Goldman Sachs Says: Trumps Deregulation Has Little Economic Impact

[laserhaas]

Source: Bloomberg

President Donald Trump’s deregulation agenda for industry has had limited impact on the job market and capital spending during his first year in office,

according to Goldman Sachs.

A study by the bank found little evidence that “non-financial deregulation has had meaningful macroeconomic impact to date,” according to research report released on Sunday that analyzed commentary from equity analysts, economic data and post-election stock returns. “While press reports often highlight deregulation as a key driver of the economy’s acceleration over the last year, identifying its causal impact is challenging.”

The findings aren’t surprising, the bank said. Rolling back regulations can be a “slow and difficult” task, regulations don’t impose that high of a cost, and state and local actors are often responsible for red tape that really make a difference, according to Goldman Sachs.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/trump-s-deregulation-has-little-economic-impact-goldman-says

---

Puhhlleeaassee....What a - C R O C K

How much more does Goldman Sachs want? Aren't the people in charge of the FED, SEC etc., etc..predominately Goldman Sachs alumnus?

Currently, Goldman Sachs gets to break the law, without remorse or relent.

Does Blankfein want us to deposit the entire U.S. Treasury into the Bank of Goldman Sachs?

........Shheesshh

[BlueDog22]

1. Bankers

When Bankers are telling you that you're deregulation will make little impact, well you can take that to the bank. If it helped their bottom line, they'd be shouting for the the Feds to cut those regulations.

[William Seger]

2. "The findings aren't surprising..."

Duh.

[TygrBright]

3. Oh, "Goldman Sachs says"... Well, alright, then. n/t

[elleng]

4. 'non-financial deregulation'

[uncle ray]

7. i take it financial deregulation has paid off well. n/t.

[mpcamb]

5. They won't be drinking the contaminated water or breathing the fetid air.

They live in communities with guards at the gates.

[Jim Lane]

6. Goldman Sachs is almost certainly correct.

Note that the finding concerns "meaningful macroeconomic impact" (emphasis added) from "non-financial deregulation" (emphasis added).

What this means, in plain terms, is that, when Trump and his minions act to allow companies to emit more pollution or subject more workers and consumers to unsafe conditions, these steps do NOT, as the Republicans claim, reduce the overall unemployment rate.

It doesn't mean there are no health impacts. It doesn't mean that financial deregulation has no effect on the economy.

[not fooled]

8. Reading between the lines

the benefit goes not to the country as a whole but rather to a small number of wealthy extractive industry oligarchs who no longer have to pay to clean up their pollution.

Just as intended.

[Jim Lane]

9. I think you're right.

There's definitely a redistribution. That has a big effect on fairness and equality but not a big macroeconomic effect.

It's an important distinction. The Republicans obviously weren't admitting the intended effects. Instead, they were touting a purported macroeconomic benefit (job creation). The Goldman Sachs analysis is dispelling that myth.