A plea to my friends on this board who are on the Left

[atlkvb]

WVMade, boomboom521, OriginalMoutaineer1, and others, I plead with you to take just 50 minutes out of your day and listen to this interview by Bill Bennett with Steve Wynn...Chairman of Wynn resorts. He's a Democrat by the way, so I hope you don't easily dismiss what he says here.

Forget about Bennett and his politics (he says very little in the interview btw) and instead focus on the details of how Wynn describes why Bernie Sanders and followers of his Socialist prescriptions for America can not work.

Then listen to Mr. Wynn explain why President Obama's exact same prescriptions for America did not work, and caused your party to lose to Donald Trump. If you truly want to understand why you are fighting a losing battle, I promise you all after listening to the next 50 minutes of audio from this brilliant businessman you will either change your mind, or stop fighting for the reforms we need to save this country.

So I honestly hope you will all open your minds, and try to learn. I've asked you 3 specifically to listen to this because you have all indicated to me at least as sincerely as I can determine, that you are not hard Leftist partisans. I believe you...so please listen to this and understand why I so strenuously argue against Leviathan.

Part 1 (aprox 12.00) on Why Bernie Sanders' Socialism won't work
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-1-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 2 (approx 12.00) on why Big Government can't work
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-2-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 3 (approx 9.00) on why Big Government caused the Housing collapse & the recession
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-3-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 4 (approx 8.00) on why Obama and Democrats lost to Trump promising more Big Government
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn-january-30/

Part 5 (approx 8.00) on why Democrats won't win unless they change reliance on Big Government
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn-december-8/

 

[WVMade]

I'll listen when I get a chance but if you think Trump's policies aren't "big government" you're in denial.

 

[atlkvb]

I'll listen when I get a chance but if you think Trump's policies aren't "big government" you're in denial.

Thanks for giving it a listen WVMade. I agree with you, I have serious concerns about Trump's activism using Government to interfere in the free market. I do not support his proposed border taxes, or his coercion of American businesses mandating them to build here in the US.

I certainly prefer they do that, but Government cannot force them through confiscatory taxation of their production costs. However, in my opinion Government has done almost as damage through its confiscatory taxation & roughshod regulations running them off so I am sympathetic to Trump's efforts to try and reverse that damage.

However, that is a different issue from a philosophy that sets Government up over Free markets, which is why I think Steve Wynn's analysis is so important. It goes much beyond Left/Right politics, and into how we live. What works?

This is what you, and me, and every American needs to understand if we desire to have a better life (which I know you also want). How do we figure out what works, and use the Government to encourage it?

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

WVMade, boomboom521, OriginalMoutaineer1, and others, I plead with you to take just 50 minutes out of your day and listen to this interview by Bill Bennett with Steve Wynn...Chairman of Wynn resorts. He's a Democrat by the way, so I hope you don't easily dismiss what he says here.

Forget about Bennett and his politics (he says very little in the interview btw) and instead focus on the details of how Wynn describes why Bernie Sanders and followers of his Socialist prescriptions for America can not work.

Then listen to Mr. Wynn explain why President Obama's exact same prescriptions for America did not work, and caused your party to lose to Donald Trump. If you truly want to understand why you are fighting a losing battle, I promise you all after listening to the next 50 minutes of audio from this brilliant businessman you will either change your mind, or stop fighting for the reforms we need to save this country.

So I honestly hope you will all open your minds, and try to learn. I've asked you 3 specifically to listen to this because you have all indicated to me at least as sincerely as I can determine, that you are not hard Leftist partisans. I believe you...so please listen to this and understand why I so strenuously argue against Leviathan.

Part 1 (aprox 12.00) on Why Bernie Sanders' Socialism won't work
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-1-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 2 (approx 12.00) on why Big Government can't work
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-2-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 3 (approx 9.00) on why Big Government caused the Housing collapse & the recession
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/part-3-of-the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn/

Part 4 (approx 8.00) on why Obama and Democrats lost to Trump promising more Big Government
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn-january-30/

Part 5 (approx 8.00) on why Democrats won't win unless they change reliance on Big Government
https://www.billbennett.com/interview/the-bill-bennett-interview-with-steve-wynn-december-21/

I am a Trump hating, left leaning moderate. I am not a Bernie Socialist. Elizabeth Warren is too far left for me. I am more John McCain.

 

[atlkvb]

I am a Trump hating, left leaning moderate. I am not a Bernie Socialist. Elizabeth Warren is too far left for me. I am more John McCain.

Give the interview I posted a listen if you get some time. You especially should listen to #3 first. It's a very lucid recitation over the causes of the housing collapse we discussed the other day, and Government's role in it.

I'd be curious to hear your comments since you were so intimately involved as both a regulator and banker. Is he (Wynn) on target here, or does his analysis of what went wrong miss the mark?

Thanks OM.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Thanks for giving it a listen WVMade. I agree with you, I have serious concerns about Trump's activism using Government to interfere in the free market. I do not support his proposed border taxes, or his coercion of American businesses mandating them to build here in the US.

Wait....you are now against border taxes to make "Mexico" pay for the wall? Kudos.

 

[atlkvb]

Wait....you are now against border taxes to make "Mexico" pay for the wall? Kudos.

I never said WVUCooper that I favored them. I posted a thread on here the other day questioning them, and I just generally oppose confiscatory taxation in any form.

So I have not changed my position on them. I do favor Trump's proposal to build the wall and negotiate Mexico's reimbursement to us for its cost. There are many other mechanisms available to get them to finance it, and border taxes as they are proposed are not specifically limited to financing construction of that wall.

As I understand it, Trump wants them to even out the advantages Foreign manufacturers supposedly enjoy over American companies--by making their things sold here more expensive as our things sold over there cost more.

But that's really protectionism, and I don't favor that because it punishes American consumers who will pay those taxes. There are better ways to make American products more competitive overseas with Foreign producers, excesive taxation is not among them.

I think I've been pretty consistent on this issue.

 

[WVPATX]

I am a Trump hating, left leaning moderate. I am not a Bernie Socialist. Elizabeth Warren is too far left for me. I am more John McCain.

Original, would you acknowledge that the Dem party is now headed by the Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders wing of the party? They have all the momentum. Very, very few moderate Dems anymore. And the party seems to be moving even further left with the apparent appointment of Keith Ellison to head the DNC. This is not the party of JFK any longer. It is not the party of the "revised Bill Clinton" after the 1994 debacle. Moderation has little place in the modern Dem party.

You might say, wrongfully, that the GOP has moved far right. Wrong, imo. The policies of Reagan are still the policies of most GOPers. Donald Trump is definitely trying to take the GOP into more of a populist direction. Moving the party to the left, not the right.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

But that's really protectionism, and I don't favor that because it punishes American consumers who will pay those taxes. There are better ways to make American products more competitive overseas with Foreign producers, excesive taxation is not among them.

I think I've been pretty consistent on this issue.

Agree to disagree because last week you were clearly in favor of using Trade policies to pay for the wall. I pointed out over and over that it would cost the American consumer, but you just insisted that Trump would figure it out. Thank FSM there are grown ups in the Senate.

 

[atlkvb]

Original, would you acknowledge that the Dem party is now headed by the Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders wing of the party? They have all the momentum. Very, very few moderate Dems anymore. And the party seems to be moving even further left with the apparent appointment of Keith Ellison to head the DNC. This is not the party of JFK any longer. It is not the party of the "revised Bill Clinton" after the 1994 debacle. Moderation has little place in the modern Dem party.

You might say, wrongfully, that the GOP has moved far right. Wrong, imo. The policies of Reagan are still the policies of most GOPers. Donald Trump is definitely trying to take the GOP into more of a populist direction. Moving the party to the left, not the right.

The Dems and Left are bearing down on "identity politics" in hopes of not only holding onto their traditional voting blocks (Blacks, Young women, Hispanics, College educated, Hollywood & social elites) but they are also gambling that by fostering fissures among the various groups they can divide and conquer by pitting one group or class against the other. Rich v Poor, Black v White, Women v Men (White) Hollywood counter culture v traditional American values culture etc.

It's been a winning strategy for them in the past because a majority of Americans weren't suffering near universal economic uncertainty. Some could look past the complaints if they were doing well. That's not the case now.

Even College educated people are not finding enough good well paying jobs, and green knows no color or gender.

Trump has to stay focused on improving the economy for everyone, especially those who have been frozen out from opportunity. If well paying jobs are growing and plentiful, the Left will have very little appeal to their hand selected interest groups, and will find themselves further isolated from the main desires of most Americans.... safe Freedom and prosperity.

 

[va87eer]

The Greenspan testimony is really interesting. He basically said that he didn't think the industry needed to be regulated to prevent the behavior that caused the collapse because he thought employees who were faithfully doing their duty to their companies would not take such risks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122476545437862295

 

[bornaneer]

They should also listen to the Democrat owner of the Patriots,Robert Kraft, as to why he is a friend and supporter of Donald Trump.

 

[atlkvb]

Agree to disagree because last week you were clearly in favor of using Trade policies to pay for the wall. I pointed out over and over that it would cost the American consumer, but you just insisted that Trump would figure it out. Thank FSM there are grown ups in the Senate.

We'll just have to disagree then Coop. I am in support of constructing the wall, and forcing Mexico to absorb the cost. As I said, there are many other ways to accomplish this, and I've argued for many of them. Placing high taxes on products arriving from just not only Mexico but Asia, Europe, and other parts of Central America is not the proposal to finance the Wall or a prescription to help U.S. consumers.

If you can find any of my posts supporting increased taxation of foreign products for American consumers, you can try but I doubt you'll have much success.

I do support the Wall, and finding effective ways to make Mexico absorb those costs. We can do that by placing fees on their expatriated funds from the U.S. back into Mexico, increasing their costs of doing business in the U.S. (not effecting American taxpayers) freezing or seizing a portion of their American held assets, assessing fees on their acquisition of US capital to finance their business development, forcing them to pay us a fee for doing business with US energy companies (we impose a tax on them, not our people) and many other alternatives.

I do not favor border taxes because they will hurt American consumers. If that's your reason for opposing them, then I agree with you.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

We'll just have to disagree then Coop. I am in support of constructing the wall, and forcing Mexico to absorb the cost. As I said, there are many other ways to accomplish this, and I've argued for many of them. Placing high taxes on products arriving from just not only Mexico but Asia, Europe, and other parts of Central America is not the proposal to finance the Wall or a prescription to help U.S. consumers.

If you can find any of my posts supporting increased taxation of foreign products for American consumers, you can try but I doubt you'll have much success.

I do support the Wall, and finding effective ways to make Mexico absorb those costs. We can do that by placing fees on their expatriated funds from the U.S. back into Mexico, increasing their costs of doing business in the U.S. (not effecting American taxpayers) freezing or seizing a portion of their American held assets, assessing fees on their acquisition of US capital to finance their business development, forcing them to pay us a fee for doing business with US energy companies (we impose a tax on them, not our people) and many other alternatives.

I do not favor border taxes because they will hurt American consumers. If that's your reason for opposing them, then I agree with you.

You posted about balancing the trade deficit with Mexico to pay for the wall. As if that's not a tax passed on to the American consumer.

 

[atlkvb]

You posted about balancing the trade deficit with Mexico to pay for the wall. As if that's not a tax passed on to the American consumer.

Yes, correct. We have a trade deficit with them...meaning we don't sell as much to them as we buy from them. So if we tax their stuff coming in higher, how does that help us buy more from them, and encourage them to buy more from us?

If anything, we should be making our stuff more expensive to them. Charge them the tax to make our stuff more expensive to them, and we collect those revenues. We can refuse to buy from them (which I also advocated) or simply limit their access to this market unless they defray our costs into their market by charging them more to do business with us to finance that wall.

They need access to this market, they need to sell their stuff to us, they need access to our capital and our customers... if it costs them more for that then we have the leverage in this equation and can force them to pay for that access. They need us more than we need them.

That's not advocating higher taxes for Americans WVUCOOPER.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Original, would you acknowledge that the Dem party is now headed by the Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders wing of the party? They have all the momentum. Very, very few moderate Dems anymore. And the party seems to be moving even further left with the apparent appointment of Keith Ellison to head the DNC. This is not the party of JFK any longer. It is not the party of the "revised Bill Clinton" after the 1994 debacle. Moderation has little place in the modern Dem party.

You might say, wrongfully, that the GOP has moved far right. Wrong, imo. The policies of Reagan are still the policies of most GOPers. Donald Trump is definitely trying to take the GOP into more of a populist direction. Moving the party to the left, not the right.

three things:
1) I don't think Obama is in the Sanders - Warren camp. I think he was far more moderate than the right gives him credit for. He was pretty hawkish when it came to bombing ISIS. He got Bin Laden. He took a tough line with Putin. He compromised significantly on ACA.
2) Movement too far left is going to be an issue and a bad one for the Dems. One of the issues with Hillary was that she tried to toe the line with moderates and far left tailoring her messages to the groups she was addressing. For example "Sue the gun manufacturers" while pleading for common sense gun control the next day. That nonsense added to her credibility problem. (I would have voted for Cruz, Rubio, Kasich over her as I have stated many times). But to your point, when the left forces me to embrace white privilege, recognize the right to late term abortion, and restrict my right to buy guns, I move toward the right.
3) I have no clue what Trump is doing. The White House statement on the Holocaust was straight out of the alt-right playbook. His tone when announcing the restriction on people traveling to the US from the mentioned 7 countries was far harsher than it needed to be and seemed tailored to the far right. His EO on fiduciary responsibility for investment advisors could not possibly be a populist idea. Don't most of us that invest with an advisor expect that they operate responsibly within a fiduciary role? But his adding additional scrutiny vetting to travelers from countries that harbor terrorists is a good thing. Reviewing and eliminating ineffective regulation is a great thing. Making the US more competitive in North American trade is a good thing to a degree.

I'll add that I don't think the GOP has moved too far right yet. Remember we moved pretty far left under Obama and any shift to the right is a severe shock. But this is where the Bannons and other folks with the far right agenda scare the hell out of me. Had Trump not linked with Bannon I'd be far less critical of him honestly.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Yes, correct. We have a trade deficit with them...meaning we don't sell as much to them as we buy from them. So if we tax their stuff coming in higher, how does that help us buy more from them, and encourage them to buy more from us?

If anything, we should be making our stuff more expensive to them. Charge them the tax to make our stuff more expensive to them, and we collect those revenues. We can refuse to buy from them (which I also advocated) or simply limit their access to this market unless they defray our costs into their market by charging them more to do business with us to finance that wall.

They need access to this market, they need to sell their stuff to us, they need access to our capital and our customers... if it costs them more for that then we have the leverage in this equation and can force them to pay for that access. They need us more than we need them.

That's not advocating higher taxes for Americans WVUCOOPER.

Good luck guy.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

The Greenspan testimony is really interesting. He basically said that he didn't think the industry needed to be regulated to prevent the behavior that caused the collapse because he thought employees who were faithfully doing their duty to their companies would not take such risks. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122476545437862295

Great article on two fronts. You can't trust a corporation with a board and investors demanding ridiculous growth and ever increasing profitability over sound risk management. And it shows how little the Fed and banking regulators actually managed the housing boom and bust. Greenspan was all about free markets setting limits. He was called an American hero until 2007.......

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

You posted about balancing the trade deficit with Mexico to pay for the wall. As if that's not a tax passed on to the American consumer.

Every economist has said that the US consumer ultimately pays. One way or the other, we pay. It is hard to look a at trade imbalances at the micro level. You can't look at the $60B number and assume that it is all bad as some do. So much more go into that equation.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think Obama is in the Sanders - Warren camp. I think he was far more moderate than the right gives him credit for. He was pretty hawkish when it came to bombing ISIS. He got Bin Laden. He took a tough line with Putin. He compromised significantly on ACA.

I don't see how you can say this.

On Isis, his precipitous withdrawal from Iraq without negotiating a status of forces agreement created them! He did nothing as they moved out from Iraq into Syria and other parts of the region.

He did get Bin Laden, but he let Syrian President Al Assad decimate the Rebels we backed in removing him from power.

He stood by and let Putin dictate terms in Syria after we initially drew the infamous "red line", he also haplessly stood by and watched Putin annex Crimea, invade the Ukraine, and threaten the Baltic states.

There was no compromise on the ACA, he wouldn't even allow the Republicans to offer amendments and he encouraged Pelosi and Reid to lock them out of the process. So the Republicans did that, and voted in unison against the bill, forcing Obama and Congressional Democrats to resort to budget reconciliation procedures to get the Bill passed over Republican opposition.

I'll add that I don't think the GOP has moved too far right yet.

I would agree with you here, Trump is working to reorient the Republican brand into more of a populist bend than ideological. He has Conservative flavor, but it is not true Conservatism Trump is pushing. It's American populism, Nationalism, economic pluralism.

 

[atlkvb]

Good luck guy.

Keep the Faith Coop. We can work it out, and Mexico will benefit in the long run by helping us on curbing illegal immigration. Paying for that Wall will cost them far less than losing economic ties or access to us.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Give the interview I posted a listen if you get some time. You especially should listen to #3 first. It's a very lucid recitation over the causes of the housing collapse we discussed the other day, and Government's role in it.

I'd be curious to hear your comments since you were so intimately involved as both a regulator and banker. Is he (Wynn) on target here, or does his analysis of what went wrong miss the mark?

Thanks OM.

I listened to part 3 as I am eating lunch. Think back a few days...Didn't I say that it was the Bush and Clinton administrations using Fannie and Freddie that drove the housing crisis????

I have agreed with you completely that the federal government drove, in a very large part, the housing crisis issue (there was also a large private market for this too BTW). I haven't argued that point at all. My only argument was that it wasn't CRA regulations but rather the drive increase home ownership driven by or through Fannie and Freddie.

My brother is a contractor, he makes decent money (150-200k pre-recession. ) He came this close to buying a $800,000 house in Northern Virginia financed with a no-doc ARM. He would have lost it had he followed through.

 

[atlkvb]

I listened to part 3 as I am eating lunch. Think back a few days...Didn't I say that it was the Bush and Clinton administrations using Fannie and Freddie that drove the housing crisis????

I have agreed with you completely that the federal government drove, in a very large part, the housing crisis issue (there was also a large private market for this too BTW). I haven't argued that point at all. My only argument was that it wasn't CRA regulations but rather the drive increase home ownership driven by or through Fannie and Freddie.

Yes OM, in all fairness you did say that. Our discussion was on what impact if any the CRA had. You argued (as I heard it) very little if any. PAX and myself cited information that indicated while perhaps not being primarily responsible, aspects of the way the regulation was administered led to Government regulators forcing the lending industry to make loans they would not otherwise have made.

Maybe we're saying the same thing in a different way?

 

[va87eer]

Great article on two fronts. You can't trust a corporation with a board and investors demanding ridiculous growth and ever increasing profitability over sound risk management. And it shows how little the Fed and banking regulators actually managed the housing boom and bust. Greenspan was all about free markets setting limits. He was called an American hero until 2007.......

Companies have a horrible time with managing risk because it's so difficult to price and there can be huge short term gains if risks are pushed to the side. I By raising our liability caps we could probably grab an extra 10% market share in a year and everyone would be cashing in big bonuses. Fortunately we have an appropriate level of conservatism in our approach and in our company controls that this doesn't happen.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Yes OM, in all fairness you did say that. Our discussion was on what impact if any the CRA had. You argued (as I heard it) very little if any. PAX and myself cited information that indicated while perhaps not being primarily responsible, aspects of the way the regulation was administered led to Government regulators forcing the lending industry to make loans they would not otherwise have made.

Maybe we're saying the same thing in a different way?

Not really. I read a lot of what Pax posted and there really seems to be an angle from conservatives that link CRA to the Clinton/Bush initiative to increase home ownership as Steve Winn talked about. The missions are entirely different but do overlap to a degree, albeit a small one as noted in both studies I linked (studies not op eds). We just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Companies have a horrible time with managing risk because it's so difficult to price and there can be huge short term gains if risks are pushed to the side. I By raising our liability caps we could probably grab an extra 10% market share in a year and everyone would be cashing in big bonuses. Fortunately we have an appropriate level of conservatism in our approach and in our company controls that this doesn't happen.

I worked for a regional bank from 07-2012 owned by a Canadian parent. Nobody at the US office or Canadian office saw our ridiculous concentration in consumer real estate because it was managed across 4-5 different portfolios. Finance invested in the junk (Mortgage backed securities) to chase returns. We had a huge builder finance division. We had a few billion in consumer vacation homes, speculative raw land, and jumbo mortgages. Then we had a sizable piggy-back HELOC portfolio. And nobody anticipated the problems. Returns were too good to pass up....

 

[va87eer]

I worked for a regional bank from 07-2012 owned by a Canadian parent. Nobody at the US office or Canadian office saw our ridiculous concentration in consumer real estate because it was managed across 4-5 different portfolios. Finance invested in the junk (Mortgage backed securities) to chase returns. We had a huge builder finance division. We had a few billion in consumer vacation homes, speculative raw land, and jumbo mortgages. Then we had a sizable piggy-back HELOC portfolio. And nobody anticipated the problems. Returns were too good to pass up....

Did the bank survive?

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Did the bank survive?

Only because the parent had a crap load of capital that they couldn't on-shore to Canada. But they sold us in early 2012.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Thank FSM there

You have been around a while. That one goes back a couple of years to an absolutely awesome BigClay rant.

 

[atlkvb]

Not really. I read a lot of what Pax posted and there really seems to be an angle from conservatives that link CRA to the Clinton/Bush initiative to increase home ownership as Steve Winn talked about. The missions are entirely different but do overlap to a degree, albeit a small one as noted in both studies I linked (studies not op eds). We just have to agree to disagree here.

Fair enough. I think we can agree Government meddling into the situation however it was measured did not help.

Appreciate your feedback.