Less regulations and less tax burden creates jobs

But I guess Trump didn't have nothing to do with that....

the changes to the tax code were small, and the boost to the total number of jobs would be a one-time boost.
That boost already happened.
The regulatory changes can also cause job growth, but it depends on what regulation is changing and why. 
No one on these threads ever gets specific about the regulations.
I'm willing to be convinced if somebody can tell me which regulatory change caused what jobs to emerge, but as of now this is just one of those lines of people repeat over and over again until it becomes a dogma that none of them actually understand.

I agree with at least part of what you said there.   Lots of people talk about deregulation, but no one ever says what regulation was repealed and why.  

I'm all in favor of eliminating unnecessary regulations, or regulations that do more harm than good, but I will never be in favor of deregulation just for the sake of deregulation.

---

the changes to the tax code were small, and the boost to the total number of jobs would be a one-time boost.
That boost already happened.
The regulatory changes can also cause job growth, but it depends on what regulation is changing and why. 
No one on these threads ever gets specific about the regulations.
I'm willing to be convinced if somebody can tell me which regulatory change caused what jobs to emerge, but as of now this is just one of those lines of people repeat over and over again until it becomes a dogma that none of them actually understand.

Or, because you doubt that the policies of Trump had little impact, the burden is on you to research and show why policy change did little if that is your stance.

Sure, I'm skeptical of anybody's policies. I would be glad to research whether a specific change created more jobs, if you could tell me which specific change to look at first.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Or, because you doubt that the policies of Trump had little impact, the burden is on you to research and show why policy change did little if that is your stance.

Sure, I'm skeptical of anybody's policies. I would be glad to research whether a specific change created more jobs, if you could tell me which specific change to look at first.

I agree with that.  If someone wants to repeal a regulation, before it's repealed I would like to know what was the reason for the regulation, who wants to repeal it, why they want to repeal it, and what will be the effects of the repeal.  Some regulations are good.  Some are bad.  We need to repeal the bad ones and keep the good ones.  Too many people seem to want to repeal as many regulations as possible, as if that was some sort of worthy goal.

---

Or, because you doubt that the policies of Trump had little impact, the burden is on you to research and show why policy change did little if that is your stance.

Sure, I'm skeptical of anybody's policies. I would be glad to research whether a specific change created more jobs, if you could tell me which specific change to look at first.

You need to understand those policies that have hurt before you can understand those that help. Here is a list of changes to date to keep ya busy for while.

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/t...trump-era/

---

Sure, I'm skeptical of anybody's policies. I would be glad to research whether a specific change created more jobs, if you could tell me which specific change to look at first.

You need to understand those policies that have hurt before you can understand those that help. Here is a list of changes to date to keep ya busy for while.

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/t...trump-era/

Thanks.  Very interesting.  I don't think I like repealing the ban on dumping coal waste next to streams.  Or repealing the requirement for investment advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.  A lot of the others that were repealed are pretty technical, so it's hard for me to decide what to think about those repeals.

---

Sure, I'm skeptical of anybody's policies. I would be glad to research whether a specific change created more jobs, if you could tell me which specific change to look at first.

I agree with that.  If someone wants to repeal a regulation, before it's repealed I would like to know what was the reason for the regulation, who wants to repeal it, why they want to repeal it, and what will be the effects of the repeal.  Some regulations are good.  Some are bad.  We need to repeal the bad ones and keep the good ones.  Too many people seem to want to repeal as many regulations as possible, as if that was some sort of worthy goal.

Repealing intrusive regulation is absolutely a worthy goal.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You need to understand those policies that have hurt before you can understand those that help. Here is a list of changes to date to keep ya busy for while.

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/t...trump-era/

Thanks.  Very interesting.  I don't think I like repealing the ban on dumping coal waste next to streams.  Or repealing the requirement for investment advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.  A lot of the others that were repealed are pretty technical, so it's hard for me to decide what to think about those repeals.

The state of West Virginia has the authority to regulate what happens in their state. They don't need a federal regulation to decide what they believe is best for their state.

As far as the DOT regulations on IRAs, people hated that rule because they could no longer take advice from an individual advisor unless the signed away their rights to the fiduciary rule. I work as an advisor and we had to force people to move their IRAs to a managed discretionary account run by portfolio managers which is based purely on a persons risk tolerance and gives no ability for the client to give input on any of the investments in their accounts.

---

I agree with that.  If someone wants to repeal a regulation, before it's repealed I would like to know what was the reason for the regulation, who wants to repeal it, why they want to repeal it, and what will be the effects of the repeal.  Some regulations are good.  Some are bad.  We need to repeal the bad ones and keep the good ones.  Too many people seem to want to repeal as many regulations as possible, as if that was some sort of worthy goal.

Repealing intrusive regulation is absolutely a worthy goal.

That's obvious, but the real question is which regulations are more constructive, and which regulations are more intrusive than constructive?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Thanks.  Very interesting.  I don't think I like repealing the ban on dumping coal waste next to streams.  Or repealing the requirement for investment advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.  A lot of the others that were repealed are pretty technical, so it's hard for me to decide what to think about those repeals.

The state of West Virginia has the authority to regulate what happens in their state. They don't need a federal regulation to decide what they believe is best for their state.

I find that line of argumentation to be so insincere.
If coal waste doesn't belong in streams, then it doesn't matter which level of government says so.
look at the science and the consequences and decide if it's acceptable to dump coal waste in streams or not.
Don't expect a document that was written before people were ever mining coal to have much to say about how to manage that activity for the benefit of everyone in society.

---

Thanks.  Very interesting.  I don't think I like repealing the ban on dumping coal waste next to streams.  Or repealing the requirement for investment advisors to act in the best interests of their clients.  A lot of the others that were repealed are pretty technical, so it's hard for me to decide what to think about those repeals.

As far as the DOT regulations on IRAs, people hated that rule because they could no longer take advice from an individual advisor unless the signed away their rights to the fiduciary rule. I work as an advisor and we had to force people to move their IRAs to a managed discretionary account run by portfolio managers which is based purely on a persons risk tolerance and  gives no ability for the client to give input on any of the investments in their accounts.

Obviously, neither you nor your employer were working in your clients interests.
if your clients knew all along that you were not necessarily serving their interests, then the waiver form would not have come as any kind of surprise or difficulty to them.
If it was surprising or difficult, this indicates that your clients were being deceived.
If you were committed to working in your client's interest, your clients would not have had to sign their rights away.
Government regulation should serve honest people, not tricksters and hucksters.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The state of West Virginia has the authority to regulate what happens in their state. They don't need a federal regulation to decide what they believe is best for their state.

I find that line of argumentation to be so insincere.
If coal waste doesn't belong in streams, then it doesn't matter which level of government says so.
look at the science and the consequences and decide if it's acceptable to dump coal waste in streams or not.
Don't expect a document that was written before people were ever mining coal to have much to say about how to manage that activity for the benefit of everyone in society.

---

As far as the DOT regulations on IRAs, people hated that rule because they could no longer take advice from an individual advisor unless the signed away their rights to the fiduciary rule. I work as an advisor and we had to force people to move their IRAs to a managed discretionary account run by portfolio managers which is based purely on a persons risk tolerance and  gives no ability for the client to give input on any of the investments in their accounts.

Obviously, neither you nor your employer were working in your clients interests.
if your clients knew all along that you were not necessarily serving their interests, then the waiver form would not have come as any kind of surprise or difficulty to them.
If it was surprising or difficult, this indicates that your clients were being deceived.
If you were committed to working in your client's interest, your clients would not have had to sign their rights away.
Government regulation should serve honest people, not tricksters and hucksters.

What a load of horse [BLEEP]. Do you ever really post anything you actually believe?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The state of West Virginia has the authority to regulate what happens in their state. They don't need a federal regulation to decide what they believe is best for their state.

I find that line of argumentation to be so insincere.
If coal waste doesn't belong in streams, then it doesn't matter which level of government says so.
look at the science and the consequences and decide if it's acceptable to dump coal waste in streams or not.
Don't expect a document that was written before people were ever mining coal to have much to say about how to manage that activity for the benefit of everyone in society.

---

As far as the DOT regulations on IRAs, people hated that rule because they could no longer take advice from an individual advisor unless the signed away their rights to the fiduciary rule. I work as an advisor and we had to force people to move their IRAs to a managed discretionary account run by portfolio managers which is based purely on a persons risk tolerance and  gives no ability for the client to give input on any of the investments in their accounts.

Obviously, neither you nor your employer were working in your clients interests.
if your clients knew all along that you were not necessarily serving their interests, then the waiver form would not have come as any kind of surprise or difficulty to them.
If it was surprising or difficult, this indicates that your clients were being deceived.
If you were committed to working in your client's interest, your clients would not have had to sign their rights away.
Government regulation should serve honest people, not tricksters and hucksters.

First comment: A better argument would be if the coal waste was carried by the streams to other states. If it's just a local matter then the decision should be made locally as to the trade off between energy/jobs vs. pollution. The Federal government has a history of treating every drainage ditch as a protected wetland.

Second comment: One point here is that the regulation creates a layer of paperwork that negatively affects the 99% of the advisors who were already looking out for their clients' interests. Regulations create the need for paper pushers who produce nothing of value. This is part of the reason college education costs have risen at a much faster rate than inflation. All of those regulations have caused an exponential growth in the number of "administrators." Faculty per student is static and faculty salaries have not kept up with inflation. A similar argument can be made about medical costs.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I find that line of argumentation to be so insincere.
If coal waste doesn't belong in streams, then it doesn't matter which level of government says so.
look at the science and the consequences and decide if it's acceptable to dump coal waste in streams or not.
Don't expect a document that was written before people were ever mining coal to have much to say about how to manage that activity for the benefit of everyone in society.

---

First comment: A better argument would be if the coal waste was carried by the streams to other states. If it's just a local matter then the decision should be made locally as to the trade off between energy/jobs vs. pollution. The Federal government has a history of treating every drainage ditch as a protected wetland.

there's more to think about than how far the waste might be carried when it rains.
The coal itself is going to be sold across state lines. And every supplier will play a role in setting the price. If a supplier in West Virginia can put their waste wherever they want, but a supplier in Virginia can put it only in certain well regulated places, the supplier in West Virginia will have more profit and, it won't be long before all the coal mining jobs will go to West Virginia. Is this fair to the coal miners in Virginia? Is it even fair to the miners in West Virginia? Guess who has to live next to those polluted streams and bathe in the polluted groundwater? Is it the regulators in Charleston, or the miners themselves, living outside Beckley? Should the coal miners in Virginia have to debase themselves in the same fashion before they can get jobs?
What I am saying is that there is a proper venue to impose certain minimum standards of living and dignity. It's usually a local level, but not always.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

US and Guatemala Sign Treaty Denying US Asylum to Illegal Immigrants

https://www.davidharrisjr.com/steven/us-...aqI9XeqNzM

---

Wants to join the "cereal box" dating service. I've dated enough flakes and nuts...all I want is the prize now.

The state of West Virginia has the authority to regulate what happens in their state. They don't need a federal regulation to decide what they believe is best for their state.

I find that line of argumentation to be so insincere.
If coal waste doesn't belong in streams, then it doesn't matter which level of government says so.
look at the science and the consequences and decide if it's acceptable to dump coal waste in streams or not.
Don't expect a document that was written before people were ever mining coal to have much to say about how to manage that activity for the benefit of everyone in society.

---

As far as the DOT regulations on IRAs, people hated that rule because they could no longer take advice from an individual advisor unless the signed away their rights to the fiduciary rule. I work as an advisor and we had to force people to move their IRAs to a managed discretionary account run by portfolio managers which is based purely on a persons risk tolerance and  gives no ability for the client to give input on any of the investments in their accounts.

Obviously, neither you nor your employer were working in your clients interests.
if your clients knew all along that you were not necessarily serving their interests, then the waiver form would not have come as any kind of surprise or difficulty to them.
If it was surprising or difficult, this indicates that your clients were being deceived.
If you were committed to working in your client's interest, your clients would not have had to sign their rights away.
Government regulation should serve honest people, not tricksters and hucksters.

My firm didn't offer the waivers, that's why we had to force people into a management platform that complied with the rule to many client's disgust.

If people wanted to use the waiver, they had to go to a different firm because we aren't in the business of "deceiving people".

You look foolish every time you try to discuss things outside your understanding.

---

Obviously, neither you nor your employer were working in your clients interests.
if your clients knew all along that you were not necessarily serving their interests, then the waiver form would not have come as any kind of surprise or difficulty to them.
If it was surprising or difficult, this indicates that your clients were being deceived.
If you were committed to working in your client's interest, your clients would not have had to sign their rights away.
Government regulation should serve honest people, not tricksters and hucksters.

My firm didn't offer the waivers, that's why we had to force people into a management platform that complied with the rule to many client's disgust.

If people wanted to use the waiver, they had to go to a different firm because we aren't in the business of "deceiving people".

You look foolish every time you try to discuss things outside your understanding.

The market offers more choices than just impersonal mutual funds or personal advisors that violated fiduciary rules.
There were also personal advisors that had been applying the fiduciary principle all along.  They just tend to deal with high end clients only.  There's less margin to be had when you can only give advice based on returns and not commissions, so you need the volume.
But maybe low end clients really are best off with just an impersonal mutual fund, than they are with someone skimming commissions and bank accounts off of their already undersized accounts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

My firm didn't offer the waivers, that's why we had to force people into a management platform that complied with the rule to many client's disgust.

If people wanted to use the waiver, they had to go to a different firm because we aren't in the business of "deceiving people".

You look foolish every time you try to discuss things outside your understanding.

The market offers more choices than just impersonal mutual funds or personal advisors that violated fiduciary rules.
There were also personal advisors that had been applying the fiduciary principle all along.  They just tend to deal with high end clients only.  There's less margin to be had when you can only give advice based on returns and not commissions, so you need the volume.
But maybe low end clients really are best off with just an impersonal mutual fund, than they are with someone skimming commissions and bank accounts off of their already undersized accounts.

I have no idea what point this rambling post is supposed to make. It's just obvious how little you actually know about the financial industry.

---

The market offers more choices than just impersonal mutual funds or personal advisors that violated fiduciary rules.
There were also personal advisors that had been applying the fiduciary principle all along.  They just tend to deal with high end clients only.  There's less margin to be had when you can only give advice based on returns and not commissions, so you need the volume.
But maybe low end clients really are best off with just an impersonal mutual fund, than they are with someone skimming commissions and bank accounts off of their already undersized accounts.

I have no idea what point this rambling post is supposed to make. It's just obvious how little you actually know about the financial industry.

He sure knows that you are a bad unscrupulous person though.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The market offers more choices than just impersonal mutual funds or personal advisors that violated fiduciary rules.
There were also personal advisors that had been applying the fiduciary principle all along.  They just tend to deal with high end clients only.  There's less margin to be had when you can only give advice based on returns and not commissions, so you need the volume.
But maybe low end clients really are best off with just an impersonal mutual fund, than they are with someone skimming commissions and bank accounts off of their already undersized accounts.

I have no idea what point this rambling post is supposed to make. It's just obvious how little you actually know about the financial industry.

This was in my mind when reading his post

---

---

The market offers more choices than just impersonal mutual funds or personal advisors that violated fiduciary rules.
There were also personal advisors that had been applying the fiduciary principle all along.  They just tend to deal with high end clients only.  There's less margin to be had when you can only give advice based on returns and not commissions, so you need the volume.
But maybe low end clients really are best off with just an impersonal mutual fund, than they are with someone skimming commissions and bank accounts off of their already undersized accounts.

I have no idea what point this rambling post is supposed to make. It's just obvious how little you actually know about the financial industry.

You and me both.  What exactly is an "impersonal" mutual fund?

I am by no means a professional investor, though I have done well managing my own money.  Could I have probably done more by hiring a professional adviser?  Probably absolutely.  The thing is, in my mind a financial adviser is going to work in their client's best interest as well as their own interest.  Better "rate of return for the client" = "better commission" for the professional (it's how they earn their living).  Also, if the adviser is doing a good job with their client's accounts their client(s) are more likely to recommend them (new business) to others.

It's called the free market (ie. Capitalism).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.