Home / General / More Continuity From the Second of America’s Two Interchangeable Neoliberal Parties

More Continuity From the Second of America’s Two Interchangeable Neoliberal Parties

Comments
/
/
/
883 Views

the-wolf-of-wall-street

Thankfully, the candidate of Goldman Sachs lost:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday will fire the opening salvo in his campaign to scale back major regulations that resulted from the financial crisis, directing a review of the Dodd-Frank Act and putting the brakes on a retirement advice rule.

The executive order Trump will sign on the 2010 Dodd-Frank law on Wall Street reform will be a first step towards rolling back the regulations that Trump sees as hurting the economy, but without rewriting the legislation, which can be done only through Congress. One prominent measure is the “Volcker rule” that greatly restricts how banks can make bets with their own money.

Expectations of simpler bank regulations helped push up stocks on Wall Street in early trading.

[…]

On Friday, the Republican-led Congress killed a Dodd-Frank regulation regarding payments that big energy companies make to foreign governments. Also, the House Financial Services Committee is working on a complete Dodd-Frank revamp.

[…]

The Labor Department’s retirement advice rule, set to take effect in April, is not part of the Dodd-Frank law, but has long been a thorn in the side of the financial services sector.

Issued by the Obama administration in 2016, the rule requires brokers to act as “fiduciaries,” or in their clients’ best interests, when they are advising them about their individual retirement accounts and 401K plans.

That is a departure from the current legal standard, which requires brokers only to recommend investments “suitable” to their clients.

Complying could cost firms as much as $31 billion over the next decade, according to Labor Department estimates.

Trump plans on Friday to issue a memo asking the Labor Department to determine whether the rule should be revised or be scrapped altogether, according to the White House.

“We think that they have exceeded their authority with this rule and we think this is something that is completely overreaching,” the official said.

Opponents of the rule argued it would raise costs and make small accounts unprofitable.

It’s far from the worst thing that will result from this election, but the fact that one of the first Republican policy moves is to restore the inalienable right of retirement savers to be ripped off by unscrupulous parasites is highly instructive. You also have to love the justification of the advisers — “there’s no money in acting in the interests of our customers!” Well, OK then.

Anyway, here’s some free advice for those lucky enough to have retirement savings: low-churn index fund, because paying people commissions for knowledge they don’t actually have and whose business model literally depends on not acting in your interest is a terrible idea. You’re welcome.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Gwen

    Glad the heavy hand of government will finally be off of stock brokers, so that they can once again exercise their god-given right to lie their asses off.

    • catclub

      So GS would be up 50% after the election of Hillary Clinton, rather than the measly 35% in three months after Trump’s.

  • El Guapo

    But I mean, at least Trump has good reasons for doing this:

    “We have some of the bankers here. There’s nobody better to tell me about Dodd-Frank than Jamie, so you’re going to tell me about it,” Trump said, referring to Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase CEO and leader of Trump’s business roundtable.

    “We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because frankly I have so many people, friends of mine, that have nice businesses and they can’t borrow money,” he continued. “They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank. So we’ll be talking about that in terms of the banking industry.”

    ETA: When he says no one is getting loans, he means Trump Enterprises isn’t getting loans.

    • Rob in CT

      Man, he’s sure sticking it to the elites.

    • Gwen

      “My friend, let’s call him Tonald Drump”

      • Rob in CT

        Mr. Miller, perhaps?

        • Lost Left Coaster

          Ha ha, my lord, there have been so many bizarre stories about Tangerine over the last couple of years that there is no way to keep them all in our daily consciousness. I had forgotten this. Yes, America, you elected a president who used to call people up and pretend to be his own public relations person.

          • When can we expect John Miller and John Barron to weigh in on the Bowling Green Massacre?

            • El Guapo

              They gave their lives there, you insensitive brute!

            • PeteW

              I saw thousands of Muslims celebrating that massacre!

          • …and then admitted to doing so on tape, and then later denied having done so despite the evidence of his recorded confession. If my mind’s not mixing up some of the details, anyway.

    • DrDick

      Cthulhu forbid that the government prevent fine upstanding capitalists from lying, cheating, stealing, maiming, and killing plebes at will!

  • Rob in CT

    In addition to the obvious,

    The Labor Department’s retirement advice rule, set to take effect in April, is not part of the Dodd-Frank law, but has long been a thorn in the side of the financial services sector.

    Issued by the Obama administration in 2016, the rule requires brokers to act as “fiduciaries,” or in their clients’ best interests, when they are advising them about their individual retirement accounts and 401K plans.

    That is a departure from the current legal standard, which requires brokers only to recommend investments “suitable” to their clients.

    Complying could cost firms as much as $31 billion over the next decade, according to Labor Department estimates.

    This is damning of the industry, if providing their clients with proper advice will cost them serious money. But we knew it was a hive of scum and villainy.

    • delazeur

      That doesn’t actually sound like very much to me. $3B per year, for the entire stockbroking industry?

      • Rob in CT

        Probably true.

      • Hogan

        What, you expect them to clean ALL the change out of their sofa cushions?

      • DAS

        Even still (and c.f. Scott Lemieux’s point below), what is the actual cost of this regulation? Is there paperwork to file (a broker spending < 15 minutes to fill out a form "costs" what broker could expect to earn in an hour of trading / 4)? Are there records to be kept and hence (possibly tax deductible) storage costs?

        I guess the figure may include the costs of defending against lawsuits: assume that someone is mad at their broker for losing all of their money and sues their broker. I imagine that with the current legal standard, most such cases would be thrown out rather quickly. However, with the fiduciary standard, a judge might not throw out such a lawsuit even if, in the end, the defendant easily wins the suit — the broker/brokerage house still have to pay the legal fees for their defense.

        • JKTH

          I’m guessing the cost also includes the amount they’ll be missing out on in fees by giving shitty advice. So that amount (plus however much greater a ROI the client gets) would show up as a benefit for clients.

        • DrDick

          Heaven forbid that we hold the financial industry accountable for their actions. Laws are only for the little people.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And I’m sure those estimates are totally reliable and not at all self-serving, because if you can’t trust a business that says it can’t remain profitable if it doesn’t rip people off, who can you trust really?

      • Rob in CT

        Labor Department estimates, it says though…

        • JKTH

          But the “as much as” is loaded. The default estimate they use in the final rule is $16B.

      • DAS

        I still sense a whiff of BS. As the saying goes, 63% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.

        • I question that. According to Abraham Lincoln, you should always be wary of comments you find on the internet.

    • sleepyirv

      Besides actual criminality, a lot of this is “ass-covering” fees. Settling legitimately frivolous lawsuits, paying over-priced lawyers to settle these frivolous lawsuits, creating a compliance system to show courts that they’re taking the law seriously, paying over-priced consultants to help on that compliance system, putting in a couple underpaid managers of that compliance system, and paying bonuses to executives for listening to the consultants on the compliance system.

      To big concerns, the world is filled with ambulance chasers who want to take all their money away for doing bad at all. The fact the actual costs is infinitesimal is less material how gosh-darn unjust it is that these people are taking their hard-earned bucks!

      • delazeur

        This is precisely it.

      • MacK

        WTF – seriously, are you that stupid!

        The amounts of money that the professional plaintiff firms took in SEC actions is dwarfed by the losses the taxpayer and public took from 2008, or the dot-com games. Who give a fiddlers- copulation if they were ambulance chasers. I remember the good old days when the CEOs of Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brothers would have been ****ing pauperised after their banks collapsed – instated they are now whining that they are just centimillionaires from their estates on Long Island.

        Are you so stupid you slip in your own drool?

        • sleepyirv

          I described the actual costs as being infinitesimal.

          I would ask you read what I fucking wrote before you start insulting me.

          I now wait for you to blame me for your inability to read two fucking paragraphs.

          • mds

            I used to be able to read two fucking paragraphs, but then sleepyirv sat on my reading glasses!

          • MacK

            have to say I misread what you wrote as an endorsement of a point of view rather than a critique of it …. but you might want to re-read what you wrote – it’s not clear that you don’t agree with the PoV you criticise.

            • sleepyirv

              I’ll tell you what, I’ll work on my editing skills and you work on your “not being a colossal asshole” skills.

              • MacK

                It goes with my big hands,

        • Colin Day

          centimillionaires

          I suspect you meant hectomillionaires. $10,000 won’t buy much an estate on Long Island.

        • Chetsky

          Whoa there, cowboy. I read [email protected]’s comment and thought “yep, yep”. He’s vicious in attacking those bankers. Makes it clear that the “cost” is just for the papier-mache facade of decency they’d have to rent to paper over their perfidy.

          • MacK

            Let me be clear – I had to defend against some of the securities class action plaintiffs counsel, and they were quite as unethical, self serving and unprincipled as their reputation made them out to be. The issue is that, in retrospect, you realise that they served a useful purpose. They were not that costly, and indeed even the in-house counsel benefited because CEO’s pay attention to the guy who keeps them out of jail or the poorhouse.

            The world today, where nearly no senior exec is even successfully sued makes it much much harder for in-house people to push their company to play by the rules. The MBAs know and have internalised that there really are no consequences for the most part.

    • Asteroid_Strike_Brexit

      The figure ignores the cost of shitty advice to consumers, which is likely to hugely exceed the cost to advisers. It’s akin to saying that banning shoplifting costs shoplifters $100 gazillion per year because they are not allowed to shoplift.

      • JKTH

        Right, the clients will benefit by much more than the supposed cost.

      • Chetsky

        Yabbut, Fidelity won’t be able to collect fees for churning their customers’ retirement funds! Unpossible!

    • addicted44

      I hope people realize that what this means is that by being forced to advise clients with client interests in mind costing the industry 31bn means that they are now unable to transfer 31bn from client pockets to their own, right?

  • Hayden Arse

    Prior to the election, I ranted about the horror that would result from a Trump presidency. In my heart I acknowledged that I was describing what I believed would be a “worst case scenario.” I am terrified that while I was correct generally, I was off by several orders of magnitude. This sucks for everyone whether they know it or not yet.

  • Real question is, when the next bank crash comes – and ooooh, boy, is it a comin’ – who takes the blame?

    • Mike G

      Inside the wingnut bubble it will be poor minorities and Barney Frank, just like the last one. And Obama and gay marriage, of course.

      The Republican Mantra: Nothing is ever the fault of the people with all the money and all the power who make all the decisions.

      • so-in-so

        Ding ding ding! the blah people, it’s always the blah people, and liburels.

        • osceola

          Not all of them, just That One that occupied the Oval Office before Dear Leader made the White House white again.

        • Domino

          Someone, somewhere, will come up with something being “the new CRA” and BAM! Immediately the fault of poor black and brown people for the collapse of trillions of dollars of wealth.

          • JKTH

            will come up with something

            Real or otherwise.

            • David Hunt

              The Bowling Green Bank Regulation Act.

      • alexceres

        Nope. Not nearly enough racism and fascism for this time around. Muslims, Mexicans, Jews and immigrants. We reprise Kristalnacht or the GOP is left a husk of smoking ruins.

        • Scott Lemieux

          “It was the result of an rootless international cabal of hooked-nose bankers. We are not anti-Semites, it’s just that all lives matter.” — Steve Bannon, 2019

      • The Lorax

        Steve Inskeep: “Some blame the repeal of Dodd-Frank. Others blame the CRA. Opinions differ. Now over to Cokie Roberts to hear about who’s up and who’s down in DC this week. This is NPR.”

      • rachelmap

        My financial advisor is suggesting I cash out of a 10-year annuity that he got me into 9 years ago because the he thinks he can get a better return on the market now that the surrender charges are expired. I confess to feeling skeptical…

    • Rob in CT

      The problem, I think, is that the crash could take ~10 years to develop, like the last one did.

      The financial panic of ’08 had roots that went back to… oh, say, 2000. The decision not to regulate derivatives. Repeal of Glass-Steagal. There was some stuff that was more recent, but to me those are key decisions.

      So. While I think it’s entirely possible – likely even – that we might have a recession sometime during Trumps (first? gah) term, I rather doubt we’ll see a banking crisis that quickly.

      It takes time for the rot to set in. By the time it comes crashing down, there might be a Democrat in the WH to take the blame for it.

      • so-in-so

        Maybe right, but considering the rot that never got cut out last time, the increasing greed of the banksters and the resurgent GOP cutting away all the supports, it could come a lot quicker than you think.

        Gotta make sure to get as much money as you can before some damn Democrat get’s elected! Or they remember tumbrels, which ever

      • Mike G

        That’s what they’re counting on. It’s the MBA con-artist mentality of “I don’t care if this destroys the company in ten years, I’ll be gone by then; I want this quarter’s profits to look good.”

        • DAS

          And running government like a business is such a wise idea …

          • liberalrob

            I guess they never did say what kind of business they’d run it like…or that it would be a successful business…

            • Lurking Canadian

              A protection racket is a kind of business…

            • postmodulator

              Comcast customer service is a business.

              • Phil Perspective

                You do realize that one of Comcast’s top executives used to be Ed Rendell’s CoS, and also a big bundler for Democrats, right?

                • (((Malaclypse)))

                  Which makes him more liberal than, well, you.

                • Chetsky

                  Nuh uh! Nuh uh! He’s not in my Purity Pony Leftist Party! Only true-blue leftists who’ve never had a conservative thought in their lives, and who refuse to compromise even one IOTA are in my party! We’re having a meeting with Binky the bunny rabbit, Squeaky the pig, and quack-quack my rubber ducky. And you’re invited, Phil!

                • Rob in CT

                  What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

                • Hogan

                  “Mean”? Phil’s an ideological vending machine. Put in the coin marked “Comcast,” and this is what comes down the chute.

                • liberalrob

                  one of Comcast’s top executives used to be Ed Rendell’s CoS

                  Dark Helmet: I am your father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.

                  Lone Star: So what does that make us?

                  Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing.

      • MacK

        A bit earlier than 2000. It goes back to the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) – which I actually though wasn’t a bad idea – reining in the professional plaintiffs and the securities class action firms that fell on companies the moment they announced anything amiss.

        The problem was that the disease was not as bad as the cure. Much was made of the abuses – but it had an advantage, it made CEO’s listen to their lawyers, it made bankers careful – it kept them in a suitable state of concern about not beings sen to rip shareholders off.

        • Rob in CT

          That’s one I hadn’t heard of before.

          • liberalrob

            Just like “tort reform” is all about reining in all those frivolous lawsuits ginned up by “trial lawyers” claiming big contingent fees from suing corporations. Unsaid is what those lawsuits are about, which includes lawsuits about corporate negligence and/or malicious behavior as much as suing over getting burned by hot coffee.

            • rhino

              Are you familiar with the Hot Coffee case you’re blithely giving as an example of frivolous litigation?

              I suspect not. The facts of the case are extremely damning to McDonalds.

              • liberalrob

                I was thinking more of the way it sounds. At first glance it would seem to most people that suing McDonalds because their coffee was hot is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. The point being, while the surface justification for “tort reform” is to eliminate such “frivolous” lawsuits, in effect the “reform” would go much deeper and have much more impact; all manner of lawsuits could be precluded, not just those that seem frivolous. Corporations would lose the incentive to abide by regulations if the threat of big judgements against them for violations was removed or restricted. I was trying to point out that similarity.

    • Timurid

      A depression is probably their best route to a tanks in the streets State of Emergency and the consolidation of authoritarian rule.

      If they’re waiting for the mental giants leading Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. to pull their heads out of their asses and launch a major attack inside the US… they’ll probably be waiting for a long time. If they try some crazy false flag op, they will without a doubt fuck it up.

      But an economic disaster can be engineered with minimal outside help and using mostly (technically) legal methods.

    • catclub

      Financial version of “Our long nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally at an end.”

      Dangerous stability threat is ended.

  • Rob in CT

    By the way, seriously, what IS the argument from the Not A Dime’s Worth of Difference set about something like this?

    That Dodd-Frank was a nothing-burger anyway so whatever?

    • so-in-so

      Her speeches, so OBVIOUSLY she would have done the same things, only worse… hey, I see a pony over there!

      • humanoid.panda

        Matt Stoler, the guy who was peddling this shit as far back as Romney-Obama, says we all misundertand. It’s not they insisted that Obama/Clinton are the same as Romney/Trump- it’s that Obama/Clinton caused Trump by not nationalizing the banks.

        • Scott Lemieux

          The fact that Stoller argued that Romney might be more liberal than Obama — indeed, he might have nominated another William Brennan to the Supreme Court instead of a reactionary like Sonia Sotomayor — is surely central to his point.

          • humanoid.panda

            Between this stuff and the Iran threats, it’s really tempting to punch some of these people.

            • humanoid.panda

              Then again, since Romney was clearly never going to invade Mexico or cause a major crisis with Australia, Stoller is vindicated, in that in some ways, he and Obama were exactly the same!

              • Scott Lemieux

                Stoller is apparently trying to rehabilitate himself by sounding more reasonable, but the stuff he wrote in 2012 was just astoundingly stupid. Like, H.A. Brogan Bragman stupid.

                • humanoid.panda

                  I think substantially, he does have a point, in that Obama did mess up, politically and substantially, by not grabbing the populist mantle before it was seized by the right. On the other hand, neither him or me were the president faced with possibility of the entire financial plumbing that holds the world together melts away.

                • I think this underestimates how well the republicans managed to hold both ends of the garrote–on the one hand, they had the TEA party and Trump as a “populist” (scare quotes my own) on the other hand, they accused the Democrats of “hating rich people” and being “filled with envy” and restraining the rights of the workers for the benefit of “fat union guys” and lazy black people. The populist shtick never, ever, encompassed both the white working class and the obama coalition and the republicans were very, very, skilled at keeping up the propaganda on this point.

                • humanoid.panda

                  I think this underestimates how well the republicans managed to hold both ends of the garrote–on the one hand, they had the TEA party and Trump as a “populist” (scare quotes my own) on the other hand, they accused the Democrats of “hating rich people” and being “filled with envy” and restraining the rights of the workers for the benefit of “fat union guys” and lazy black people

                  In some way, I think the major error the Dems made was even before Obama got elected, by not demanding that the bailout will be accompanied by massive writedowns. That error let the GOP hold both sides of the stick. But again, it’s easy to argue about this stuff in retrospect.

                • Phil Perspective

                  You’re an idiot. Did you see his “discussion” today on Twitter with Mike Grunwald? Probably not because you’d rather get high on your own supply of bullcrap.

                • Phil Perspective

                  I think this underestimates how well the republicans managed to hold both ends of the garrote–on the one hand, they had the TEA party and Trump as a “populist” (scare quotes my own) on the other hand, they accused the Democrats of “hating rich people” and being “filled with envy” and restraining the rights of the workers for the benefit of “fat union guys” and lazy black people.

                  The GOP always does that. If you’re going to let the GOP dictate terms even when you have large Congressional majorities, then Democrats are screwed forever. The point Stoller, and others, make is that there was stuff Obama could have done independently of Congress re: the foreclosure crisis and they didn’t do it. Have you read David Dayen’s(aka D-day from Digby’s blog) book?

                • Scott Lemieux

                  The Obama administration should have prosecuted more bankers, although whether this would have made a difference in 2016 is questionable.

                  But the bigger flaw is the idea that the “populist mantle” among marginal voters can 1)belong exclusively to one party and 2)is related to substantive policy accomplishments. Both assumptions strike me as obviously false.

            • rachelmap

              There are individuals in this group to whom I would happily give the cut direct.

          • Rob in CT

            rea says:

            September 7, 2012 at 10:57 am

            The Stoller syllogism:

            All politicians are liars.
            Obama and Romney are politicians.
            Obama claims to be a liberal, while Romney claims to be a rightwinger.

            Therefore, a President Romney would govern to the left of President Obama.

            rea, FTW.

            • Scott Lemieux

              That was a great thread.

              • DamnYankees

                I’m reading it now for the first time – I only became a reader in the past year. The best part of that thread are the anti-Obama purity ponies who are calling him a neoliberal shill, unlike that true progressive, the Clintons! Bill and Hillary would have totally prosecuted the bankers and the torturers.

                My god.

                • The Lorax

                  Stoller was making the case against sellout Obama in the spring of 2009.

                • Scott Lemieux

                  The Naked Capitalism people spent 4 years arguing that Hillary Clinton was Eugene Debs, and then 4 years arguing that she was more right-wing than Marco Rubio. It was amazing to watch.

          • Rob in CT

            Oh my! McManus showed up in that thread!

            • EliHawk

              bob mcmanus says:
              September 7, 2012 at 11:59 am
              “You want Obama…”

              Yes to the above questions in paragraph one. But I would prefer him to do it after he wins re-election. If he had done it in 2011 or earlier, I’d vote for him.

              How do you persuade John Boehner? How bout a million people outside his home?

              Obama could do it in a heartbeat. And this is what was discussed in the most recent “bully pulpit” thread, using charisma and leadership to mobilize your supporters. It just needs to be taken far enough to either get the results we want, or a clarification of the situation.

              Are you sure McManus is a real person, and Bernie Sanders wasn’t just blogging under a pseudonym? Because that’s literally his entire theory of change, via a vis Mitch McConnell, that we heard 9,000 times last year.

              • DamnYankees

                I always wonder, when people pose ideas like this – if one million conservatives showed up outside of Bernie Sanders’ home, would Bernie start voting to ban abortion? Would that be a good idea? Are his principles so malleable that the active protest of less than 1% of America would make him change his mind on important issues?

                • humanoid.panda

                  The biggest problem liberals have is understanding that conservatives are just motivated by money (see under: so many liberals who are convinced that NRA money- and not the millions of people it has to make calls – is why the GOP hates gun regulations).

                • DamnYankees

                  The biggest problem liberals have is understanding that conservatives are just motivated by money (see under: so many liberals who are convinced that NRA money- and not the millions of people it has to make calls – is why the GOP hates gun regulations).

                  I presume you mean that too many liberals think conservatives are only motivated by money? I agree with that. It was my biggest critique of Bernie. The idea that all opposition is just corruption, as opposed to genuine disagreement.

              • econoclast

                McManus is a blog commenting section institution. He’s been around since 2002.

            • Domino

              Part of me misses Data Tunashinka (or whatever the latter name was) with their bizarre, nonsensical posts.

        • Hob

          Could someone point me toward an instance of Stoller saying anything halfway intelligent? My limited reading of him has all been terrible… and I recently encountered a person on the Internet who I’d really like to think is not an idiot (I just enjoy their writing) but who likes to tell people to read Matt Stoller to understand what’s really going on.

          • liberalrob

            This is not a Stoller-friendly venue, as he has been critical of President Obama; so what you see and hear of him here is uniformly going to be cast in the worst light possible. I would suggest you would be better served doing your own research, finding things written by Stoller and reading them yourself. Then decide if he’s ever said “anything halfway intelligent.”

            One such place: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/author/matt-stoller

            Another: Matt Stoller articles at Salon

            The same holds true for Glenn Greenwald.

            • Scott Lemieux

              This is not a Stoller-friendly venue, as he has been critical of President Obama

              Clearly, the only reason to criticize someone who thinks it’s plausible that Mitt Romney’s Supreme Court nominations would be more liberal than Sonia Sotomayor is because he is critical of Barack Obama. I can’t possibly think of another reason.

              • liberalrob

                I’m sure you have many reasons to criticize Stoller, just as you have many reasons to criticize Greenwald. I didn’t say anything about that. I merely pointed out that it’s unlikely anyone would post anything positive about Stoller.

                • Hogan

                  This is not a Stoller-friendly venue, as he has been critical of President Obama

                  I’m sure you have many reasons to criticize Stoller, just as you have many reasons to criticize Greenwald. I didn’t say anything about that.

                  Kellyanne, is that you?

                • liberalrob

                  Sigh. I guess I should have said “he has been critical of President Obama in multiple ways Lemieux objected to, among which were X, Y, and who could forget the lambasting Lemieux gave him over Z.”

                  I didn’t expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition…

            • Hob

              No offense, but pointing me to a list of everything he’s ever written is not really answering my question (not to mention that it’s incredibly condescending – you’re basically assuming that I have no idea how to use the Internet at all).

              If you feel that you’re the lone appreciator of Stoller and that everyone else here is giving him a bad rap, it seems plausible to me that you might in fact be able to help out by recommending some piece of his that you think is good. And if you can’t be bothered to do that, oh well.

              What you did is the equivalent of answering someone who said “I don’t get why people like Woody Allen so much, maybe I just had bad luck with him – tell me your favorite movie of his that you think shows off his good points” by pointing them to his page on IMDB.

              • Hob

                No, you know what, forget it. You completely lost me with the “No one on LGM will ever say anything positive about someone who criticized Obama” bullshit – I’ve been reading here long enough to know that that isn’t true, and I’m sure you know it too. So I don’t really care what you think is a good argument.

                • liberalrob

                  I wasn’t making an argument. And I have no idea what research capabilities you do or don’t have. I assumed, since you asked, that you were not familiar with anything Stoller had written that was not commented upon (negatively, as it would be) here; so I pointed you to a couple of places you could find such. I guess I misunderstood your statement to be a request rather than a rhetorical device. Sorry.

                  You completely lost me with the “No one on LGM will ever say anything positive about someone who criticized Obama” bullshit – I’ve been reading here long enough to know that that isn’t true

                  I guess I missed out on the massive volumes of Stoller-positive commentary here, then.

        • Sev

          Well, forgive me, but though I wouldn’t agree with the cartoon version of this argument, I do think stronger action, possibly including temporary nationalisation of some, far more aggressive action re housing/foreclosure and so on, very likely would have left us in a different and better place. Besides the purely economic aspects there was a real need for public catharsis. This in response to hp

          • Hob

            I think what people are derisively reacting to here isn’t so much Stoller’s broader argument that a stronger government hand in the financial industry would’ve been a good thing, but his current claim that that’s all he was really talking about in 2012 when he kept saying that Obama and Romney were literally indistinguishable policy-wise. If the financial argument is arguably reasonable (in a non-cartoon version), that’s why it is a sleazy move for Stoller to conflate it with the ridiculous shit he was actually saying in 2012.

            • Rob in CT

              Right.

              I too think that Dems being more aggressive in 2009 would have been better both politically and substantively.

              But this Clinton, Trump, whatever bullshit is another thing entirely.

        • EliHawk

          Looking back, the fact that Sanders hired him was indicative of both their myopia re: progressive accomplishments in the Obama era.

          • liberalrob

            Or maybe it was indicative of their desire to do more.

      • Scott Lemieux
        • humanoid.panda

          I don’t know if you want to do a post on this, but someone should really adress the fact that Negri and Hardt’s Empire is the most ruinous book of the 21st century, in that it gave a lot of half-educate auto-didacts like Assange the PROOF that all liberal institutions were keeping them down.

          • Scott Lemieux

            Yeah, it’s not an accident that anarchobro libertarians found that book useful.

            • postmodulator

              Oddly, Wikileaks just did a dump regarding LePen’s opponent.

              Is anyone else losing their faith in coincidence?

              • humanoid.panda

                That Fillon thing is interesting, because he is no less pro-Putin than Le Pen. And anyway, it seems he is going down due to corruption charges. Which means there will be a center-left candidate in second round. Which is when the fun really begins.

                • mds

                  Yeah, despite the fact that my optimism should be well and truly buried by now, I’m guardedly optimistic that this will help the left more than it helps Le Pen. I mean, why waste time supporting a Thatcherite like Fillon in the first place if you were Le Pen-curious? I’d think you’d be likelier to break towards Macron than the opposite. Especially given how the majority have always managed to stop the Le Pens in the second round.

                  Anyway, if I’m wrong about this and it turns out to be Le Pen’s hour come round at last, I will personally eat a bug decide that the modern liberal democratic order is well and truly fucked. And if I’m right about this, I’ll have another chance during the German election.

                • CP

                  I’d like to hope so.

                  If it’s center-left versus FN, I honestly don’t know what happens. I’d love to believe that it’ll be 2002 all over again, but as Brexit and Trump demonstrate, it may not be wise to count on that kind of thing anymore. And I seem to recall a poll from 2012 showing that given the choice, most UMP voters, in the best tradition of those German and Italian elites from the inter-war era, preferred an alliance with the fascists to one with the moderate left.

                • humanoid.panda

                  So far, at least, it seems that votes sliding off Fillon are going to Macron, and I presume that unlike the #Nevertrump crowd, Fillon would endorse Macron in the general. There is also the anti-Trump factor to consider, and I suspect it will become a card in European political games.

                  Then again: who the hell knows.

                • econoclast

                  Everything is breaking right for Macron, so I feel guardedly optimistic. According to polls, either Macron or Fillon double LePen’s vote, so it’s hard to believe LePen is going to win in the second round, no matter what. But I think Russian intelligence has the subsidiary goal of discrediting democratic institutions in the West, and not just winning with their puppets.

              • Rob in CT

                Anything on Trump from them yet?

              • The Lorax

                But information wants to be freeeeee!

          • Turkle

            I found that book utterly revolting. I wish I had it here, I’d love to pull it off my bookshelf – I have all these notes scribbled in the margins, like “ARE YOU KIDDING ME???” and “This is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever read.”

      • Dilan Esper

        Her speeches definitely do not prove that she would do the same thing. The Democrats have always been better than the Republicans on financial regulation, dating all the way back to the 19th Century.

        At the same time, this sort of thing demonstrates just what an unforced political error the speeches were. If you are a Democrat thinking of running for President, and someone from Goldman Sachs or another gigantic financial firm offers you money, the correct answer is “no”.

    • Scott Lemieux

      That Dodd-Frank was a nothing-burger anyway so whatever?

      Pretty much. Obama didn’t nationalize the entire banking sector and didn’t give a speech welcoming the hatred of the banking industry which led to a wave of progressive legislation in 1937 and the defeat of Dixiecrats in 1938, so really both parties are the same — indeed, the Democrats are the more dangerous evil. Watch the Terminator and it will all make sense.

      • D.N. Nation

        Can these types get their story straight wrt hacky pop culture references? Amanda Marcotte referencing Harry Potter is Why Trump Won, but this flopsweaty insight is supposed to be useful? Connor, if I wanted to read Jonah Goldberg, I’d just read Jonah Goldberg.

        Anyway, speaking of traveling back in time, and because we’re talking about Stoller, never forget this nice spoonful of dry-aged Miracle Whip: https://web.archive.org/web/20120116024803/http://www.openleft.com/diary/1307/ But remember, only center-liberal pundits, particularly black ones, need to openly eat shit for prognostication failure.

        • Scott Lemieux

          The gender composition of the audience is a good indicator for which culture references are proper socialism and which ones are neoliberalism that are directly responsible for Donald Trump.

          • Hogan

            Lena Dunham! Slowly I turn . . . step . . . by step . . . inch . . . by inch . . .

      • so-in-so

        Oh look, we don’t have to guess! Our favorite leftier-than chimes in down thread…

    • wjts

      Obama didn’t put all the banksters in jail and anything that isn’t that is functionally indistinguishable from anything else that isn’t that, I believe.

      • tsam

        God you’re good at this.

      • This is how you make a revolution. You lump all your enemies together. And then you lump the allies you disagree with together with them too. This makes them easier to defeat.

    • tsam

      That Dodd-Frank was a nothing-burger anyway so whatever?

      I know there was plenty of that at the time the legislation was moving through Congress, along with some highly accurate statements about Chris Dodd, who was obviously a Wall Street Manchurian Candidate, and of course the super relevant comments about Frank’s orientation.

      It was all very informative.

  • Mike G

    On Friday, the Republican-led Congress killed a Dodd-Frank regulation regarding payments that big energy companies make to foreign governments.

    Just watch, this is just a warmup for killing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that criminalizes US corporations paying bribes overseas. This has been a thorn in the side of corrupt American companies for a long time. “The swamp” is going to look like the Amazon Basin when Manhattan Mugabe is done.

    • Manhattan Mugabe

      Stealing this.

      • Rob in CT

        That’s a keepah!

      • Mike G

        Manhattan Mobutu works also as a corrupt kleptocrat clown reference, but Mugabe is probably better known.

        • CP

          I suppose that makes sense. Mobutu was on our side, after all.

    • Sentient AI from the Future

      Speaking of the FCPA, could Drumpf prospectively pardon a corporate-person (like say, exxon-mobil) for this in the way that Nixon was pardoned to pre-empt prosecution?

  • Little Chak

    And stocks go up as the vultures salivate over the prospect of once again hawking junk loans to poor people and desperate small business owners, and then trotting out another Pete Santilli to blame the inevitable crash on the blahs.

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

  • Denverite

    Anyway, here’s some free advice for those lucky enough to have retirement savings: low-churn index fund, because paying people commissions for knowledge they don’t actually have and whose business model literally depends on not acting in your interest is a terrible idea. You’re welcome.

    Two other pieces of advice:

    (1) Throw away your statements without looking at them. Or at least have someone who isn’t you look to make sure you’re not getting ripped off by surprise fees or whatnot (which you won’t be if it’s a legitimate index fund operation like Vanguard).

    (2) Once you hit about 50, go talk to an investment advisor for the sole purpose of structuring your investments to completely transition into a low-risk portfolio by the time you’re 60.

    • lizzie

      OK, I’m embarrassed to ask this since the impact on my own personal financial situation is, like, the least important consequence of the Trump presidency. But I’m going to do it anyway.

      For the last five years or so I have ramped up my savings and tried to live very frugally, with the goal of becoming financially independent before normal retirement age. And now I’m afraid that all of my investments (Vanguard plus where we have our retirement accounts for work) are going to be vaporized by whatever terrible damage Trump can do to the economy and the entire world order. So, I mean, while your advice makes sense in a normal world, what I actually want to know is should I take everything and put it in a fire proof safe. Or just start spending like mad because life is really going to be too short.

      • humanoid.panda

        You definitely don’t want to put in a fire-proof safe, because if Republicans go full W, we might actually have some inflation. I’d think about putting stuff in Japanese/German bonds if your goal is safety. And, funny to say,some gold as hedge.

      • Rob in CT

        I’d caution you against thinking that everything is going to implode tomorrow, just because idiotic arsonists are running the Federal government now.

        Reasons: 1) it will take some time for the awful shit they’re going to take effect and do harm; 2) in the short-to-medium term, the market is probably going to love this shit (long-term is a different story); and 3) powerful as the government is, it is not the sole driver of economic trends.

        So you could very well find yourself pulling your money out and then seeing irrational exuberance push the market up up up (before finally crashing & burning).

        I think it makes sense to do some hedging – if you have just about everything in stocks (like me), you might consider selling some and switching to less risky investments. But cashing out is… questionable.

        And if a crash does come, don’t panic! Hold on and wait.

        • Rob in CT

          Missed the edit window: I want to agree with Denverite that I’m not a pro and you should keep that in mind. I am, in fact, a mediocre investor. Neither particularly good nor particularly bad at it. I’m pretty good at saving, though that’s mostly because I’m a lucky shit with nice income.

          Basically I think don’t do anything drastic in response to politically upsetting things is good advice.

        • alexceres

          What Rob said. The world will keep on spinning, until it doesn’t, and the capacity for the market to remain irrational greatly exceeds yours to remain solvent. Don’t fight the market until you see the whites of the crash’s eyes.

          Also if we reprise the 2000 or 2008 crash, there will be a lot of counterparts risk and de-leveraging in all asset classes. Tough times for not-professionals to manage. Bonds and cash will do better, and you might start slowly transition to bonds and inflation indexed bonds when it becomes time to further diversify as you get closer to retirement.

          If things get “Trump starts a major war” bad, then it doesn’t matter. The only investments worth having will be bullets and butter. Trying to hedge that risk will have hugely negative consequences to your investments.

          If I had to take a WAG, it’s that the market will eventually see a lot of volatility thanks to Trump incompetence, insane geopolitical policies and trade disruption, and own personal volatility / mental delusions. Remaining calm and having a little extra cash to buy low if you can afford to is likely to be wise. If you can’t, then a mix of index funds, index bond funds, inflation adjusted bonds and cash is probably the best you can do under the circumstances. YMMV, I do not have any fiduciary responsibility, this advice worth what you paid for which makes it higher quality than most ;-)

          • Rob in CT

            Remaining calm and having a little extra cash to buy low if you can afford to is likely to be wise.

            Well, we’re either great minds thinking alike or mediocre ones…

            I’ve had a chunk of cash sitting in reserve waiting for a buy-low opportunity for some time (cue the violin). Up, up, up…

          • guthrie

            I’m afraid don’t fight the market until you see the whites of the crashes eyes is what a lot of people tried to do in the past, didn’t work.

            Instead, you’d save yoruself a lot of mental wear and tear by deciding what sort of return you consider necessary, and roughly how long it will take to achieve, and then wait as near as possible to this result, and then get the fuck out of it when you reach it.

            The advice to put into other foreign places is sensible, but Japan has a crazy finance system right now, so I wouldn’t think it great. I am not a professional etc.

            • Rob in CT

              Well yeah, you can’t “time” the market and sell high (well, you can, but it’s almost assuredly just luck if you pull it off. You, me, etc are NOT going to pull it off).

              So there’s absolutely sense in shifting bit by bit to safer investments. But freaking out and cashing out now is a bad idea, as is going ultrasafe at age 60 (though the second one is a less bad idea!).

        • JustRuss

          I don’t know. The elites are already signaling that they prefer stability and predictability, I could see Trump’s insanity pushing them out of the stock market into less risky areas. I think we’re already on something of a bubble, so it wouldn’t take too much to cause a significant dip.

          Disclaimer: Totally spitballing here.

          • Mike G

            Foreigners who invest heavily in the US can’t be thrilled with Kim Jong Orange’s wild-ass xenophobic moves and atmosphere of uncertainty, wondering if their investment will be the next to suffer some capricious restriction.

            And get out of anything that relies on foreign tourists visiting the US. I suspect they will be staying home in droves, even more so than in the Bush years.

            • guthrie

              Most tourists won’t be turned back at the border, but the increased chances of it and bad press will surely have an effect.

      • Denverite

        First, obligatory “I am not a professional.” Pay less attention to me than you usually do on this.

        Second, I have no idea. The knows-just-enough-to-be-dangerous-but-not-enough-to-know-anything-valuable part of me guesses that the next several years is going to be one with super high volatility. You’re going to see the markets go way up and way down. Probably even normally stable investments like treasuries, as swings down send money that way, and then Trumpian threats to default send rates skyrocketing. In such an environment, a straddling approach is the best bet. I assume that index funds exist that involves a healthy amount of this, but I haven’t looked into it.

      • Gregor Sansa

        Disclaimer: not an expert.

        The problem with Trump is, nobody knows what he’s going to do. He’s said things that could lead to a strong dollar, and things that could lead to a weak dollar. He’s said things that could blow up the US economy, and things that could blow up the world economy. So the ideal position is to be balanced between stocks and bonds, domestic and foreign. And, as things change, keep rebalancing, because you don’t want your gains to pop in a bubble.

        I’d guess that if your horizon is over 10 years, you should be around 30% foreign bonds (safe stuff; Japan, Germany, Canada…); 20% US bonds; 30% US stocks (socially responsible non-petro subset of S&P 500); and 20% foreign stocks (cheapest index you can find, split 50/50 between developed and developing world).

        If the time horizon is under 10 years, I’d go heavier on domestic stuff, just because you’d rather fail conventionally than fail exceptionally.

        But I don’t really know that much about this stuff.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          50% in bonds for an over 10-year horizon seems awfully conservative to me. I’m pretty sure that Vanguard’s targeted retirement age funds don’t get to 50% in bonds until only a few years before the target dates, but maybe I’m misremembering.

          • Rob in CT

            I think you’re remembering right.

            ETA: Vanguard Target 2020 has about 40% in bonds and 2.5% in cash.

            2025 has about 33% bonds and 2% cash.

            2030 has 26%, 2%

      • Chetsky

        Re: fireproof safe and other “it’s burnin’ down” worries, one thing I remind myself of is: a lotta Americans rely on modern medical care. To paraphrase Charlie Stross (?) it takes about 100m people to run a modern American economy, just to -make- everything. So …. well, if we really do have a crazy collapse, I think money will be the least of your concerns.

        Next, echoing what others are saying downthread, the real question is whether you can weather a downturn. B/c again, if you plan to live in America, and you’re thinking “how can I plan against the collapse of the American economy” (which is what we really mean when we say “the stock market tanks and never recovers”), that’s (again) pretty unrealistic. If you really believed that, time to move to … (?) Iceland? Sheep!

        And last, as someone said downthread, what’s left is “timing the market”. Can you outlast a downturn? I also have lived frugally, saved a lot, and worry about downturns. So I try to keep a few years’ savings in liquid form, that won’t lose value if all the markets tank. It helps to be frugal, to be able to do that.

      • Chetsky

        Anybody read mr money mustache ? Not a scam (at least, when I read it a year ago). Rather, concrete suggestions for how to save money while not living like a pauper. E.g. “ride a bike, don’t drive a car”.

        • lizzie

          Funnily enough, that’s where I first got the idea to work towards financial independence. I found my way there from a link someone posted here to his amusing post about “clown cars” and biking.

          But the commentariat there is dreadful (lots of techy/engineering glibertarian dudebros), and mr money mustache himself has some very serious privilege issues. Like, he recommends paying no attention at all to current events or the news, because that will just raise your blood pressure, and he has no conception at all that that is an incredibly privileged position to take. Much of what he writes boils down to “stop whining,” which is fine in some respects, but when he’s addressing it to, say, a woman who says she doesn’t feel safe biking home after work, not so much. So I kind of soured on that site.

          It helps if you think of his intended audience as people who make good money but have allowed their lifestyles to get inflated so they feel like they’re struggling even though objectively speaking they’re better off than most people.

    • Rob in CT

      Adding to this: when people talk about low-fee index funds, we’re talking about funds with net expense ratios like .05%-.1%. International funds can cost a bit more, but if you’re paying >.1% expense ratio for a domestic index fund, you’re almost certainly paying too much.

      Denverite is right about transitioning later on. There are funds that do this automatically, too. Though I’m not sure that at 60 you necessarily want to be in super safe stuff. You are hopefully thinking about living for another 20-30 years at that point, so it might make sense to still have some money in riskier stuff at 60. Obviously it depends on how much other safe (or, in this era “safe”) stuff you have to depend on, like SS or pension.

    • Srsly Dad Y

      by the time you’re 60

      If, for you, this is about 5 years from retirement. YMMV. By “low-risk” I assume you mean low volatility. A fixed-income-heavy portfolio at 60 could leave you a high risk of outliving your money. There are risks in all directions, you can only select among them.

      I recommend perusing the Irrelevant Investor and Reformed Broker blogs on the topic of risk.

      • Denverite

        Yes, I’m assuming retiring around 65. I’m also assuming that you probably do something else once you retire (an annuity or whatnot), not that you just draw down on a low-risk retirement fund.

        • Hogan

          Or 66-67 if you’re one of the lucky ducks born after 1943.

          • Rob in CT

            Right.

            My concern would be that even if you *are* retiring soon, your retirement will hopefully last 20+ years. Plus you might want to leave something to your kids or other relations or friends or charity, etc.

            So sticking everything in super low-risk/low-return stuff at age 60 might not work out very well.

    • Mac the Knife

      (1) Throw away your statements without looking at them.

      You meant for that to be prefaced by “don’t”, right?

      • humanoid.panda

        No- he meant throw the away. You don’t want to get spooked by short term variance.

      • sibusisodan

        I think what Denverite means is ‘don’t look at the statements in case you’re tempted to make knee jerk buy/sell decisions.’ This is a long term plan, after all.

      • Srsly Dad Y

        I thought Denverite meant don’t look at your balances, because you may be tempted to Do Something, when doing nothing is usually the correct way to manage retirement investments.

        • Denverite

          Yes this and all of the above. You don’t want to know your quarter-by-quarter balance.

      • Mac the Knife

        Ah! The next sentence had me thinking about this in terms of making sure you’re looking at the fees, but this makes sense.

        Sorry for any confusion I caused!

    • Tony Pius

      Seconded.

      This turn of events is infuriating for me *because* I’m in the business of providing low-risk (boring!) investment advice to retirees. My entire book of business is already on a fiduciary standard. I wanted the rest of the industry to either catch up or get out. Goddammit.

      • Srsly Dad Y

        Thank you for doing what you do!

    • dogboy

      There’s always the Richard Price Clockers strategy.

      Always remember to save for bail.

    • catclub

      Once you hit about 50, go talk to an investment advisor for the sole purpose of structuring your investments to completely transition into a low-risk portfolio by the time you’re 60.

      This is the secret to being broke if you live to 90. Ultrasafe investments that do not grow if/when there is any inflation.

      At 60 you may still have 30+ years of investing.

      Social security and any pension income should be treated as the bond ( safe) portion of one’s investments.

      • Crusty

        What’s pension income?

        • Linnaeus

          Hell, I’m still figuring out what retirement is.

    • econoclast

      Bonds are not a good choice — right now bond prices are pretty close to the maximum possible value, and can only go down.

  • FFFFFFIIII
  • Slothrop2

    She would have done the same thing. She would not revive Glass-Steagall. She owed too much to-Wall Street.

    Probably Donald Trump will learn to toe the line.

    • Yes, not reviving all Depression-era regulations is surely exactly the same as slashing some of the ones we still do have. Rarely have I seen a comment on this blog so self-refuting, or that typifies the kind of hackishness Scott talks about so well.

      • rea

        Rarely have I seen a comment on this blog so self-refuting, or that typifies the kind of hackishness Scott talks about so well

        You must generally (wisely) avoid reading Slothrop2’s comments, then.

        • I’ve read quite a few of them, but this is self-refuting even by his standards.

    • Rob in CT

      You’re a fucking moron (although narrowly correct because the GOP holding the House would’ve been enough to stymie any further reforms).

      • NoMoreAltCenter

        I mean…we would have seen gridlock, probably wouldn’t have gotten any justices, and the GOP would have made even more gains in statehouses.

        We would have had Ted Cruz with the ability to rewrite the Constitution at will. That is my perfect vision of a hellscape

    • Scott Lemieux

      “Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have pissed on Merle Haggard’s neoliberal grave, so both parties are the same. Also, the United States is an extremely right-wing country that we can be absolutely certain would have given Bernie 400 electoral college votes. I am not a one-note dumbshit.”

      • The US is an extremely right-wing country in which only right-wing elites have power and which oppresses the good democratic socialists who, being rural white males, naturally are excluded from the state. Even I can get that much.

        Sometimes I think you’re being sarcastic.

        • catclub

          Actually only elite academics have power. Billionaires are just helpless butterflies wafted by a passing breeze.

    • D.N. Nation

      (armpit fart)

    • humanoid.panda

      Probably Donald Trump will learn to toe the line.

      So, what the troll is saying is that Trump is still better than HRC. He is just being forced to do this shit against his will.

    • See, you overreached here. If you had just stopped with your first point you’d still have been wrong, but if you weren’t so lazy you could have come up with an argument to try to support it.

      You didn’t stop there, though, and your second point is just stupidly wrong.

    • tsam

      Yeah, we really dodged a bullet getting Trump instead of her.

    • veleda_k

      Is this you all but admitting you preferred Trump?

  • What I don’t understand is why does the market rally in response to these moves? How is this good news for actual investors?

    • Crusty

      They’re being given permission to inject more air into a bubble.

      What do you mean by actual investors? If you mean the little guy trading stocks with a broker (a bad idea to begin with), yeah, it’s bad news. But everyone else is being told that the sheriff is going to be away on vacation, fill your pockets while you can, that just means filled pockets, woohoo! Businesses make money ripping people off. The more that’s allowed, the more money that gets to be made.

      • Chetsky

        They’re being given permission to inject more air into a bubble.

        This. This. I remember during the first internet boom, that Julian Robertson (? Soros?) called it quits (he was betting it was a bubble) literally a couple of MONTHS before it peaked. Like Lord Keynes said, “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent”. Those banksters wanna blow up that bubble just a little bit bigger, take just a bit more in fees. Thieving weasels.

        • econoclast

          They both called it quits.

    • alexceres

      You confuse “investors” with “bankers”. These people aren’t investors. They don’t invest. These are finance brokers looking to take a cut out of all the monetary transactions they can.

      Volatility in the market is good for them. More transactions, more risk, more profits to be made. These people don’t care if a bubble burns Main St to the ground.

      • Scott Lemieux

        Plus, ripping off ordinary retirees is good for profits.

  • Crusty

    It seems Trump is actually trying to find an answer to the question of how stupid is Iowa? Except substitute Iowa for the entire country. Or at least the red states.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      Iowa and Indiana are the Alabama and Mississippi of the Midwest.

  • El Guapo

    This quote from Gary Cohn (re fiduciary rule):

    “We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers,” said White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. “This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.”

    What…what the fuck is he trying to say with that analogy?

    • Rob in CT

      Translation attempt: That humorless liberal scolds have been trying to make us eat our peas and carrots and fuck that shit, the consumer wants a cheeseburger & fries!

      • liberalrob

        He’s saying the government should not stand in people’s way if they want to kill themselves eating unhealthy food. It is every American’s god-given right to poison themselves to death if that’s what they want to do, because freedumb.

        Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ

    • JKTH

      I would respond with an actually accurate analogy, but…fuck it, not wasting my time on that.

      • osceola

        I’ll try:

        It’s like your nutritionist telling you to eat KFC every day because she gets a commission from KFC for the traffic she brings them.

        • JKTH

          I was thinking it’s more like your doctor telling you to eat KFC every day because she’ll profit off your ensuing heart attack.

  • jim, some guy in iowa

    I had to look at that picture a couple of times before I realized it isn’t Justin Trudeau. Maybe I do need those bifocals

  • Joe_JP

    Meanwhile, Kelly Ayotte back defending Trumpism:

    https://t.co/eacSzAJqE1

    All is forgiven.

  • jim, some guy in iowa

    jesus, that Der Spiegel cover Nexon put in the twitter thing…

  • Aaron Morrow

    If Nolan only talked about economics, and didn’t tell others to only talk about economics, I would think much better of him as a blogger/pundit/writer.

    • ΧΤΠΔ

      He’s not one of my favorites in terms of punditry or writing, but he’s been a hell of a lot better this year than the sentient Brillo pad or even half the men on Deadspin. (Kind of like how Sean Illing was pretty much the only sane Sanders supporter during the primary; my impression is that the worst parts of 2016’s “Least Important Writers” — which is usually a solo piece of his — weren’t his doing).

      • nemdam

        I will never forgive Tim Marchman for saying he doesn’t need to vote for Hillary because he lives in a “safe” state. He lives in Pennsylvania. I would be surprised if he felt an ounce of regret about this.

        And know that at least half of the Deadspin writers who rail against Trump did not vote for Hillary for all the usual dumb reasons. But Nolan and Drew Magary both did vote for her.

        • ΧΤΠΔ

          And credit where credit is due, Nolan’s explanation wasn’t whiny. (Marchman did vote for Hillary, but wanked and wanked while doing so. I followed the Deadspin debate liveblogs, and Marchman’s political writing was markedly worse than even Burneko).

          ETA: Also, Pennsyltucky, so not only is Marchman a hack he’s also a fucking idiot.

  • Steve LaBonne

    Hey, con artists have to look out for each other!

  • e.a.foster

    hope all those who voted for Trump and get ripped off when Dodd Frank is revoked remember they did it to themselves. if they’re not happy they can go talk to Trump and his people. To Trump and his people: all those who voted for you love their guns and like to know they can use them. Wouldn’t want to be around the U.S.A when the shit hits the fan and what little the working American has, they lose. with no social safety net in place in the country things will be more like they were in the 1930s. Good luck with all that regulation free stuff.

It is main inner container footer text