I agree with all of your remarks Sherry. For the markets, Trump does provide one thing, cover, to perform dubious financial transactions while rules and regulations are repealed and tariffs are imposed. The uncertainty or volatility (another way to define these terms is the opportunity for artificially created arbitrage) is what the markets feast on. Those doing all the eating (the 1%) are at the top of that food chain.
Many financial strategies are created specifically in mind to skirt the rule of law. When you limit those strategies with rules and regulations you have a this slow growth economy or slow recovery. It is so slow that people develop amnesia for why it grows slowly instead of rapidly. They fail to understand that by walking back some of the rules intended to prevent harm via systemic financial crises, governance gaps go from cracks to chasms.
A widely known former CNBC pundit who has dabbled in cocaine use only to become Mr. Cheeto-head’s White House Economic advisor says the US is the fastest growing economy in the world because of these roll-back policies.
Bandits make huge profits from morally questionable behavior. Yes, they provide jobs for and from exploiting governance gaps, but at tremendous medium to long term costs. Mr. Cheeto-head provides the impetus for them to essentially create what is seen as indirect harm and motivated blindness.
Motivated blindness essentially suggests that people will see what they want to see, overlooking information that suggests that what they’re doing may be bad as long as their actions are beneficial to them. This can be especially problematic when incentive structures are flawed, such was when workers are rewarded for dubious things like opening fake accounts for real customers.²
Yes, indeed. You will see newer nuances of this unveiled by the end of Trump’s reign — like your brother noted Sherry there is a lag.
Meanwhile, the indirect-harm theory says that when the victims of bad behavior are far removed from bad actors, they don’t seem real, and thus don’t provoke enough sympathy to curb unethical behavior. O’Hara suggests that the financial industry is set up in such a way that distances actor from potential victim.²
Absolutely, and you might say that the president too has this effect on his very own supporters for his base, who see him quite differently from the way you and I see him.