that would be good.


No problem... I was getting the feeling this was the case, and I understand... I often make the same mistake. It's easy to typecast when reading familiar arguments.


Before we loose context; by "it" we are referring to what you were calling the "basic problem" that Harley-Davidson is having. The reason why it has no bearing on my argument is that my argument has nothing to do with the performance of the company. My argument sits on the fact that a company was able to spend $700 million on stock buybacks, despite their performance. Look, I would have to be an idiot to actually blame the layoffs on Trump - I KNOW this, so it's a little frustrating when that's all you people think I am saying, especially when that isn't what I said!


It's not hard for me to fathom that slumping sales leads to closing plants. The reason why I haven't said as much isn't because I'm ignoring obvious business patterns but that I think it goes without saying. Again, your entire argument with me has been over things that you think I'm saying but I haven't. You have yet to even notice what I'm saying, which is this...

While Trump and the Republicans were suggesting that corporate savings from the tax cuts would trickle down to the workers, statistics are showing that a disproportionate cut of those savings are going to investors on Wall Street instead.

I've been highlighting those statistics in red since my first response on this topic to try and get people to read it (apparently, that doesn't work). A tiny bit of math is all it takes to notice that $178 billion in stock buybacks in the first three months of 2018 can't possibly be about JUST Harley-Davidson. Obviously, I am looking at a bigger picture and Harley-Davidson is only an example.

At least *some* of us are getting this... LOL

Of course with the focus on the private (corporate) handling of funds, calling this a Trump attack on the working class might seem like a stretch until we consider the impact these "gifts" to Wall Street have on the federal safety nets that most working families depend on.





calling this an attack on the working class takes a little

"basis"

Also, your focus on "the company" betrays your failure to understand the point being made in the original post which applies to the nation-wide economy, not just one company. Don't feel too bad, your friends didn't do any better.

At least I can SPELL judgment.


If they were best buddies why were the Russians so interested in making sure Trump won?


hang on... 'gotta get some popcorn for this one.


Oh, so now we're admitting Russian interference, as long as Trump isn't implicated right?


The Democrats were never in need of a patsy witless, the moment Trump won the electoral vote, they already had one... Hillary even came up with a name for them... "deplorables". Why blame the Russians when the deplorables were the ones that voted for the idiot?


Be careful witless... for you know, this site could be run by Russians.


I would LOVE to hear you try to describe their economy. I bet you think they're still 100% communist.


Yeah, he's a busy bee running around putting out fake fires everywhere. Always the showman.


I think the fantasy you just spun more than disqualifies you from making any assessments about anyone else's command of history witless. LOL


A little over simplified but at least you got the general idea... very good (clap, clap, clap) Of course none of this conflicts with anything I've said so if you have a point I'm sure I don't know what it is. Are you just trying to let people know you're not as ignorant as you seem when I constantly thrash your arguments?

'Thing is jack... I never said that. I suggest you go back to my original post and read it again.


This is you telling me how I think based on your own misunderstanding of what I said.


So what this comes down to is that you don't like my attitude toward Trump. Why don't you just be honest and say so instead of trying to make this elaborate case about my supposedly "narrow views" which you base on lies about what I said?

No you didn't. Your point was that I don't "seem to have a clue how free enterprise works." You didn't explain why it seems that way.


LOL, ain't THAT the truth!


Are you going to spend this whole conversation stating the obvious but irrelevant? I'm very impressed that you have a 101 understanding of basic capitalism, but none if this has any bearing on my argument. I already said taking care of the investors is not bad thing, you even quoted me on that. So what exactly are you arguing here?

I tell you what, I got a lot to do today, so I'm not going to read the rest of your rather long post... No offense but the first points you make seem rather pointless given my argument. How about you take another approach and stop assuming that I'm one of those 20-something hippies with a bag of weed and a subscription to left-wing rhetoric and realize that I'm a successful 50-something businessman who has co-founded three tech companies over his career, has NEVER registered Democrat in his life and simply doesn't agree with the prevailing rhetoric on the right? Maybe then we can have a better conversation about what I'm actually saying.


I'm not sure riding motorcycles will make the problem any clearer for you, but it's easy enough to verify that slumping sales is evident. But again, this has no bearing on my argument. If you read my original post you might realize that Harley-Davidson is only an example of the problem I am presenting, which isn't about blaming anyone for slumping performance. I'm not saying Trump's tax cuts caused the problem Harley-Davidson is having. I'm saying Trump's tax cuts aren't really fixing the problem either which is exactly what Trump and Ryan were suggesting would happen.

Do YOU think spending $700 million on stock buybacks is going to help with this basic problem? Wouldn't some of that money be better spent on market research or factory redesign for more cost effective production? Or is Harley-Davidson hoping the investors themselves will all start buying hogs with all the money they're getting? I know one thing for sure, the slump in sales has resulted in a decline in their stock value and the buybacks are one way that investors can cut their losses through an increase in value per share and there's no reason why they can't divest after that like grabbing as much cash as you can before jumping off a sinking ship. You're correct in saying companies have an obligation to their investors but what seem to get so little attention among conservatives is that investors have no obligation to the company.


Again, I NEVER said a company struggling with sales should not do a $700 M buyback. The irony is the simple fact that a company can lay off 350 workers because of slumping sales and yet spend $700 million on buybacks.


I didn't say that either. I've made it pretty clear all along that Harley-Davidson is only one example. It was the statement in my original post that I highlighted in red, that shows the total for ALL the buyouts throughout the U.S. economy and the total average increase in wages nation-wide that drills the point I am making. You're so hung up on bickering about the example that you totally miss the bigger argument.


I never said I did... the reason why I said "I don't think" is to clearly indicate it's an opinion and that it differs from your opinion that America *is* in an economic war, which is no more provable.


When the economy is globally integrated, which it is (and that's not my opinion, that *IS* a fact) supply-chains cross borders, a situation that depends on economic cooperation between nations not economic wars. I think (as in this is my opinion) that Trump's trade wars is like hand-to-hand combat with grenades where every attack has as much potential to harm you and your friends as it does your foes.


Well they do NOW thanks to Trump's belligerence.


That has yet to be proven. Like I said, hand-to-hand combat with grenades... Trump's tariffs are pretty reckless and though he might score some points with specific industries he is nevertheless doing a LOT of damage to American trade in the process.


That's actually not true. If you knew anything about the Marshal Plans you would know these were not the charitable give-aways as described by cold-war propaganda. They were business deals in which the U.S. leveraged the advantage of being the only developed nation that didn't get consumed by the war (too far to be bombed - only fought half the war) to secure economic advantages. Japan for instance, as part of the Marshal Plan was only allowed to buy oil from U.S. suppliers. Both Japan and Germany had paid the U.S back for all the money they borrowed plus interest way back in the 70's, but the propaganda just kept playing that "everyone owes the U.S." tune and it's become a pillar of conservative folklore.


China wasn't actually screwing us. They were just one of the few trading partners with the power to NOT be screwed by America. You're right to assume that conditions have changed in the post Cold War era. During the Cold War, a large part of the world was underdeveloped. The U.S. used something called free-trade to leverage our economic advantages over these third world countries by getting them to give up their protections and open their markets to the highest bidders, which of course wouldn't be the poor people of said country but wealthy investors from America and Europe. Many countries refused this unfair situation and decided to protect their industries anyway. The U.S. response was a three step process where the upon the failure of one step the next step is taken... These steps are generally public diplomacy, private negotiations (economic hitmen) and military intervention. China was one of the few countries that was able to stand up to all three approaches.

But things HAVE changed... You're right... Much of the third world is developing so the financial advantages in a free-market are no longer guaranteed to favor American business. So now that the free-market isn't as convenient for us we are doing the same thing that we used to attack other countries for doing... protecting our industries. The only differences are that we don't have a super-power threating to destroy us for our policies and as I've said, the economy is far more integrated globally now than it was during the Cold War, which make protectionism a lot less sensible that it used to be.

Trump has found a supporting base among the people that think our unfair Cold War advantages was just us being "great" and he is blowing sunshine up their asses about how we can be "great" again by being hard-asses. But it's going to be impossible for us to play that role as effectively as we did 30 years ago because we simply don't have the same advantages that we did then. Honestly, we could do a lot better for ourselves if we start earning respect like Obama was instead of acting like we still have this big stick and we're going to beat them up with it if they don't submit, especially when the whole world knows better.

I gotta go... I might catch the rest of you post later...

First of all I'm not "missing" the big picture. I'm pointing out one particular pattern INSIDE the big picture. What you're doing here jack, is your trying to side-step the issue. It's like trying to deny that a patient has colon cancer by pointing out how healthy his other parts are. Well, I'm not talking about the overall health of the economy, jack. I'm talking specifically about the corporate stock buybacks that hit a record $178 billion in the first three months of 2018 while average hourly earnings for American workers are up only 67 cents over the past year.

So far, the knee-jerk responses from the OPP guardians of Trump's eggshell image completely miss this particular trend. All the reactions (not counting insults) fall into only two basic arguments... One is that Harley-Davidson is struggling (which does little to explain their $700 million in buybacks) and the other is that the economy over all is looking good (which has no bearing on the pattern in question).

I'm not actually expecting any real argument here and I'd be surprised of this thread get's past 3 pages. I expect people on the right to abandon the argument like they did with my previous thread about Trump's attacks on working class Americans, when I mentioned the fiduciary rule. None of the Trump supporters had a counter argument, nor did they show any indication that they even understood the issue. They just walked away because they didn't like the conversation.

This is why I am bringing these issues up. Not only to show how little Trump supporters actually understand about what the Trump administration (and the Republican Party) is doing, but how little they care to know. I choose these issues in particular because they are simple enough on their own to make conclusions without involving unproven theories, complicated relations or speculation. I'm not discounting the possibility that I could be wrong either, but so far no one has shown this to be the case. If there is something I am missing it has yet to be mentioned.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with buybacks either. Buybacks are an effective way to increase the value of shares by reducing the number of shares in the market (supply and demand). The point is that we can't make the assumption that much of the money a company saves from a tax cut will trickle down to the worker which is really the entire premise of the conservative argument that led people to support the tax cut. Noting the record breaking buybacks in contrast to the tiny uptick in wages is a pretty clear indication that more of the tax savings is going to the investors on Wall Street than to the workers on Main Street.

Neither the descriptions of Harley-Davidson as a struggling company or the overall economy as a bull market have any impact on this rather simple conclusion.

What I presented WAS fact... The 800 lost jobs are not someone's opinion, nor are they a projection. The $700 million in stock buybacks are also fact. A company can't lay off 800 workers or buy back $700 million of it's own stock without leaving a trail of public records. These facts are recorded by the Labor Department, the Securities Exchange Commission and the IRS. Just because Vox cited these facts doesn't mean they invented them.

Sometimes I forget what subscribers you people are. Instead of using you own brains to assess what a news source is presenting, you just identify the source as liberal or conservative and believe or disbelieve accordingly. This would explain your dismissal of the story as "FAKE news" based on it's source before you even gave yourself a chance to understand what is actually being said. Heck, I didn't even know Vox was considered "liberal".


See, this is how I know how clueless you are... None of the points I made have ANY bearing on ANYTHING you just stated. I didn't say the economy was stagnant, I didn't say unemployment was high. Do you even know what I said? Or did everything just blank out when you saw what I said about your POS president?

It's not much of a point if you can't explain it.


I never said taking care of their investors is a bad thing. Once again, you're arguing with your own misconceptions about what I'm actually saying. Besides, Harley-Davidson didn't have to buy $700 million in shares just to "take care of their investors".


If you don't know what their basic problem IS, how do you know what it ISN'T?

You really aren't putting the pieces together, are you? You keep trying to portray Harley-Davidson as a company struggling with sales (I guess thinking it will somehow excuse the layoffs) while completely missing the fact that they just spent $700 million on stock buybacks. Do you not see the irony here?


No, witless YOU did. You just automatically assumed that was my argument. It's too bad because you totally missed the point I was actually making which has nothing to do with the classic "management vs labor" argument. To be clear, I am not blaming Fatass or his tax policy for the job cuts. I did point out that the tax policy didn't SAVE the jobs like Trump was suggesting they would, but that's not the same thing as blaming his policy FOR the job cuts.


I don't think "America" is "in economic wars" against other countries. I know that's what your fat-daddy wants you to think because it makes his trade wars appear "patriotic" but I would have thought with all your massive knowledge about free-enterprise, you would know a little more about how globally integrated our economy really is. For instance, when your dreamy white knight slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he injured the American aerospace industry as a consequence by making their materials more expensive.


That's because America never was their patsy. That's just the strawman Dickless Donny set up so he can pretend to be attacking something. It's no different from his MAGA bullshit which is predicated on the lie that America is so much less than it really is. When politicians can't fix real problems they need to create fake ones so at least it looks like they can.


Again, that would make more sense if the world markets were still contained within national bubbles like they were in Imperial Age, but that just isn't true anymore. This thing called globalization happened. You should Google that. Something else you should note as you learn that have moved into the 21 century is that the European consumer market is actually very close behind us now and a new Eurasian market is being established with countries like China, India and Russia. Either of these two markets could easily take over the lead within a few years and the Republicans with their constant pressure to suppress wages and limit government subsidies will only accelerate the process as Americans find their purchasing power diminishing by the day.


Witless... that's a very old game and we've been playing it for decades, so it's not like Trump is really doing anything new. it's just that his recklessness is drawing a lot of concern and criticism which puts the spotlight on the issue so the clueless people can actually see it for the first time (and of course praise the Great Donny for being the only president that they've noticed being a protectionist.

So you insult others behind their backs to avoid a timeout?


I'm not going to apologize for writing beyond your reading level J. If you have questions you can always ask.

Good point about the CPI... A lot of folks don't understand how the government cherry picks the stats, the CPI is one of the worst examples of omission by leaving out the price of food and energy. I think Peter Schiff explains it pretty well in his book Crash Proof. To be honest, I don't think the trumpy droids really have a clue. For them it all seems to come down to the source. As long as the stats are being announced by conservatives, it's gospel. Otherwise, it's questionable.

Record breaking levels in stock buybacks against a backdrop of barely noticeable wage increases are a clear indication of where the tax savings are going, but the responses from the right have so far amounted to baseless insults and myopic attacks on the example rather than an assessment of the issue.

I've also noticed a complete unwillingness on their part to consider the fact that the tax cuts are only temporary. I guess this is one of those "don't look at it and it won't be real" kind of things for them.

I didn't say it was. Maybe you should actually read what I'm saying instead of just reacting to what you think I'm saying.


That's ALWAYS the wise thing to do witless, not just when the post is "anti-Trump", but when it's "anti-Obama" too. And please DO check the facts, this is the whole reason why I post things like this, to get people to look at the facts.


Says the guy who tries to blame the lost jobs on the "hard times" of a company that just bought $700 million of it's own shares. Witless, you just proved that YOU have zero understanding of private enterprise. LOL Sorry, but you can't hide real stupidity behind baseless stereotypes.

Of course he has... When has the Secretary of Treasury, ever contested the policies of his own boss?


The GDP has been climbing since 2010 when Obama turned the economy around... Unemployment has also been dropping throughout the Obama terms. If you're looking to give a NEW policy some credit, you need to look for NEW trends to match... not the same trends that have already been in motion. User your brain Radiance. I know you have one.


That statement doesn't even make enough sense for me to understand what you're trying to say.

Since you can't prove either, about the only thing you're doing here is expressing your frustration. Maybe if you could put up a real argument for once, you wouldn't have to resort to insults behind my back.

I'm a typical working-class investor, which means I DO invest, but not enough to where I can live without earning wages. So what's your point?