge it by the unemployment rate at the time of his reelection and today NOT ONE DEMOCRAT will mention the word “stimulus”.
(P.S. Economic history – Obama actually had a stimulus of about $800 billion in every year of his a Presidency after it was first passed. Guess how?)
November 26, 2019 at 8:09 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Coefficient of Variation? Seriously? Okay Polar. Since you brought it up, please provide the Standard Deviation and the Mean for each of the top 3 Republican & Democrat Presidential job creators so we can calculate the CoV.
Without those two data points, you’re just speculating. Provide the necessary data to calculate the CoV for those 6 Presidents and let’s see if your theory holds water.
November 26, 2019 at 9:05 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Hey Craig,
Did you notice my excerpt is in quotes? Not my spin, man. It came from the link Rosenblatt provided. That link also indicates the methodology used. Go argue against that author. I’m just providing it here for all to read because some don’t open the links and check them out on their own.
November 26, 2019 at 1:11 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
“It looks like there’s a mix of both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who have done a great job adding jobs.”
One of those presidents happened to be president during a global expansion, as well as modernization, so yes, looks like, on the democrat end, because in modern history, I don’t see a democrat who one can prove actually affected jobs in a positive way, especially not Bill Clinton. Carter did not, and the poster child for liberals, indisputably did poorly during the great depression, despite revisionist history.
Now, go back to republicans ending a recession, we have Reagan, indisputably changed the norm. We do not see a single democrat have those results from a recession rebound, not one.
Go to Trump, there is a global stagnation, with the U.S. doing well comparably. Interest rates were raised far too quickly, this is relevant because in that absence, last year would have been 3% and that is a mathematical fact, not a hypothetical, inflation growth is calculated. When you raise interest rates .5 in one year, you have to subtract that from the economic side in the form of interest.
The LPR is finally raising. We were told that would not happen.
There has been a turn around, which is slightly pausing again due to trade wars, but after those wars, boy howdy, watch what will happen. Our Bush W Obama pause was very likely due to bad trade deals, and we would have been stuck at 2% like the democrats said. Watch, for just after Trump if he loses the next election, for the trade deals he will surely finish before then and already has, to cause 4% growth by the time the 1st year of the new one kicks in, and for democrats to take the credit.
November 26, 2019 at 1:19 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
Excellent comment, Bob. Truly. You are lapping the field on this one.
November 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
Thank you Craig.
I came to agree with the right on economics because it’s an obvious truth to someone who thinks things through. I was not born into it.
I do tend to have some more liberal ideals though, surely you have seen them, but I cannot tolerate this nonsense from the left. It’s like they just want to kick common sense itself out of the party, and myself.
November 26, 2019 at 1:39 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Bob – you well thought-out reply in this thread is appreciated and I am sincerely interested in your non-insulting and non-attacking reply to my follow-up questions here.
When trying to compare how past & current Presidents have affected the job market, there are only so many stat’s we can look at to try to identify their impact.
It would appear from your reply (I said “appear” – not putting words in your mouth, so please politely correct me if I’m wrong) that you do not agree looking at the overall number of jobs created and the percentage of jobs created is an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of how Presidents are impacting the job market due to various factors, such as recessions and interest rates.
So my questions to you are these …
Is there any metric(s) specific to job creation which you believe result in an accurate analysis of how a specific President impacted the job market?
What statistic(s) can we look at to say “based on all factors, this guy did good and this guy did not as good” in your opinion?
Or are you saying (again, not trying to put words in your mouth, so please politely correct me if I’m wrong) “there’s no number available to us that accurately compares Presidential job creation based on the various factors each person had to deal with in their own unique situation?
November 27, 2019 at 3:51 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
You got anything bob? You raised a valid point and I’d like to discuss it with you, but you seem to have gone somewhere else.
November 25, 2019 at 2:36 pm
retired risk manager says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Scroll down to Texas / Southwest and read my comment about what probably was the real cause of the explosion.
Whereas I certainly agree stored grain (that is what you meant by “seed”, correct?) can generate hot spots and is therefore combustible, there was an investigation and this is what was reported:
“After conducting 400 interviews and lab work on evidence, investigators determined someone started the fire on purpose, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.”
Now, what is also reported is they never alerted Dept of Homeland Security about the amount of ammonium nitrate they had, as is required. We won’t write any new risk with ammonium nitrate. You still see quite a bit of it in KY, it is used for the tobacco farms.
Regulation is not a dirty word. These regulations were put in place because of a need for them. Risk prevention is what our industry does. Without rules and regulations the public would be in danger and more workers would die. Trump thinks appealing to his base is more important than common sense. He is a dangerous person for the insurance industry.
But OVER-regulation is the cause of economic inefficiencies when it is applied blindly, for ‘regulation sake’, without studying the implications and consequences of enacting it in markets in equilibrium.
Regulatory actions should be restricted to those intended to protect consumers.
You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were put in place because of a “need” for them. You have no expertise in the industry and no background on the science.
The regulators are people too, many of whom go on to work for the very businesses they are supposed to be regulating. Who knows when a regulator pushes a new regulation in order to hurt certain competitors of a favored corporation, but it happens (who do you think provides a lot of the “research behind regulations? Corporations.)
Also, many regulators refuse to acknowledge the cost of the regulations they push; like you, they simply assume that any regulation is a good regulation. Very child like.
“You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were put in place because of a “need” for them. ”
Literally the subject of the article is major disasters with the loss of dozens or hundreds of lives happening as a result of corporate irresponsibility. That’s the exact situation that proves, beyond all others, that a regulation is needed. Identify what behaviours caused the disaster, and make them ****ing illegal so people don’t have to keep dying to the same behaviour repeated over and over.
“Also, many regulators refuse to acknowledge the cost of the regulations they push”
Literally the ENTIRE POINT of a regulation is that the cost doesn’t matter – because regulations are about saving lives, not making money. What is a regulation? It’s a law forcing a corporation to do something it would otherwise not do, because it’s cheaper not to do it. Why do we want this? Because corporations will always do the cheapest thing they can, even when that inevitably leads to people dying – as the cost in human lives is completely irrelevant to a capitalist, and it’s an externalised cost borne by the public and not by the corporation that caused it.
In other words, a CEO can pocket an extra few million dollars by skimping on safe procedures, and the public in no way benefits from this, while the public suffers the consequences of the decision to skimp on safety procedures, when people die, while the CEO faces no consequences. So the public does the only thing it can, uses its collective power known as government to force the CEO/corporation into line, into forcing them to do the thing that costs more money because doing so saves lives.
In other words, everyone knows that when regulations are implemented, it’s going to cost the corporation. That’s. The. Point. If it didn’t cost the corporation anything, they would’ve already been doing it in the first place, but they have to be forced into doing costly things by law for the sake of public safety. Again, a need which is made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in the aftermath of a corporate-inflicted disaster. You can’t continue to say after the greatest oil spill in history that regulations to prevent it from happening again aren’t necessary.
Democratic regulations often go way beyond the scope of intentions and have cost corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and stymie growth of our economy. We have experienced tremendous growth in the past 3 years. It is up to Loss Control of the insurance industry to make sure of safety. Government screws up everything and OSHA is worthless. They don’t prevent anything from happening, just fine companies after the fact.
Really? Because a quick google search shows OSHA preventing hundreds if not thousands of worker injuries every day. I know you’d like to dismiss any democratic function with a wave of ignorance, but you don’t have the facts to back up the statement “OSHA is worthless”. Similarly your snide comments on democratic regulations are based on opinion, not reality, as most of your comments on this board. Despite the stunning wit on display with your regular line of commentary such as “vapers are dopers” and “they’ve got it coming” you don’t actually have knowledge based in reality, Agent.
November 26, 2019 at 12:24 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
We wouldn’t have the safety culture in the food and ag space if it weren’t for OSHA. There are many spouses who thank OSHA everyday for keeping their loved one safe at work. I am 30 hour certified myself and because of it, I have made our homes safer for our daughters. What’s next, Agent? Propane dealers don’t need CETP?
November 26, 2019 at 12:42 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
1
3
“Literally the ENTIRE POINT of a regulation is that the cost doesn’t matter – because regulations are about saving lives, not making money.”
So, in your mind, we should spend an unlimited amount of money in any situation where even one life could be saved. Classic Lefty, ignoring the truth that in a world of limited resources, decisions have to be made on how to allocate those resources.
Maybe you should be in charge of cost control for Medicare for All. “Who cares that the 90 year old person is dying of cancer, spend millions trying to save them! A life is at risk!”
You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were REMOVED because of a “lack of need” for them. You have no expertise in the industry and no background on the science.
Who knows when a regulator pushes a regulation to be removed in order to pad their bottom line and hurt the consumer.
You simply assume that any regulation is a bad regulation. Very child like.
For the third time, see my very first post in this thread. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. You, Captain Planet, me . . none of us know what the regulation was about. That’s what I said to start this out. Not sure what your point is now (a common occurrence with you).
Any regulation pushed by leftists Progressive unelected bureaucrats is inherently bad. Glad the President did a lot of swamp draining at EPA already. Now, on to OSHA, the worthless safety regulator who does not much more than fine companies after the fact.
Craig,
The Department of Homeland Security generated these safety measures. A small amount of AN doesn’t need special storage. But, a large amount (I believe it is anything over 400 tons) does. The DHS needs to perform an inspection. They decide if the facilities are adequately equipped and will then provide a letter to be kept on that facility’s file. This agronomy facility in West Texas didn’t do that. This regulation absolutely needs to be in place. Ask anyone who writes agribusiness. Currently, there are agronomists trying to create a effective yet less explosive form of AN by mixing it with other compounds. They are finding it difficult to place insurance in the standard market with the AN exposure on their premises, even with the DHS letter signing off on the storage procedures.
Whatever. You did your research AFTER your original nasty comments, trying to back fill your original statements that were made in complete ignorance of the facts and issues.
Count me in the “not fooled” category. (False witness.)
“false claims” “”can’t back up” “data that refutes your claims” “stop responding” “troll” “right-wing dinosaurs” “loud angry” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
November 26, 2019 at 3:44 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
OK Boomer
November 26, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
You are lying to our fellow readers again. I used to write AN and am familiar with the exposure. I won’t write any new account with AN, though. I am interested in my KY opportunities once they figure out the less explosive solution. My research stems back many years, amigo. Please, stop projecting your own personal ignorance on this subject.
Certainly not a word I used to describe myself. I did say I am familiar with it as I wrote a number of accounts with the exposure. Glad I can put a smile on your face, Craig. From some of your posts, it sounds like you can use it.
November 27, 2019 at 12:42 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
2
3
Love how Andrew leaves up your post and takes down mine. I think I figured out the Civility Code for Insurance Journal: does Andrew agree with your politics?
November 27, 2019 at 8:23 am
Two Roads Diverged says:
Like or Dislike:
4
3
Wow, no such thing as the First Amendment at Insurance Journal. Any snowflakes get their feelings hurt and that comment come crashing down.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that Insurance Journal, an industry periodical for a very conservative industry, has allowed their publication to be hijacked by liberals who work hard to expunge conservative views.
Must be time to start writing letters to the publisher first, then to others within and throughout the insurance industry.
First Amendment rights are limited in scope (e.g. can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater) and applies to CONGRESS making laws limiting speech.
There’s no law that says a website must allow all speech even if it violates their terms and conditions, which Andrew has posted dozens of times so there should be no question what is and is not acceptable here.
I can only guess it’s because (1) it’s not on-topic and (2) snowflake is a general put down for anyone that complains about any subject. I would imagine if the post was about regulations and didn’t use the derogatory “snowflake” term, it wouldn’t have been removed.
“It’s dismissing science…”
Duh, the biggest liar of all time is in charge. He dismisses science, truth, facts, morals…
How many other towns have to blow up for one to realize that regulations do matter?
How many more 2008 collapses have to happen before you guys realize that regulation type matters? It isn’t about deregulation as a whole, it’s about proper regulation.
I have spelled out a million times how bank charters work, and how the regulations basically made banks unable to switch them in the time of crises. Instead, they relied on the paths that would get them the highest CRA rating. A cra rating is separate from CRA loans. Say you were having financial issues and wanted to balance out your loans with auto loans, and they wouldn’t let you switch because you didn’t give enough loans to low income borrowers. It was in the metrics, loan distribution had to include low income borrowers or you would get a low rating. This is why the bad loans were given, and why they couldn’t shift to save themselves.
Regulation can indeed cause harm, just because you don’t understand what republicans are doing when they get rid of say the Dodd Frank law which was re setting up the collapse, doesn’t mean that republicans were just saying “deregulimifcations!”.
Which political party had a president from 2000-2008 leading up to the 2008 collapse again? It’s probably relevant to remember which party was responsible for that collapse, since they’re the same party pretending that they care about preventing the next one now.
OCTOBER 18, 2019 AT 2:15 PM
Andrew G. Simpson says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
2
0
Here it is one more more time for y’all. Comments, no matter how otherwise valid, will be deleted if they contain personal insults and/or are off-topic. These insults might include liar, Basement Boy, puffy chested (whatever that is), Kangaroo, idiot, pervert, slow learner, Lefty, crazy, mentally ill, fool, pathetic, old man, etc. And if your comment only exists to address, criticize or belittle another commenter or person as opposed to addressing the issues or articles, it will be deleted. Try disagreeing with or questioning the arguments or “evidence” of others without insulting them personally and without projecting what you perceive to be their motive, morals or character. I swear some of you insult so often you aren’t even aware you are doing it– it’s automatic. If your comment is worthwhile, it should stand on its own without support from insults or innuendo. In short, speak to the issue, facts and article. If you can’t do that, please do not post. And stop complaining if you are caught and deleted but someone else gets away with it. Life’s unfair.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Good one Craig. Democrats are really good at killing jobs. Regulations and Obamacare are very good examples. Our country is doing just fine under our great President. Despite efforts to remove him and negate 63 million voters preferences, they have failed big time. Can’t wait until 2020. If CP can’t stand it, recommend he move to Canada or Venezuela.
Yeah, those pesky regulations. We want profits and jobs. If a couple thousand workers get killed because we cut corners, that’s just a cost of doing business.
Hi Agent!
Agent wrote, “Democrats are really good at killing jobs.”
Bill Clinton 18.6 million jobs created (which puts him in first place). Jimmy Carter 9.8 million jobs created. President Obama 8.9 million jobs created.
Darn those pesky facts getting in the way of a false narrative again!
Now post Reagan, Trump, Nixon. HA HA HA HA! Captain Planet’s bias exposed again.
Reagan is #2 at 16.5 million. Nixon is #8 at 9.4 million. Tramp added 4.7 in his first 2 years.
PS – hardly a bias when it was Agent who made the comment about Democratic administrations. Did you expect me to prove him wrong by detailing Republican job creation efforts?
It looks like there’s a mix of both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who have done a great job adding jobs. This holds true if you look at new jobs created or percentage increase of new jobs created.
So Planet posted a direct answer to your question, and only listed Democrat Presidents in his 3:50PM post because he was refuting your point that “Democrats are really good at killing jobs”
Do you have any issue with the numbers he posted?
Would you prefer to look at both total increase and percentage increase (see my link below)?
https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218
Sorry Craig – I attributed Agent’s comment to you. That was my mistake and I apologize.
My question still stands: Do you have any issue with the numbers Planet posted?
Obama created an average of about 1 million jobs per year. This was coming out of a deep recession, when we usually see a boom in job creation naturally.
Trump has created an average of almost 2.5 million jobs per year.
But otherwise, you’re a REAL fair guy. (P.S. Comparing Nixon to Obama isn’t close to fair; the country had a MUCH smaller population then.)
Would you prefer to discuss percentage increases, then? (see my link below)?
https://www.thebalance.com/job-creation-by-president-by-number-and-percent-3863218
I didn’t compare Nixon to Obama. You wanted me to post his job creation numbers, so I did. Prior to that, I was busy proving Agent wrong about Democratic administrations being really good at killing jobs. Be well, Craig!
Also, Craig, to be fair about Obama, the following should be noted:
“President Obama created 8.9 million jobs by the end of December 2016, a 6.2 percent increase. There were 152.3 million people employed at the end of his term. That’s compared to 143.4 million working at the end of the Bush administration.
But that doesn’t give the total picture. The economy lost 8.5 million jobs as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. It kept shedding them until December 2009. Since that low point, Obama created 16 million jobs, a 11.6 percent increase. If measured that way, Obama was the third-largest job creator in terms of numbers.”
@Rosenblatt; the deep recession Obama inherited allowed him to post fairly large PCTG increases due to the Coefficient of Variation involved in the ‘deep recession’ from the norm. IOW, a large or moderate increase over a SMALL base will yield a larger pctg increase than a large or moderate increase over a ‘less small’ base. This is basic arithmetic, but it requires a bit of intelligence to be able to understand the COV concept involved in this comparison.
I just LOVE your spin job on behalf of Obama!
Let’s judge every other President on their time in office. But let’s judge Obama on ONLY when the recession ended!
By the way, how did that “stimulus” work out? You know, Obama said you could judge it by the unemployment rate at the time of his reelection and today NOT ONE DEMOCRAT will mention the word “stimulus”.
(P.S. Economic history – Obama actually had a stimulus of about $800 billion in every year of his a Presidency after it was first passed. Guess how?)
Coefficient of Variation? Seriously? Okay Polar. Since you brought it up, please provide the Standard Deviation and the Mean for each of the top 3 Republican & Democrat Presidential job creators so we can calculate the CoV.
Without those two data points, you’re just speculating. Provide the necessary data to calculate the CoV for those 6 Presidents and let’s see if your theory holds water.
Hey Craig,
Did you notice my excerpt is in quotes? Not my spin, man. It came from the link Rosenblatt provided. That link also indicates the methodology used. Go argue against that author. I’m just providing it here for all to read because some don’t open the links and check them out on their own.
“It looks like there’s a mix of both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents who have done a great job adding jobs.”
One of those presidents happened to be president during a global expansion, as well as modernization, so yes, looks like, on the democrat end, because in modern history, I don’t see a democrat who one can prove actually affected jobs in a positive way, especially not Bill Clinton. Carter did not, and the poster child for liberals, indisputably did poorly during the great depression, despite revisionist history.
Now, go back to republicans ending a recession, we have Reagan, indisputably changed the norm. We do not see a single democrat have those results from a recession rebound, not one.
Go to Trump, there is a global stagnation, with the U.S. doing well comparably. Interest rates were raised far too quickly, this is relevant because in that absence, last year would have been 3% and that is a mathematical fact, not a hypothetical, inflation growth is calculated. When you raise interest rates .5 in one year, you have to subtract that from the economic side in the form of interest.
The LPR is finally raising. We were told that would not happen.
There has been a turn around, which is slightly pausing again due to trade wars, but after those wars, boy howdy, watch what will happen. Our Bush W Obama pause was very likely due to bad trade deals, and we would have been stuck at 2% like the democrats said. Watch, for just after Trump if he loses the next election, for the trade deals he will surely finish before then and already has, to cause 4% growth by the time the 1st year of the new one kicks in, and for democrats to take the credit.
Excellent comment, Bob. Truly. You are lapping the field on this one.
Thank you Craig.
I came to agree with the right on economics because it’s an obvious truth to someone who thinks things through. I was not born into it.
I do tend to have some more liberal ideals though, surely you have seen them, but I cannot tolerate this nonsense from the left. It’s like they just want to kick common sense itself out of the party, and myself.
Bob – you well thought-out reply in this thread is appreciated and I am sincerely interested in your non-insulting and non-attacking reply to my follow-up questions here.
When trying to compare how past & current Presidents have affected the job market, there are only so many stat’s we can look at to try to identify their impact.
It would appear from your reply (I said “appear” – not putting words in your mouth, so please politely correct me if I’m wrong) that you do not agree looking at the overall number of jobs created and the percentage of jobs created is an ‘apples-to-apples’ comparison of how Presidents are impacting the job market due to various factors, such as recessions and interest rates.
So my questions to you are these …
Is there any metric(s) specific to job creation which you believe result in an accurate analysis of how a specific President impacted the job market?
What statistic(s) can we look at to say “based on all factors, this guy did good and this guy did not as good” in your opinion?
Or are you saying (again, not trying to put words in your mouth, so please politely correct me if I’m wrong) “there’s no number available to us that accurately compares Presidential job creation based on the various factors each person had to deal with in their own unique situation?
You got anything bob? You raised a valid point and I’d like to discuss it with you, but you seem to have gone somewhere else.
Scroll down to Texas / Southwest and read my comment about what probably was the real cause of the explosion.
Whereas I certainly agree stored grain (that is what you meant by “seed”, correct?) can generate hot spots and is therefore combustible, there was an investigation and this is what was reported:
“After conducting 400 interviews and lab work on evidence, investigators determined someone started the fire on purpose, officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said.”
Now, what is also reported is they never alerted Dept of Homeland Security about the amount of ammonium nitrate they had, as is required. We won’t write any new risk with ammonium nitrate. You still see quite a bit of it in KY, it is used for the tobacco farms.
Regulation is not a dirty word. These regulations were put in place because of a need for them. Risk prevention is what our industry does. Without rules and regulations the public would be in danger and more workers would die. Trump thinks appealing to his base is more important than common sense. He is a dangerous person for the insurance industry.
Regulation is not a dirty word.
But OVER-regulation is the cause of economic inefficiencies when it is applied blindly, for ‘regulation sake’, without studying the implications and consequences of enacting it in markets in equilibrium.
Regulatory actions should be restricted to those intended to protect consumers.
You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were put in place because of a “need” for them. You have no expertise in the industry and no background on the science.
The regulators are people too, many of whom go on to work for the very businesses they are supposed to be regulating. Who knows when a regulator pushes a new regulation in order to hurt certain competitors of a favored corporation, but it happens (who do you think provides a lot of the “research behind regulations? Corporations.)
Also, many regulators refuse to acknowledge the cost of the regulations they push; like you, they simply assume that any regulation is a good regulation. Very child like.
“You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were put in place because of a “need” for them. ”
Literally the subject of the article is major disasters with the loss of dozens or hundreds of lives happening as a result of corporate irresponsibility. That’s the exact situation that proves, beyond all others, that a regulation is needed. Identify what behaviours caused the disaster, and make them ****ing illegal so people don’t have to keep dying to the same behaviour repeated over and over.
“Also, many regulators refuse to acknowledge the cost of the regulations they push”
Literally the ENTIRE POINT of a regulation is that the cost doesn’t matter – because regulations are about saving lives, not making money. What is a regulation? It’s a law forcing a corporation to do something it would otherwise not do, because it’s cheaper not to do it. Why do we want this? Because corporations will always do the cheapest thing they can, even when that inevitably leads to people dying – as the cost in human lives is completely irrelevant to a capitalist, and it’s an externalised cost borne by the public and not by the corporation that caused it.
In other words, a CEO can pocket an extra few million dollars by skimping on safe procedures, and the public in no way benefits from this, while the public suffers the consequences of the decision to skimp on safety procedures, when people die, while the CEO faces no consequences. So the public does the only thing it can, uses its collective power known as government to force the CEO/corporation into line, into forcing them to do the thing that costs more money because doing so saves lives.
In other words, everyone knows that when regulations are implemented, it’s going to cost the corporation. That’s. The. Point. If it didn’t cost the corporation anything, they would’ve already been doing it in the first place, but they have to be forced into doing costly things by law for the sake of public safety. Again, a need which is made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR in the aftermath of a corporate-inflicted disaster. You can’t continue to say after the greatest oil spill in history that regulations to prevent it from happening again aren’t necessary.
Democratic regulations often go way beyond the scope of intentions and have cost corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and stymie growth of our economy. We have experienced tremendous growth in the past 3 years. It is up to Loss Control of the insurance industry to make sure of safety. Government screws up everything and OSHA is worthless. They don’t prevent anything from happening, just fine companies after the fact.
Really? Because a quick google search shows OSHA preventing hundreds if not thousands of worker injuries every day. I know you’d like to dismiss any democratic function with a wave of ignorance, but you don’t have the facts to back up the statement “OSHA is worthless”. Similarly your snide comments on democratic regulations are based on opinion, not reality, as most of your comments on this board. Despite the stunning wit on display with your regular line of commentary such as “vapers are dopers” and “they’ve got it coming” you don’t actually have knowledge based in reality, Agent.
We wouldn’t have the safety culture in the food and ag space if it weren’t for OSHA. There are many spouses who thank OSHA everyday for keeping their loved one safe at work. I am 30 hour certified myself and because of it, I have made our homes safer for our daughters. What’s next, Agent? Propane dealers don’t need CETP?
“Literally the ENTIRE POINT of a regulation is that the cost doesn’t matter – because regulations are about saving lives, not making money.”
So, in your mind, we should spend an unlimited amount of money in any situation where even one life could be saved. Classic Lefty, ignoring the truth that in a world of limited resources, decisions have to be made on how to allocate those resources.
Maybe you should be in charge of cost control for Medicare for All. “Who cares that the 90 year old person is dying of cancer, spend millions trying to save them! A life is at risk!”
You have no basis whatsoever for saying these regulations were REMOVED because of a “lack of need” for them. You have no expertise in the industry and no background on the science.
Who knows when a regulator pushes a regulation to be removed in order to pad their bottom line and hurt the consumer.
You simply assume that any regulation is a bad regulation. Very child like.
(a knife cuts both ways, ya know)
For the third time, see my very first post in this thread. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. You, Captain Planet, me . . none of us know what the regulation was about. That’s what I said to start this out. Not sure what your point is now (a common occurrence with you).
(Good enough A.S.?)
Any regulation pushed by leftists Progressive unelected bureaucrats is inherently bad. Glad the President did a lot of swamp draining at EPA already. Now, on to OSHA, the worthless safety regulator who does not much more than fine companies after the fact.
Craig,
The Department of Homeland Security generated these safety measures. A small amount of AN doesn’t need special storage. But, a large amount (I believe it is anything over 400 tons) does. The DHS needs to perform an inspection. They decide if the facilities are adequately equipped and will then provide a letter to be kept on that facility’s file. This agronomy facility in West Texas didn’t do that. This regulation absolutely needs to be in place. Ask anyone who writes agribusiness. Currently, there are agronomists trying to create a effective yet less explosive form of AN by mixing it with other compounds. They are finding it difficult to place insurance in the standard market with the AN exposure on their premises, even with the DHS letter signing off on the storage procedures.
Whatever. You did your research AFTER your original nasty comments, trying to back fill your original statements that were made in complete ignorance of the facts and issues.
Count me in the “not fooled” category. (False witness.)
“false claims” “”can’t back up” “data that refutes your claims” “stop responding” “troll” “right-wing dinosaurs” “loud angry” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
OK Boomer
You are lying to our fellow readers again. I used to write AN and am familiar with the exposure. I won’t write any new account with AN, though. I am interested in my KY opportunities once they figure out the less explosive solution. My research stems back many years, amigo. Please, stop projecting your own personal ignorance on this subject.
Okay “expert”. You made me laugh a least.
Certainly not a word I used to describe myself. I did say I am familiar with it as I wrote a number of accounts with the exposure. Glad I can put a smile on your face, Craig. From some of your posts, it sounds like you can use it.
Love how Andrew leaves up your post and takes down mine. I think I figured out the Civility Code for Insurance Journal: does Andrew agree with your politics?
Wow, no such thing as the First Amendment at Insurance Journal. Any snowflakes get their feelings hurt and that comment come crashing down.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that Insurance Journal, an industry periodical for a very conservative industry, has allowed their publication to be hijacked by liberals who work hard to expunge conservative views.
Must be time to start writing letters to the publisher first, then to others within and throughout the insurance industry.
This is our publication.
oh yeah? well that’s like, your opinion, man.
the dude abides
First Amendment rights are limited in scope (e.g. can’t yell “fire” in a movie theater) and applies to CONGRESS making laws limiting speech.
There’s no law that says a website must allow all speech even if it violates their terms and conditions, which Andrew has posted dozens of times so there should be no question what is and is not acceptable here.
I agree, but the above comment (starting with ‘Wow….’) has been twice deleted already. Go figure.
I can only guess it’s because (1) it’s not on-topic and (2) snowflake is a general put down for anyone that complains about any subject. I would imagine if the post was about regulations and didn’t use the derogatory “snowflake” term, it wouldn’t have been removed.