[awm]

One thing that must be understood about the “Obama economy” is how little impact he was able to have after 2010, with Republicans in congress blocking every proposal. Comparing the “anemic recovery” from 2008 crash to other recessions, one observes the significant DECREASE in government jobs and spending, which effectively knee-capped the recovery. Much of this was at the (mostly Republican-controlled) state level of course, but even President “government is the problem” Reagen saw an uptick in government jobs during his term.

Basically everyone knows that we need an infrastructure bill. Obama asked for one on multiple occasions only to get negative answers from a Republican congress intent on cutting every major program that helps lower income Americans (even the middle class tax cuts in the stimulus were allowed by Republicans to expire without comment, at the same time they were fighting tooth an nail to keep Bush era tax cuts on millionaires in place).

There are a number of reasons the stock market has done well under Trump. Some of them:

1. Hope that some infrastructure bill (part of Trump platform too) will finally pass.
2. Hope that tax cuts will lead to corporate stock buy backs and acquisitions (lucrative for investors, but not particularly great for workers).
3. Hope that tax cuts will put more money in hands of rich investors (and they gotta Park it somewhere, certainly won’t be spending it).
4. Reduced regulation of big banks and extractive industries will lead to more profits in those sectors, at least in the short term. These are some of the stocks that have done best under Trump.
5. We are less likely to see a crack down on ridiculously high drug prices, leading to more profits for the drug industry.
6. Some of the “Trump is crazy” panic was priced in during the six months or so before the election, when the market had a bit of a slowdown.
7. Trump hasn’t started a war yet, or really done anything to impact the “real economy” significantly. The tax bill (if congress comes to agreement) will be the first big change. Canceling TPP was priced in (Hillary also against it, probably Senate would not approve, etc). If Trump actually cancels NAFTA as he has threatened that will be another big one.

I’m actually more optimistic about the market in the short term than Hrothgar — usually the market seems to react well to upward wealth transfer (in the short term anyway).

[ldrews]

awm, on 2017-December-09, 19:58, said:

One thing that must be understood about the “Obama economy” is how little impact he was able to have after 2010, with Republicans in congress blocking every proposal. Comparing the “anemic recovery” from 2008 crash to other recessions, one observes the significant DECREASE in government jobs and spending, which effectively knee-capped the recovery. Much of this was at the (mostly Republican-controlled) state level of course, but even President “government is the problem” Reagen saw an uptick in government jobs during his term.

Basically everyone knows that we need an infrastructure bill. Obama asked for one on multiple occasions only to get negative answers from a Republican congress intent on cutting every major program that helps lower income Americans (even the middle class tax cuts in the stimulus were allowed by Republicans to expire without comment, at the same time they were fighting tooth an nail to keep Bush era tax cuts on millionaires in place).

There are a number of reasons the stock market has done well under Trump. Some of them:

1. Hope that some infrastructure bill (part of Trump platform too) will finally pass.
2. Hope that tax cuts will lead to corporate stock buy backs and acquisitions (lucrative for investors, but not particularly great for workers).
3. Hope that tax cuts will put more money in hands of rich investors (and they gotta Park it somewhere, certainly won’t be spending it).
4. Reduced regulation of big banks and extractive industries will lead to more profits in those sectors, at least in the short term. These are some of the stocks that have done best under Trump.
5. We are less likely to see a crack down on ridiculously high drug prices, leading to more profits for the drug industry.
6. Some of the “Trump is crazy” panic was priced in during the six months or so before the election, when the market had a bit of a slowdown.
7. Trump hasn’t started a war yet, or really done anything to impact the “real economy” significantly. The tax bill (if congress comes to agreement) will be the first big change. Canceling TPP was priced in (Hillary also against it, probably Senate would not approve, etc). If Trump actually cancels NAFTA as he has threatened that will be another big one.

I’m actually more optimistic about the market in the short term than Hrothgar — usually the market seems to react well to upward wealth transfer (in the short term anyway).

Do you think small business growth contributes anything significant to the economy, or does it all trickle down from government and big corporations?

By the way, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1,000 or more
employees employees employees employees employees employees employees employees employees
First
Quarter Levels (in thousands)

1993 4,960 5,994 7,169 10,043 7,523 9,256 6,222 5,806 31,628
1994 5,024 6,092 7,335 10,379 7,741 9,652 6,509 6,021 32,592
1995 5,097 6,180 7,505 10,681 8,076 10,059 6,809 6,291 33,957
1996 5,136 6,225 7,578 10,857 8,246 10,310 7,013 6,561 34,689
1997 5,218 6,302 7,715 11,117 8,412 10,593 7,247 6,886 36,007
1998 5,241 6,315 7,780 11,230 8,541 10,838 7,464 7,134 37,783
1999 5,311 6,413 7,902 11,427 8,702 11,016 7,585 7,324 39,132
2000 5,324 6,468 8,061 11,682 8,936 11,263 7,922 7,559 40,583
2001 5,346 6,450 8,069 11,698 8,922 11,398 7,907 7,620 41,246
2002 5,381 6,473 8,039 11,597 8,678 11,035 7,577 7,252 39,919
2003 5,464 6,510 8,058 11,522 8,613 10,940 7,504 7,118 39,529
2004 5,534 6,595 8,142 11,661 8,723 11,028 7,605 7,204 39,662
2005 5,613 6,619 8,212 11,804 8,872 11,315 7,811 7,350 40,562
2006 5,744 6,693 8,349 12,069 9,106 11,568 7,953 7,564 41,714
2007 5,787 6,708 8,381 12,168 9,217 11,716 8,026 7,628 42,642
2008 5,765 6,620 8,274 12,048 9,155 11,708 8,060 7,643 43,110
2009 5,618 6,361 7,904 11,356 8,526 10,872 7,583 7,249 41,093
2010 5,527 6,221 7,688 10,990 8,252 10,664 7,340 7,126 40,072
2011 5,549 6,216 7,719 11,124 8,414 10,901 7,520 7,353 40,992
2012 5,564 6,298 7,859 11,404 8,635 11,204 7,741 7,585 42,167
2013 5,592 6,323 7,949 11,627 8,780 11,355 7,897 7,833 43,222
2014 5,628 6,374 8,100 11,912 8,884 11,612 8,063 7,995 44,283
2015 5,666 6,410 8,231 12,226 9,099 11,848 8,314 8,087 45,689
2016 5,722 6,476 8,385 12,521 9,270 12,023 8,451 8,266 46,968
2017 5,772 6,501 8,489 12,702 9,413 12,201 8,645 8,405 48,007

Shares (percent)

1993 5.59 6.76 8.09 11.33 8.49 10.44 7.02 6.55 35.69
1994 5.50 6.66 8.03 11.36 8.47 10.56 7.12 6.59 35.68
1995 5.38 6.52 7.92 11.28 8.53 10.62 7.19 6.64 35.87
1996 5.31 6.44 7.84 11.23 8.53 10.67 7.25 6.79 35.90
1997 5.24 6.33 7.75 11.17 8.45 10.64 7.28 6.92 36.18
1998 5.12 6.17 7.60 10.97 8.34 10.59 7.29 6.97 36.92
1999 5.06 6.11 7.53 10.90 8.30 10.51 7.23 6.98 37.33
2000 4.93 6.00 7.47 10.83 8.29 10.44 7.34 7.01 37.64
2001 4.92 5.93 7.42 10.76 8.21 10.49 7.27 7.01 37.96
2002 5.07 6.10 7.58 10.94 8.19 10.41 7.15 6.84 37.67
2003 5.19 6.18 7.65 10.94 8.18 10.39 7.12 6.76 37.55
2004 5.21 6.21 7.67 10.98 8.21 10.38 7.16 6.78 37.36
2005 5.19 6.12 7.59 10.91 8.20 10.46 7.22 6.79 37.50
2006 5.18 6.04 7.53 10.89 8.22 10.44 7.18 6.82 37.66
2007 5.15 5.97 7.46 10.83 8.20 10.43 7.14 6.79 37.98
2008 5.13 5.89 7.36 10.72 8.14 10.41 7.17 6.80 38.36
2009 5.27 5.96 7.41 10.65 8.00 10.20 7.11 6.80 38.56
2010 5.32 5.98 7.40 10.58 7.94 10.26 7.06 6.86 38.57
2011 5.24 5.87 7.29 10.51 7.95 10.30 7.10 6.95 38.74
2012 5.13 5.80 7.24 10.51 7.96 10.33 7.13 6.99 38.87
2013 5.05 5.71 7.18 10.51 7.94 10.26 7.14 7.08 39.08
2014 4.98 5.64 7.17 10.55 7.87 10.29 7.14 7.08 39.24
2015 4.90 5.54 7.12 10.57 7.87 10.25 7.19 6.99 39.53
2016 4.84 5.48 7.10 10.60 7.85 10.18 7.15 7.00 39.77
2017 4.80 5.41 7.06 10.57 7.83 10.15 7.19 6.99 39.96

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

[RedSpawn]

awm, on 2017-December-09, 19:58, said:

One thing that must be understood about the “Obama economy” is how little impact he was able to have after 2010, with Republicans in congress blocking every proposal. Comparing the “anemic recovery” from 2008 crash to other recessions, one observes the significant DECREASE in government jobs and spending, which effectively knee-capped the recovery. Much of this was at the (mostly Republican-controlled) state level of course, but even President “government is the problem” Reagen saw an uptick in government jobs during his term.

Basically everyone knows that we need an infrastructure bill. Obama asked for one on multiple occasions only to get negative answers from a Republican congress intent on cutting every major program that helps lower income Americans (even the middle class tax cuts in the stimulus were allowed by Republicans to expire without comment, at the same time they were fighting tooth an nail to keep Bush era tax cuts on millionaires in place).

There are a number of reasons the stock market has done well under Trump. Some of them:

1. Hope that some infrastructure bill (part of Trump platform too) will finally pass.
2. Hope that tax cuts will lead to corporate stock buy backs and acquisitions (lucrative for investors, but not particularly great for workers).
3. Hope that tax cuts will put more money in hands of rich investors (and they gotta Park it somewhere, certainly won’t be spending it).
4. Reduced regulation of big banks and extractive industries will lead to more profits in those sectors, at least in the short term. These are some of the stocks that have done best under Trump.
5. We are less likely to see a crack down on ridiculously high drug prices, leading to more profits for the drug industry.
6. Some of the “Trump is crazy” panic was priced in during the six months or so before the election, when the market had a bit of a slowdown.
7. Trump hasn’t started a war yet, or really done anything to impact the “real economy” significantly. The tax bill (if congress comes to agreement) will be the first big change. Canceling TPP was priced in (Hillary also against it, probably Senate would not approve, etc). If Trump actually cancels NAFTA as he has threatened that will be another big one.

I’m actually more optimistic about the market in the short term than Hrothgar — usually the market seems to react well to upward wealth transfer (in the short term anyway).

Well stated. The disturbing part of your list is that with the exception of the long overdue infrastructure bill, the PTB are engineering wealth creation by expanding the asset bubble in Wall Street instead of working with Main Street.

Inflating the Wall Street bubble maintains the illusion of a bustling economy while Main Street and blue-collar workers in the Russet Belt and beyond get left in the wind. Our growth is NOT organic; it is engineered. As you stated, it is built on cash flush corporations initiating stock buybacks and mergers and acquisitions which will ultimately lead to more layoffs and downsizing as they identify and eliminate process redundancies. The business community will say this is an inevitable conclusion as Corporate America seeks to create economies of scale and economies of scope with the newly created too big to fail entities.

Beyonce Knowles asked in one of her songs "Who runs the world?" Nope, it's not girls. It's faceless multinational corporations who run this world, dominate our domestic policy, and have assumed personhood through Citizens United to buy our politicians lock, stock, and barrel.

We are just squirrels trying to get a nut!

[hrothgar]

Still despire Trump, but he was instrumental in creaitng the following

https://www.youtube....h?v=nSuregWhlWk

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-09, 16:12, said:

I think that there are two plausible explanations

1. Drews grasp of facts is "iffy" at best. As such, he steers away from making statements that can be checked against reality
2. Drews is attempting to run some kind of Socratic dialogue, much as Luke Warm did years back... Sadly, these don't work too well when they're being run by an idiot

I think he's just a total and complete arsehole Richard. A small man with nothing going on in his life so he thinks trolling "lefties" is some sort of success. Very sad.

[Winstonm]

Trump supporters are compelled to believe that he is some kind of business genius who acts and speaks outlandishly in order to distract his enemies while he goes about his oh-so-wonderful agenda. If they see him as he truly is - incompetent, narcissistic, immature, vindictive, self-centered liar - what does that say about them?

Edit: add gullible conspiracy theory addict to the Trump list.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-10, 08:42, said:

Trump supporters are compelled to believe that he is some kind of business genius who acts and speaks outlandishly in order to distract his enemies while he goes about his oh-so-wonderful agenda. If they see him as he truly is - incompetent, narcissistic, immature, vindictive, self-centered liar - what does that say about them?

The problem is people in America have a bad habit of voting against their own interests and politicians prey on this weakness. Hell, a lot of voting Americans can't clearly define or articulate their political interests; thus, they rely on (D) and (R ) labels to avoid the hard work of vetting the candidates.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-10, 08:42, said:

Trump supporters are compelled to believe that he is some kind of business genius who acts and speaks outlandishly in order to distract his enemies while he goes about his oh-so-wonderful agenda. If they see him as he truly is - incompetent, narcissistic, immature, vindictive, self-centered liar - what does that say about them?

And yet when Trump became president the economy started improving, jobs were created, some companies started returning to the US, unemployment went down, stock market went up (think pension plans and 401Ks), illegal immigration went down, other NATO members started to catch up on their contributions, the US started negotiating better trade deals and avoided some bad international agreements, consumer confidence went to record highs, ISIS was routed/defeated.

Probably just a coincidence, right?

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-10, 09:10, said:

The problem is people in America have a bad habit of voting against their own interests and politicians prey on this weakness. Hell, a lot of voting Americans can't clearly define or articulate their political interests; thus, they rely on (D) and ® labels to avoid the hard work of vetting the candidates.

Well, I think I can articulate my political interests, and I am a US citizen. Maybe there are others as well, perhaps even participants in this forum.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 09:40, said:

<typical ldrews shite and nonsense>
Probably just a coincidence, right?

Saying the same things over and over does not them true. Richard might be able to put it in more direct words that even a total wanker like yourself can understand.

[Winstonm]

Trump's accomplishments so far are attempts to discredit any Obama legacy, appointments that damage government institutions, damaging our reputation worldwide, and legitimizing hate speech and racism.

The Supreme Court nomination is due to Mitch McConnell - not Trump.
Jobs and the economy are not responding to Trump as he has not accomplished any legislation to influence them.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-December-10, 10:19, said:

The Supreme Court nomination is due to Mitch McConnell - not Trump.

Are you saying that Trump did not nominate Gorsuch?

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 10:46, said:

Are you saying that Trump did not nominate Gorsuch?

No, he is saying that McConnell was the one who stole the seat to begin with giving Trump the chance to make an appointment...

With this said and done, I fail to understand why filling a vacant seat when your party controls the Senate is such a great accomplishment.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-10, 11:27, said:

No, he is saying that McConnell was the one who stole the seat to begin with giving Trump the chance to make an appointment...

With this said and done, I fail to understand why filling a vacant seat when your party controls the Senate is such a great accomplishment.

You think the Republican party is unified? Gimme a break!

[RedSpawn]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 09:53, said:

Well, I think I can articulate my political interests, and I am a US citizen. Maybe there are others as well, perhaps even participants in this forum.

Imagine if you will that you are on the Board of Directors (BOD) of a $4.1 trillion enterprise and you need a CEO to run it.

I want you to look me in my virtual eyes and tell me that you would interview a candidate who is known to run his companies into bankruptcy court four times to be the leader of the "corporation". Source: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=13419250

You want a consummate businessman to run this behemoth and what better person than to have someone who is very familiar with Chapter 7, 11, and 13 Bankruptcy Codes because of his own repeated business failures?

The average BOD wouldn't even call Trump to interview for the position. If they did, they probably would ask to see at least a few years of filed taxes since his businesses haven't fared well. Oh that's right! President Trump is defensive about his inability to ensure his businesses operate as going concerns. Full disclosure isn't his strong suit so we won't be seeing his filed taxes anytime soon.

So what do disillusioned Americans do? They believe that he IS a savvy businessman and that his celebrity on an Apprentice Show will translate into transferable skills for the Office of the President. We have a REALITY SHOW CELEBRITY as President of the United States and we have people who are standing by their woefully inexperienced tragic hero.

Is this delusional or voting against your own interests? You tell me?!

[ldrews]

RedSpawn, on 2017-December-10, 12:22, said:

Imagine if you will that you are on the Board of Directors (BOD) of a $4.1 trillion enterprise and you need a CEO to run it.

I want you to look me in my virtual eyes and tell me that you would interview a candidate who is known to run his companies into bankruptcy court four times to be the leader of the "corporation". Source: http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=13419250

You want a consummate businessman to run this behemoth and what better person than to have someone who is very familiar with Chapter 7, 11, and 13 Bankruptcy Codes because of his own repeated business failures?

The average BOD wouldn't even call Trump to interview for the position. If they did, they probably would ask to see at least a few years of filed taxes since his businesses haven't fared well. Oh that's right! President Trump is defensive about his inability to ensure his businesses operate as going concerns. Full disclosure isn't his strong suit so we won't be seeing his filed taxes anytime soon.

So what do disillusioned Americans do? They believe that he IS a savvy businessman and that his celebrity on an Apprentice Show will translate into transferable skills for the Office of the President. We have a REALITY SHOW CELEBRITY as President of the United States and we have people who are standing by their woefully inexperienced tragic hero.

Is this delusional or voting against your own interests? You tell me?!

According to Wikipedia The Trump Organization has 500+ subsidiaries. Out of that you have identified 4 that have gone into bankruptcy. You should have such a record. And by the way, taking a company into bankruptcy is often a good business strategy; it is not always a sign that the business has failed.

Trump has taken a 1 million dollar loan from his father and turned it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. He has survived and prospered in the NY real estate market, probably the toughest real estate market in the US. So I would assume that he has some business acumen.

Trump would probably never apply for the CEO position of your hypothetical company. If he was interested in that business he would probably just buy it.

But yes, as I look into your virtual eyes, I am happy to announce that I would gladly consider Trump for the position of CEO.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 16:43, said:

According to Wikipedia The Trump Organization has 500+ subsidiaries. Out of that you have identified 4 that have gone into bankruptcy. You should have such a record. And by the way, taking a company into bankruptcy is often a good business strategy; it is not always a sign that the business has failed.

Trump has taken a 1 million dollar loan from his father and turned it into a multi-billion dollar enterprise. He has survived and prospered in the NY real estate market, probably the toughest real estate market in the US. So I would assume that he has some business acumen.

Trump would probably never apply for the CEO position of your hypothetical company. If he was interested in that business he would probably just buy it.

But yes, as I look into your virtual eyes, I am happy to announce that I would gladly consider Trump for the position of CEO.

Comment the first: Trump's "business enterprise" is laundering money for the Russian mob and South America drug cartels. He was forced to go into this line of business because he screwed over so many counter-parties that no one in the US will extend his any credit. (The only reason that Deutsche Bank loans him any money is that they are also massively in hock to the Russians)

Comment the Second: Trump didn't survive and prosper. He went bankrupt. On multiple occasions. On several of these, Daddy needed to bail him out (for example, purchasing millions of dollars of chips at Trump Casinos)

Comment the Third: If you'd actually trust Trump to manage your business, you're even more stupid than I thought

Comment the Fourth: There's a lot of debate over the amount of money that Trump inherited from his father. I've heard as much as $250 million and never less than about 40M. However, 1M seems ridiculously low. Of course, the real "value" that Trump got from dear old dad was all the political connections in and around New York and he still managed to ***** things up.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-December-10, 17:01, said:

Comment the first: Trump's "business enterprise" is laundering money for the Russian mob and South America drug cartels. He was forced to go into this line of business because he screwed over so many counter-parties that no one in the US will extend his any credit. (The only reason that Deutsche Bank loans him any money is that they are also massively in hock to the Russians)

Comment the Second: Trump didn't survive and prosper. He went bankrupt. On multiple occasions. On several of these, Daddy needed to bail him out (for example, purchasing millions of dollars of chips at Trump Casinos)

Comment the Third: If you'd actually trust Trump to manage your business, you're even more stupid than I thought

Comment the Fourth: There's a lot of debate over the amount of money that Trump inherited from his father. I've heard as much as $250 million and never less than about 40M. However, 1M seems ridiculously low. Of course, the real "value" that Trump got from dear old dad was all the political connections in and around New York and he still managed to ***** things up.

Can you cite actual evidence to support your assertions? And what prompted the gratuitous insult?

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 17:23, said:

Can you cite actual evidence to support your assertions? And what prompted the gratuitous insult?

Your trolling earns every last insult you get here shitface. Get used to it.

On a lighter note, can anyone from over The Pond tell me where you come from. I am a little confused.

Edit: and on the case of money, the WP was the top link when I googled trump inheritance:

Quote

One of Marco Rubio’s top zingers in the debate last week was that if Trump hadn’t gotten an inheritance of $200 million from his father, he’d be “selling watches” in the streets of Manhattan. Rubio got the figures about Trump’s inheritance wrong — $200 million is actually what Trump’s dad’s fortune was estimated at in the 1970s, not Trump’s inheritance — but Trump clearly benefited from the wealth and connections of his father, Fred Trump.

One of the richest people in America in the 1970s, Fred Trump built a real estate empire developing apartments for middle-class families in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island after World War II. After the younger Trump graduated from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School in 1968, he joined his dad’s firm and, in 1971, took over the business. He built on his dad’s success, deploying leveraged capital on risky ventures that paid off: the Grand Hyatt Hotel on East 42nd Street, the Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, and Trump Plaza on 61st and Third Avenue.

What Trump benefited most from initially was his dad’s credit-worthiness, says D’Antonio. “When he wanted to go into business on his own, his father’s credit was available to him, and that was worth tens of millions of dollars.”

Still, there are questions over how much wealth Trump created. In the debate last week, Trump claimed that he took a loan of $1 million from his father and he turned it into a fortune of $10 billion. But The Post's fact checkers say that neither claim is quite right.

The $1 million loan doesn’t include any of the benefits Trump received from his family’s connections and joining his father’s real estate business after he graduated from college, and it doesn’t count an estimated $40 million inheritance in 1974. The $10 billion figure, which is what Trump claims as his current net worth, is also disputed. Bloomberg News has estimated Trump's net worth at only $2.9 billion, while Forbes put it at $4.1 billion. Since Trump’s businesses aren’t public, the true figure isn’t clear.

As my colleague Max Ehrenfreund has argued, even if Trump has many billions of dollars, there's an open question over whether that reflects true business acumen.

Business Week estimated Trump’s net worth at $100 million in 1978. If Trump had merely put that money in an index fund based on the Standard & Poor's 500 index — the kind many Americans use to save for retirement — he would be worth $6 billion today.

PS: I answered your questions. Now try answering mine.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-December-10, 17:23, said:

Can you cite actual evidence to support your assertions?

Can I prove any of this in a court of law? Don't have to... that what we have the Mueller investigation for.

With this said and done, there have been a whole bunch of articles about all of this.

1. On the money laundering front, I recommend searching on

Trump money laundering Bayrock
Trump Money Laundering International Hotel & Tower Baku
Trump Money Laundering Ocean Club in Panama

2. Trump's multiple bankrupcy's are well documented. With respect to Daddy bailing him out:

Quote

In a 2007 deposition, Trump admitted he had borrowed “a small amount” from his father’s estate: ‘I think it was like in the $9 million range.” And as Trump’s casinos ran into trouble, Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage — a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.

https://www.washingt...m=.df61ec7ca114

3. With respect to Deutsche Bank and Russian money laundering

http://money.cnn.com...ring/index.html

They've already been fined $630M in the US for money laundering.
The investigations are far from over...

Quote

And what prompted the gratuitous insult?

Your posting history