dljen Loc: Central PA

Thank you, Happy Holidays to you too. :)

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

I have always tried to refrain from making assumptions unless there is no other means of getting information. Making assumptions about people with whom you are commucating with is really unnecessary. Therefore, I will tell you where I get my information so you don't have to assume it came from some sort of mysterious progressive propaganda machine.

First comes the ECONOMIST, which according to
Market Watch (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/A7E7DF78-788E-11E7-AA20-463FA534051F#ampshare=http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03) is the most trusted news source in the world.

My second source is PBS, which ranks 6th most trusted by Market Watch.

Lastly, I read the local newspaper which used to have a liberal bias, but after a couple of owner t***sfers, it now leans to the conservative side.

Fyi Fox ranks 11th as the least trusted out of 18th news sources.

Also, Trump did cut regulations that among other things would eliminate8 the fiduciary
responsibility of financial advisors. I said nothing about banking.
From Forbes: "February 3, 2017, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to roll back the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule by asking the DOL to review the rule again and likely to delay its April 10th implementation (although at the time of this article a delay has not yet occurred but it is likely coming).

The ECONOMIST magazine lists the latest GDP growth at 2.3%. Getting to 4.5% seems like quite a feat.

Time will tell about the effects of the tax cuts. To begin with most is us, including many legislators, probably know little about what is in the tax bill.

How do you know bank consolidations were because of Dodd Frank. Since you didn't cite a source, could it be your opinion?

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

The Economist is hardly what I would consider a trusted news source, it is consistently liberal to what I would even consider to be progressive... Setting that aside, here are two articles which confirm Trump's growth record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/27/u-s-economy-grew-3-percent-from-july-to-september-meeting-trumps-goal/?utm_term=.4765a8f2a450

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-atlantafed/atlanta-fed-upgrades-u-s-fourth-quarter-growth-view-to-4-5-percent-idUSKBN1D157T

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Well, you are rather expert about biased opinions.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

That may explain so much.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

Your opinion of the Economist is your opinion. According to Market Watch (I don't know anything about them), the rest of the world considers it the the most trusted news source.

I see you have been careful to avoid revealing your primary news sources.

The Minneapolis Fed. President. Neel Kashari says odds of recession growing ( Mpls. Star Tribune, Dec. 19, 2017). He says it is perplexing that unemployment has moved steadily down to 4.1% while wage growth and inflation have been muted. He also cites the consistently low rate of inflation which is below the Fed's target of 2%. He further states that the bond market is inverted with the 2 year yields being greater than the 10 year yields. He said, "That condition has preceeded every recession for the past five decades."

Fed. Chairwomen, Yellen said there is a strong correlation between yield curves and recession but correlation is not the same as causation. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

or
Maybe my opinion is a bit shaded because it is a publication that Dirtpusher often links to, reading about it the magazine considers itself to be Libertarian in its political view. Which would explain part of my having a hard time considering it right of center, I think that it often delves into social issues where libertarians are often quite liberal.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

This what mediabiasfactcheck said about the Economist:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

The Economist
*V****g Polls do not affect MBFC bias ratings

The Economist - Least BiasedLEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The Economist is an English-language weekly news magazine owned by the Economist Group and edited in offices in London. The Economist presents news with centrist views and straightforward non-biased reporting. They carefully label opinion pieces which earns them a least biased rating. (7/10/2016) Updated (7/4/2017)

*********

Source: http://www.economist.com/


This is an excerpt of what the ECONOMIST said about itself:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0

"The Economist has no permanent address on the left-right scale. In most countries, the political divide is conservative-egalitarian, not liberal-illiberal. So it has no party allegiance, either. When it covers e******ns, it gives its endorsement to the candidate or party most likely to pursue classically liberal policies. It has thrown its weight behind politicians on the right, like Margaret Thatcher, and on the left, like Barack Obama. It is often drawn to centrist politicians and parties who appear to combine the best of both sides, such as Tony Blair, whose combination of social and economic liberalism persuaded it to endorse him at the 2001 and the 2005 e******ns (though it criticised his government’s infringements of civil liberties).

When The Economist opines on new ideas and policies, it does so on the basis of their merits, not of who supports or opposes them. Last October, for example, it outlined a programme of reforms to combat ine******y. Some, like attacking monopolies and targeting public spending on the poor and the young, had a leftish hue. Others, like raising retirement ages and introducing more choice in education, were more rightish. The result, "True Progressivism", was a blend of the two: neither right nor left, but all the better for it, and coming instead from what we like to call the radical centre."