|
Mizaq posted:How can he possibly defend against it? Testify in court it was the IRS he lied to? Claim there’s no law against declaring two different values? I mean why not? Similar plans have worked for him pretty frequently since 2016. I'd love for this to be the thing that cracks the anti mattering field but who knows.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Mizaq posted:How can he possibly defend against it? Testify in court it was the IRS he lied to? Claim there’s no law against declaring two different values? Same as all his other current troubles- delay for two years, get re-elected, order the DOJ to drop everything and/or self-pardon vvvvvvvvv He'll issue the order anyway and enjoy another few months of chaos instead of repercussions
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Same as all his other current troubles- delay for two years, get re-elected, order the DOJ to drop everything and/or self-pardon this is a state level lawsuit, immune to federal pardon power
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Same as all his other current troubles- delay for two years, get re-elected, order the DOJ to drop everything and/or self-pardon It's a civil suit. Civil suit means no jail time. Consequences are a lot of fines and being barred from doing business in NY. She says that she is making criminal referrals based on evidence she gathered, but this specific lawsuit has 0 chance of jail and is not related to any federal case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's a civil suit. Yeah, no time, but essentially the end of Trumpco
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Trump's whole tax avoidance scheme is centered around misrepresenting the valuation of his properties as well, right? So, wouldn't this have implications re: taxes owed, tax fraud committed, etc as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Ultimately, I'll believe anything of consequence can actually happen when I see it. For now, I'm just going to file this whole thing under "Oh-ho, I'd like to see Trump wriggle out of this one!...Ah well, nevertheless!" with all the others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So if the president decided to declassify a document that had the names of every spy currently in Russia there's nothing anyone could do about it? Like even if it would be incredibly damaging to US national security and literally get people killed? Specific to this part: as others have said there is a process that must be followed, and part of that process would in this case involve extracting all those spies before the information got out and put them in danger. I forget where I read it, but it's been suggested a reason why Trump is trying to avoid legal trouble by saying he declassified things that are clearly still classified is that those things wouldn't be of any value if they were actually declassified.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Dumb question, but is it really true the president can declassify any documents he wants? So if the president decided to declassify a document that had the names of every spy currently in Russia there's nothing anyone could do about it? Like even if it would be incredibly damaging to US national security and literally get people killed? Because Trump is saying he declassified all the documents he kept in his closet and a few of those were the most highly classified types of documents. His power to declassify is power to request a declassification on anything. However, the rest of the government can go "no" if they have good reason or legislation to prevent it. As opposed to most people in the government, who don't even have the power to request it. Trump is doing the "I declare bankruptcy!" bit from The Office, but seriously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:His power to declassify is power to request a declassification on anything. I thought it was more that he does have the power to declassify arbitrarily, but he doesn't have the power to declassify retroactively, especially after ceasing to be president. He would have to prove that he made the declaration while still holding the office, and he can't
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I thought it was more that he does have the power to declassify arbitrarily, but he doesn't have the power to declassify retroactively, especially after ceasing to be president. He would have to prove that he made the declaration while still holding the office, and he can't Even if he did it in office, there's a process, and lol he doesn't have the patience to actually do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
He can arbitrarily declassify *some* things. Tweeting out classified satellite images for schoolyard bragging about Iran missile sites was not illegal because he could claim it was declassified. That cannot be done retroactively through the power of thoughts you claim to have had but not communicated at the time while you are no longer president now. Some specific material under specific programs is protected by statutes that mandate a process involving the notification of involved agencies/personnel and requiring their sign off. And all of it is part of the storm of bullshit and lies Trump is kicking up because the charges filed against him are completely independent of their classification. Trump stooges and right wing media are purposefully lying and conflating the two to make this an issue that it is not so it can be argued in the court of public opinion based on those lies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
skylined! posted:Trump's whole tax avoidance scheme is centered around misrepresenting the valuation of his properties as well, right? So, wouldn't this have implications re: taxes owed, tax fraud committed, etc as well?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
So what if he moves TrumpOrg to Florida to escape this? is that a thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:So what if he moves TrumpOrg to Florida to escape this? is that a thing? He could, but it wouldn't eliminate the existing liability or ban from doing business in New York that would hypothetically happen if he loses. That is most likely what he actually will do if he does lose the suit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
I fully expect him to reincorporate in FL yes It’s going to be very hard for him to get loans though
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:31
|
|
|
I hope this is appropriate for the thread, but the Federal Reserve hiked its benchmark interest rate again. https://twitter.com/markets/status/1572647629527617537 That was expected, but the more notable story is the surprisingly pessimistic (for the Fed) inflation forecasts that have just come out. https://twitter.com/business/status/1572648700022849536 https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1572647418885246980?t=qhMPO9-MeD-GhRKUJhp3AA&s=19 That will have consequences on the unemployment rate, of course. https://twitter.com/KathyJones/status/1572648997738909696 It's going to be harder than ever for the Biden Administration and the Democrats to argue that we are not in a recession. Having to deal with inflation worries is not going to go away either. There is probably going to be another hike before midterm elections as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:33
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:It's going to be harder than ever for the Biden Administration and the Democrats to argue that we are not in a recession. Having to deal with inflation worries is not going to go away either. The Fed raising rates doesn't indicate that we are in a recession. It indicates the opposite. The Fed is trying to slow growth (which can induce a recession) to slow price/wage growth and inflation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
I mean even if we aren’t technically in a recession, the Fed has made it their mission to put us in one
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Fed raising rates doesn't indicate that we are in a recession. It indicates the opposite. Flaming Liberal already made the point I was going to make. Unless the Fed pulls off a miracle (which I don't think they will), we're basically going into a recession because they're trying to "tame" inflation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
It should also be pointed out, these rates are still not near historical highs and were in fact fairly normal before 2007.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
I have several friends who have lost their jobs because their employers have seen a downturn in business, or are predicting one. Just an anecdote of course, but it's clear that in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether the Biden administration says we're in a recession or not, because the reality on the ground is the reality that people experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I mean even if we aren’t technically in a recession, the Fed has made it their mission to put us in one Pretty much. The interesting thing is that their "pessimistic" projections are more pessimistic in the short-term, but pretty optimistic in the longer-term. If they end up with only 4.4% unemployment and inflation down to 2.8% by 2023, then that is a pretty solid resolution. The problem is that basically everyone (including the Fed) has been unable to really accurately predict inflation since the pandemic. So, who knows how accurate the bad or good projections will end up being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Pretty much. Per the NY Times' live commentary feed: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/09/21/business/fed-interest-rates-inflation quote:Omair Sharif, founder of Inflation Insights, puts these economic projections into context. “If the Fed hit their 2023 unemployment rate projection of 4.4 percent then, all else equal, it would mean 1.235 million more unemployed people.” That's still a lot of pain to start unleashing right around an election cycle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:53
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Per the NY Times' live commentary feed: Yeah, unemployment going up is never a good thing in and of itself. But, people were previously predicting unemployment above 5% to get inflation down to 3%. So, 4.4% unemployment to get inflation down to 2.8% by 2023 is a much more optimistic scenario than people were predicting before. The unemployment spike wouldn't really hit until the end of 2023/early 2024 (and would recover by the end of 2024) according to their projections, so it would be out of the "election cycle" for the midterms. The problem is if they are off in their predictions and tilt into a full on recession with more unemployment/less inflation reduction than they project. Nobody has a good track record of predicting inflation or employment post pandemic (everyone thought unemployment would be way worse and inflation would be lower), so who knows how the projections shake out in reality? The FED is definitely leaning way hard on the "reduce inflation" part of the dual mandate vs. the "full employment" part, but they are gambling that - according to their projections - that employment will stay inside the sub-5% "full employment" range the entire time. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Sep 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
A mild recession with a small increase in unemployment and a return of inflation to the numbers we'd expect would be better than a crash and hyperinflation, but that's always the problem with the Fed. We are never quite sure if the pain is worth it, since you can't measure the panic that didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:A mild recession with a small increase in unemployment and a return of inflation to the numbers we'd expect would be better than a crash and hyperinflation, but that's always the problem with the Fed. We are never quite sure if the pain is worth it, since you can't measure the panic that didn't happen. Hyperinflation was never a realistic danger. The fed only has one hammer and everything looks like a nail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:A mild recession with a small increase in unemployment and a return of inflation to the numbers we'd expect would be better than a crash and hyperinflation, but that's always the problem with the Fed. We are never quite sure if the pain is worth it, since you can't measure the panic that didn't happen. Yeah, the correct thing to do would be balance the rate hikes with redistributive fiscal policy (removing money from the top ~20% and redistributing it to the bottom ~50%), but we have a dysfunctional government that won't do that. We've also decided that billionaires and millionaires are the only people allowed to have their taxes raised (and only sometimes) and only the very poor can get direct benefits (also, only sometimes). The counterpoint is that for that fiscal stimulus to make sense and have the largest impact, then the government should be reducing its debt during boom times in order to have the space to do huge fiscal stimulus during down times. But, we don't do that either and generally just cut taxes during boom times. So, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
I feel like they only raise interest rates to give them room to cut them when there is an inevitable crash. I feel like it's been this way since the early 90s. I remember all the talk about having nothing left to cut during the previous crashes when they hit 0%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I feel like they only raise interest rates to give them room to cut them when there is an inevitable crash. I feel like it's been this way since the early 90s. I remember all the talk about having nothing left to cut during the previous crashes when they hit 0%. To be fair the fed only has those tools available to it. As Leon pointed out, the federal government could also restrict money flow as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I feel like they only raise interest rates to give them room to cut them when there is an inevitable crash. I feel like it's been this way since the early 90s. I remember all the talk about having nothing left to cut during the previous crashes when they hit 0%. That is definitely part of it too. There is no room for additional stimulus/loose money if you're already at 0%. Low rates forever isn't a good idea in general, even aside from the fact that it leaves you with nowhere to go when you want to actually juice the money supply. The Fed was always going to raise rates, but they were initially very slow about raising rates and didn't think inflation would stick around. Now, they are kind of heavily overcorrecting and raising rates fairly quickly. The labor market has been weirdly strong and more resistant to inflation/interest rates/removal of fiscal stimulus than anyone predicted, so they are kind of taking a gamble that it will continue to be and will dull the impact of the faster increases. Could be a bad gamble, though! The Fed has historically been pretty good at predicting inflation and unemployment, but everyone (including the Fed) has been missing their predictions post-pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I feel like they only raise interest rates to give them room to cut them when there is an inevitable crash. I feel like it's been this way since the early 90s. I remember all the talk about having nothing left to cut during the previous crashes when they hit 0%. This is important. We've been at rock bottom interest rates since 2008 and it's led to a lot of monetary innovation from the Fed because their main tool to juice the economy has been maxed out. Now is a great time to raise rates for long-term health, while unemployment is low and inflation is higher than desired.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Morrow posted:This is important. We've been at rock bottom interest rates since 2008 and it's led to a lot of monetary innovation from the Fed because their main tool to juice the economy has been maxed out. Now is a great time to raise rates for long-term health, while unemployment is low and inflation is higher than desired. Yes. I don't think anyone on any side of the policy spectrum is against raising rates in principle. The question is how fast and how much. Some people are saying the Fed is going too fast and overcorrecting because they were too slow earlier. Given how bad the predictions have been post-pandemic and the weirdness/"first time ever" events of the economy post-pandemic, there are a lot of things you can point to as evidence they are making a mistake or doing the right thing. But, everyone has been a bit off recently and getting it wrong (in either direction) has the potential to negatively impact millions of people. So, obviously a lot riding on it if they accidentally misjudge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
They are 100% overcorrecting. The issues causing inflation are mostly out of the Fed’s control, and raising rates is only going to do so much to correct that. You are risking a stagflation spiral.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They are 100% overcorrecting. The issues causing inflation are mostly out of the Fed’s control, and raising rates is only going to do so much to correct that. You are risking a stagflation spiral. They're applying lessons from the 1970s and 1980s, which I guess is the best data set that they've got. Really scary stuff, if you think about it. Does anyone really know what they're doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:42
|
|
|
Yes. Increasing the cost of borrowing works if your inflation is based on money being too readily available. But we made money super readily available for a decade and inflation barely moved up. So this both doesn't address the core driver of inflation(supply chain, energy issues, etc), and will make it more costly to borrow money. At best it budges inflation by 1% or so. Eric Cantonese posted:Does anyone really know what they're doing? 
Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Sep 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Does anyone really know what they're doing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They are 100% overcorrecting. The issues causing inflation are mostly out of the Fed’s control, and raising rates is only going to do so much to correct that. You are risking a stagflation spiral. This is pretty much my view, but with the pedantic caveat of "they are probably overcorrecting and the risk of overcorrecting is worse than the risk of under-correcting for the people at the bottom 50% of incomes." Given how there have been about 10 different "never before recorded" economic events since the pandemic, the fact that the labor market is far stronger than anyone expected, how sticky this inflation has been for the entire globe, and how off the predictions have been about unemployment and inflation by just about everyone, I don't know that you can really say they are 100% doing anything. Being cautious could lead to higher inflation for longer than necessary, but it is probably the "better" option even if it is on average worse for most people because overcorrecting runs the risk of accidentally going off of a cliff. If the choice is "everything is a little worse for longer than it needs to be" vs. "50/50 shot for either A) Things get better as fast as possible or B) We accidentally kick a few million people off of a cliff," then the first option is the one I would roll with. But, the Fed is rolling with "hit inflation almost as hard as possible, but risk the labor market" and nobody really has a definitive answer to how much they can push without going too far. We're just in kind of uncharted waters and nobody has any real definitive idea of what to do. So, it's really a decision about prioritizing inflation vs. employment and then another sub-decision about how much you should gamble to prevent unnecessary suffering at the risk of accidentally creating a different kind of unnecessary suffering if you get it wrong. Or in summary:
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Does anyone really know what they're doing? Good question to ask in pretty much any context, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:35 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The problem is that basically everyone (including the Fed) has been unable to really accurately predict inflation
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2022 20:59
|
|
