Is the White House trying to engineer a recession? This Wall Street pro explains the vision. (2 Viewers)

[multivita-man]

We could have had sane and normal instead of 4 years of chaos.

It still would have been insane.

The Republicans would have threatened to default on the debt, and who knows, maybe this time, they actually would have carried out that threat. They would use their majority to impeach Harris and any and all of her cabinet officials. They would have voted to block funding for Ukraine. They would have blocked Supreme Court nominations. They would have blocked passage of a real budget, ensuring more CRs and a deepening fiscal crisis. I gotta think that eventually the economy would cool and they'd try to pin the blame on her.

The Republicans are a total shit-ass party, whether they're in the White House or not. I think it's time that the country just gets this out of its system and gets a chance to see whether they really like living under a hedge fund presidency.

 

[BabaVoss]

Little felon Donnie likes to efff things up (or lie about them being efffed up) so he can later claim he magically fixed it.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It still would have been insane.

Not like it is now

 

[Quag]

One of the problems is his tariffs will cause more inflation not disinflation
But more importantly the whole article assumes trump understands how economies work in order to manipulate them which is laughable

 

[multivita-man]

Not like it is now

I would agree, but I think it would be delaying the inevitable. This was going to happen eventually. There are just too many ignorant American voters, and I think we're just gonna have to find out what it's like to **** around.

 

[Econ4every1]

That wasn't the point at all. The rich are going to do what they are going to do.

The rich are going to make everything unaffordable.

Take for example.....

Housing in Philly.....

in 1999 an average home was about $80k and the average salary was $40k or $3,300 dollars a month.

That's a $2,400 down payment

At 7% interest that was $750 a month or 23% of a persons salary.

Now 2025......

An average house in Philly is $250k, 212% higher, but the average salary is $60k or about 50% higher. At the same interest, 7%, that's 33% of the average salary.

Now, government spending too much money doesn't cause this problem, if it did, then the average salary would be higher. Remember salaries are a price for labor. If inflation causes prices to increase, then it stands to reason that labor prices should increase along with everything else.

The reality is, the wealthy are using their wealth to capture more money and then using the money to compete for necessities like real estate, or use money to to corrupt the private sector healthcare system or drive up costs of education. Thus, it's not government spending that's causing the problem, it's wealthy people using wealth to drive up prices on everyone else.

 

[trumptman]

The rich are going to make everything unaffordable.

Take for example.....

Housing in Philly.....

in 1999 an average home was about $80k and the average salary was $40k or $3,300 dollars a month.

That's a $2,400 down payment

At 7% interest that was $750 a month or 23% of a persons salary.

Now 2025......

An average house in Philly is $250k, 212% higher, but the average salary is $60k or about 50% higher. At the same interest, 7%, that's 33% of the average salary.

So you note how inflation is happening. The rich do not cause inflation. Government causes inflation. Inflation makes every investor have to be more risky and more speculative because not only do they need a good return, they need a return that outpaces inflation. If you get a 5% on your money in a 10% per year inflationary environment then you've lost 5% purchasing power. It also makes it so the rich cannot keep liquidity because cash just sitting in an account loses purchasing power as well. You put a million dollars into an account for a year that earns nothing and a year later in a 10% inflation environment you've got $900k of purchasing power.

Inflation helps debtors and the biggest debtor of all is the Federal Government.

If you own a million dollars and are in a 10% inflationary environment, a year later you effectively owe 10% less even without making a payment.

Thus it is government causes and controls inflation via money supply.

Now, government spending too much money doesn't cause this problem, if it did, then the average salary would be higher. Remember salaries are a price for labor. If inflation causes prices to increase, then it stands to reason that labor prices should increase along with everything else.

The labor prices do rise. Even in your example they rose 50%.

The reality is, the wealthy are using their wealth to capture more money and then using the money to compete for necessities like real estate, or use money to to corrupt the private sector healthcare system or drive up costs of education. Thus, it's not government spending that's causing the problem, it's wealthy people using wealth to drive up prices on everyone else.

The reality is you have a half understanding of this matter. Look into money supply to get the other half of your understanding.

 

[Econ4every1]

So you note how inflation is happening. The rich do not cause inflation. Government causes inflation.

So, let's make sure that we're clear here since I don't recall having a conversation w/ you. So let's define inflation.

Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy, typically measured annually as a percentage, resulting in a reduction in the purchasing power of money. It's driven by factors like excessive demand, increased production costs, or inflationary expectations.

Now, let me try to intercept a possible response before it comes that usually goes something like this.

"Inflation is an increase in the number of dollars, driven by government spending".

First, if you were to respond with this....You'd be presenting a specific theory of inflation, often associated with the Monetarist school of economic thought, but it's not the complete or universally accepted definition. It's a potential cause of inflation, but not the definition of inflation itself. Further, it's family simple to use the Monetarist equation MV=PQ to disprove this idea, but I digress, we'll get there.

Further, if it were true that more government spending resulted in greater spending by the public, which in turn drove up prices and a decrease in buying power, then you'd simply be wrong. First, it's worth pointing out that wages are the price of labor, if inflation was really as you claim, then it stands to reason that wages would increase as well (at least in nominal terms), as fast if not faster than in the past relative to prices. Even if you wanted to claim that wages lag behind inflation, we should still see wages rising with inflation over time....That's not been the long term trend. But that's not the case, a greater and greater percent of the population has less money, not more. How can people will less money cause prices to increase?

Here is a graph that shows government deficit spending percent change, but I've added GDP, which is an accumulation of all spending and mapped that over CPI.....

If it's easier, here is just government deficit spending over CPI. Not much of a correlation here....

Here is CPI to M1 (the actual supply of money in our accounts) where M1 consists of (1) currency outside the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve Banks, and the vaults of depository institutions; (2) demand deposits at commercial banks (excluding those amounts held by depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign banks and official institutions) less cash items in the process of collection and Federal Reserve float; and (3) other checkable deposits (OCDs), consisting of negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, and automatic transfer service, or ATS, accounts at depository institutions, share draft accounts at credit unions, and demand deposits at thrift institutions.

Zero correlation.

You won't find a correlation to CPI and wages, reserve levels or total federal debt.

 

[Econ4every1]

What I can show is a graph where we see a correlation.... Oil price.

We can throw housing in where I'd say there is at least a loose correlation, the big exception being the run up to the 2008 crash.

Ok, ok, so you were saying......The government causes inflation?

The rich do not cause inflation.

So it's the middle class driving up home prices?

Let's look at homes purchased with cash.....

As of 2023, 35% of all homes were being purchased with cash. Interesting that investors stopped buying homes with cash after the election? Perhaps they know something?

In fact, the wealthy are snapping up real estate of all kinds in some cities 1 out of 10 homes is owned by a corporation so they can collect rents. The more homes owned by fewer people (or corporations) the less competition, the greater the ability to increase prices on renters.

Even Fox agrees with me.....

In fact, when you have more wealth, you pay less taxes as a percentage of your income and use that money to out compete everyone else.

 

[Econ4every1]

And here we have net worth , the blue line at the bottom, that's 1/2 of all Americans. Now if you think inflation is when people have more money to spend, you'd be right, what you're wrong about is the cause.

You can see that wealth is increasing only in the top 1/2 of the economy, and while the purple line looks impressive, remember that represents 40% of Americans between 51% and 90th percentiles.

Inflation makes every investor have to be more risky and more speculative because not only do they need a good return, they need a return that outpaces inflation.

Two thoughts here....If your wealth is measured in the 100's of millions of dollars and you can't invest and keep pace with inflation, you don't deserve your money because there are sooooooo many ways to earn that aren't available to the average person. The top 1% often have access to private equity, hedge funds, and other investment avenues that are not open to the general public, which can lead to higher returns.

Not to mention, that when the economy does poorly, people at the margin, those who might have a house, or a small business, may be forced to sell their only sources of income and wealth in order to avoid bankruptcy. If you're wealth is measured in 100's of millions or even billions, you could lose 1/2 of your net worth in an economic downturn, but use your remaining wealth to come out better off when the economy turns around.

Thus it is government causes and controls inflation via money supply.

And I showed already there is no correlation between the supply of money and inflation.

MV=PQ

M=Money
V=Velocity
P=Prices
Q=Quantity

Increase M causes an increase in P? Only if Q can't increase (like during COVID).

The labor prices do rise. Even in your example they rose 50%.

Sure, but you realize there is a relationship between wages and prices, right?

I mean, wages are simply one price of many.

So if wages increase 50% over 20 years, but housing and food increase by more , then wages aren't causing houses and food prices to increase, housing and food prices are causing wages to increase.

The reality is you have a half understanding of this matter. Look into money supply to get the other half of your understanding.

I think I just did....

Troche my friend. Teach me!

Show me the hard truth, but please, put some meat on that bone. Show me the evidence.

 

[trumptman]

So, let's make sure that we're clear here since I don't recall having a conversation w/ you. So let's define inflation.

Inflation is a sustained increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy, typically measured annually as a percentage, resulting in a reduction in the purchasing power of money. It's driven by factors like excessive demand, increased production costs, or inflationary expectations.

Now, let me try to intercept a possible response before it comes that usually goes something like this.

"Inflation is an increase in the number of dollars, driven by government spending".

First, if you were to respond with this....You'd be presenting a specific theory of inflation, often associated with the Monetarist school of economic thought, but it's not the complete or universally accepted definition. It's a potential cause of inflation, but not the definition of inflation itself. Further, it's family simple to use the Monetarist equation MV=PQ to disprove this idea, but I digress, we'll get there.

Further, if it were true that more government spending resulted in greater spending by the public, which in turn drove up prices and a decrease in buying power, then you'd simply be wrong. First, it's worth pointing out that wages are the price of labor, if inflation was really as you claim, then it stands to reason that wages would increase as well (at least in nominal terms), as fast if not faster than in the past relative to prices. Even if you wanted to claim that wages lag behind inflation, we should still see wages rising with inflation over time....That's not been the long term trend. But that's not the case, a greater and greater percent of the population has less money, not more. How can people will less money cause prices to increase?

I'm going to slow your roll a bit here. I'm especially going to to do that since you presumed my answer and then flooded the thread with replies on that presumption. I can relate I assure you.

It is not ONLY government spending that drives inflation. There is also their long discussed relationship with the Fed, reserve requirements for banks, the type of loans allowed to be offered to consumers and so on. Also the flip side of the government spending is DEFICIT FINANCING.

Before you and I go on a flood of words and images we should just settle up right there and see if we are talking to each other or past each other.

 

[trumptman]

Two points, the forum complains about the types of discussions being trolling and flaming but when we get to a cool discussion we have character limits that basically shut it down. Am I right? Part of this can be circled back to when we get on the same page above. I had to have fun with two parts though....

Two thoughts here....If your wealth is measured in the 100's of millions of dollars and you can't invest and keep pace with inflation, you don't deserve your money because there are sooooooo many ways to earn that aren't available to the average person. The top 1% often have access to private equity, hedge funds, and other investment avenues that are not open to the general public, which can lead to higher returns.

You mean the type of products Donald Trump was just put on trial for in NYC and found guilty for using even though there were teams of bankers, adjusters, appraisers and lawyers on each side? I think you are making Trump's case for him.

However it isn't just the rate of inflation. It is inflation plus taxation and we do want investment, not just speculation and gambling. Again people complain about Wall Street just gambling and moving people's money around when inflation plus taxation means you need a 30% return for inflation across a few years plus 20% capital gains, that's a steep hill to climb.

Not to mention, that when the economy does poorly, people at the margin, those who might have a house, or a small business, may be forced to sell their only sources of income and wealth in order to avoid bankruptcy. If you're wealth is measured in 100's of millions or even billions, you could lose 1/2 of your net worth in an economic downturn, but use your remaining wealth to come out better off when the economy turns around.

Indeed they can and they do in fact do that. However there has never NOT been a margin. So spending government money to prop up segments of the economy endlessly won't change that point.

Troche my friend. Teach me!

Show me the hard truth, but please, put some meat on that bone. Show me the evidence.

We can get on the same page and then see what we can do with a 5000 character limit.

 

[JerryW]

The current administration seems to view chaos as a sign of positive change.

So many promises to purge fraud - but it seems everything they've truly uncovered can be found in recent report of the relevant IG.

And the following is an expensive way to manage employees:

 

[Peter]

We could have had sane and normal instead of 4 years of chaos.

Sane and normal is just so 2010's though.

What the US needs is a President who's as easy to upset as a moody teenage girl and all the financial skills of a crack addict in the middle of a 5 day bender.
That's what MAGA fans voted for.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Sane and normal is just so 2010's though.

What the US needs is a President who's as easy to upset as a moody teenage girl and all the financial skills of a crack addict in the middle of a 5 day bender.
That's what MAGA fans voted for.

That really is who Trump is.

A moody teenage girl.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

If only we could find some financial journals that would print articles announcing that the very wealthy were sitting on piles of cash waiting for such an event.

This Chart Could Explain Why Warren Buffett Is Holding $325 Billion in Cash

Warren Buffett's $325 billion cash reserve signals caution amid historically high market valuations.

www.investopedia.com

It's almost like such a wealthy person understands that a correction would allow them to buy a bunch of assets at prices that would net a great return and allow them to keep making money.



There will always be gain. The pain is only those who cannot absorb the downturn and have to cash out.

There will always still be a world out there. If housing values were to drop by 50% a bunch of retirees would be sad but a bunch of 25 year olds would be thrilled.



Everything right now needs to be corrected.



The side effect will be investment in the United States and domestic production.



Spoken like a true socialist.

The 25 year Olds won't have jobs, to buy houses. Like during covid the wealth funds will buy up.the distressed assets, leaving the rest to rent.

The you will own nothing will come into effect under the Trump administration. Not Biden.



As for a correction, you are correct. Living standards in the US are way to high for Trumps plan to work. Basic labor in the US costs more than a highly trained semiconductor technician in Taiwan, producing computer chips that the US can't. The semiconductor technician in the US earns 3 to 4 times that of the Taiwanese tech and won't work as long or hard as the Taiwanese tech.

For chip manufacturing to come back to the US long term the pay difference in purchasing power parity needs to be narrower. That means the post WW2 American dream is dead, a suburban house with a big yard will be limited to the upper income groups, no longer for basic manufacture jobs.

That is the correction that is coming, it will be long, it will be painful, it will change America

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't believe that the administration is necessarily trying to cause a recession, but I do think it's possible that they are so committed to their economic and political agenda that they don't necessarily care if one happens, and they may be confident that we can climb out of it. Think Reagan's supply side economics in 1981, which contributed to a very deep recession in 1982-83. The obvious difference is that in 1981 we weren't that far removed from the 1970s stagflation. In 2025, while we have a serious debt problem and a moderate inflation problem, our economy right now is generally in better shape than it was when Reagan took his wrecking ball to FDR's New Deal.

The 1982 recession was caused by the fed chairman raising rates drastically to control inflation. That shocked the economy and brought down inflation. Reagan supply side economics was basically government stimulus boosting the economy. The federal debt grew more than the economy, which is very stimulative.


Reagan started with a relatively low debt to GDP, Trump today has a very high debt to GDP, the basic fundamentals of the US economy is worse than under Reagan.


The other aspect is a huge imbalance in the world economy caused by the USD being the world reserve currency. Making it over valued, hurting US non financial production uneconomical

 

[iguanaman]

"Traders are starting to price in the possibility that the U.S. economy might fall into a recession — and one Wall Street veteran says that might actually be the Trump administration’s plan.

Charlie McElligott, a strategist at Nomura dubbed Wall Street’s most wired analyst by the Financial Times for his manic missives focused on the options market, laid out the argument in a note to clients.

He said President Donald Trump and his administration need an engineered recession to cause a growth slowdown and disinflation that will translate into Fed rate cuts and a meaningfully weaker U.S. dollar for the next phase of his economic agenda.

In another note to clients on Wednesday morning, McElligott cited remarks made by Treasury Sec. Scott Bessent on a focus on small business and consumers that will require a “rebalance,” as Trump in front of Congress on Tuesday night spoke of being “okay” with a little disturbance from tariffs.

The idea is that Fed rate cuts and supply-side stimulus from tax cuts and deregulation will then be able to build up the economy without the need for government spending."

Link

This is a good, simple explanation of what Trump is trying to do. It's a pretty tall order and I'm not sure that what works on paper will happen in the real world. And indeed, there are many critics of this idea. These are weeds I'm not eager to wade into.

That analysis has more holes than swiss cheese. First of all the Fed is predicting that tariffs are inflationary and will also cause GDP contraction and that is called stagflation and resulted in some of the highest interest rates in our history the last time that happened. Then there is also the fact that tax cuts have never stimulated growth and likely never will. What is more likely is a persistent recession under Trump as consumers are getting scared shitless about his policies which will result in layoffs and high unemployment and civil unrest. There is where it starts to get much darker.......we all know what Trump thinks of mass demonstrations...

 

[Parrish]

Did the old man skip the lectures on tariffs at THE WHARTON SCHOOL?

 

[Cordelier]

At this point a deep recession is the best case scenario.

 

[multivita-man]

The 1982 recession was caused by the fed chairman raising rates drastically to control inflation. That shocked the economy and brought down inflation. Reagan supply side economics was basically government stimulus boosting the economy.

Only if you consider military spending on fancy weapons projects stimulus, which most economists don't. It can be argued that supply-side economics stimulated private sector activity by increasing the availability of goods, which, in tandem with decreasing inflation may have also contributed to growth, but that's not really considered stimulus per se. Would agree that Volcker's sharp increase of interest rates shocked the economy, including bankrupting farmers.

The federal debt grew more than the economy, which is very stimulative.

Not in and of itself. The stimulus was on the military. The 'stimulus' was the recovery from the shock of high interest rates once inflation abated.

Reagan started with a relatively low debt to GDP,

And nearly doubled it. Yet Republicans continued to argue for decades that they actually cared about deficits and the debt, and Democrats have inexplicably allowed themselves to own that narrative. Thus began the era of Democratic self-ownage.

Trump today has a very high debt to GDP, the basic fundamentals of the US economy is worse than under Reagan.

I wouldn't say that, either. If Republicans would agree to even moderate tax increases on the highest income earners and maybe some sort of modest wealth tax, and if both parties would start getting realistic about the rising costs of elderly care and agree to delayed benefits and an increase in payroll taxes, then the fundamentals of which you speak would probably be fine, as long as resources are available (and cheap enough) to fuel the economy - that's another thread of discussion.

But aside from the obvious debt-gdp problem, which is fixable, the fundamentals of the economy that Trump inherited were, on balance, good. There is a growing structural inequality due to years of lax monetary policy - that's where the structural problem is. Again, one party is a lot more interested in dealing with the fundamental economic concerns than the other.

 

[Juks]

The 1982 recession was caused by the fed chairman raising rates drastically to control inflation. That shocked the economy and brought down inflation. Reagan supply side economics was basically government stimulus boosting the economy. The federal debt grew more than the economy, which is very stimulative.


Reagan started with a relatively low debt to GDP, Trump today has a very high debt to GDP, the basic fundamentals of the US economy is worse than under Reagan.


The other aspect is a huge imbalance in the world economy caused by the USD being the world reserve currency. Making it over valued, hurting US non financial production uneconomical

Trump's policies differ fundamentally from the tightening that led to the 1982 recession. The OP’s article appears to present a theory that attempts to rationalize Trump's economic measures as a "smart" strategy to achieve future economic gains, but it ignores the real and potentially catastrophic consequences of his policies. Calling Trump's tariffs and economic actions "a little disturbance" is a euphemistic description. When adding Trump's ongoing break with the US's allies, the picture becomes even clearer: this is not about a short-term "adjustment" of the economy but a systematic dismantling of the US's global position as an economic and political superpower.

While 1982 was a controlled and necessary austerity measure to stabilize the economy, Trump's economic actions are destructive and unstructured and fully implemented will lead to a prolonged stagnation rather than a short-term recession.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Only if you consider military spending on fancy weapons projects stimulus, which most economists don't. It can be argued that supply-side economics stimulated private sector activity by increasing the availability of goods, which, in tandem with decreasing inflation may have also contributed to growth, but that's not really considered stimulus per se. Would agree that Volcker's sharp increase of interest rates shocked the economy, including bankrupting farmers.



Not in and of itself. The stimulus was on the military. The 'stimulus' was the recovery from the shock of high interest rates once inflation abated.



And nearly doubled it. Yet Republicans continued to argue for decades that they actually cared about deficits and the debt, and Democrats have inexplicably allowed themselves to own that narrative. Thus began the era of Democratic self-ownage.



I wouldn't say that, either. If Republicans would agree to even moderate tax increases on the highest income earners and maybe some sort of modest wealth tax, and if both parties would start getting realistic about the rising costs of elderly care and agree to delayed benefits and an increase in payroll taxes, then the fundamentals of which you speak would probably be fine, as long as resources are available (and cheap enough) to fuel the economy - that's another thread of discussion.

But aside from the obvious debt-gdp problem, which is fixable, the fundamentals of the economy that Trump inherited were, on balance, good. There is a growing structural inequality due to years of lax monetary policy - that's where the structural problem is. Again, one party is a lot more interested in dealing with the fundamental economic concerns than the other.

The government spending on the military build up, increased private sector manufacturing ie it takes steel to build tanks and ships.

Of course it sort of crowded out productive domestic manufacturing ( ie in vehicles) and generally led to the relative decline in manufacturing as part of the US economy

The last two years post covid had a deficit of roughly 6% of GDP each year, the economy grew at 3% or less. The economy had growth only because of deficit spending. Not a good base to build on

 

[LouC]

Is the White House trying to engineer a recession? This Wall Street pro explains the vision.​

If it owns the Libz, then why the hell not?

MAGA!!!

 

[ashurbanipal]

You don't think humans have a nature. Yet you know the nature of every "wealthy elite" down below. Did you read your own words?

No, I don't think there is a human nature. Usually, when someone invokes the problem of "human nature" in economic debates, they're saying something like "everyone is maximally greedy" or "everyone will always seek their own self interest" or what-have-you. I don't agree to any of that. As I said in the same paragraph, all people do need to eat, shelter, drink water, and satisfy certain other basic needs, but that cannot be what you mean by "human nature" since the wealthy are not solving the problems that attend on those needs.

None of that means that members of certain groups don't share, or tend to share, certain common characteristics.

The wealthy are solving them and do so to the point that we have an obesity epidemic and far more wants than needs at this stage.

I can take you to some soup kitchens in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, etc. and show you a whole bunch of people whose lives bespeak the opposite. But I would agree that food security today is better than it was in, say, the year 1320 in Europe. So is wealth inequality. But we are taking actions that will slide us back to that time and somehow a bunch of people are convinced of exactly the opposite. Which is downright silly.

No my response was that your "moral dimensions" were an attempt to distract and digress from the real discussion. You don't like that. So I tell you and anyone else doing the same to stuff it.

No, I don't like it, because it's false, and I am a lover of truth. There is a moral dimension to action (perhaps not literally every action, but a lot of them), and to economic action, there is always a moral dimension. If we get rid of that moral dimension, we're left with a situation where anyone can just kill anyone else and take their stuff. You either have to acknowledge that there is a moral dimension, and from there it's not very far to show that what the wealthy elite do is morally wrong, or you have to disagree that there's a moral dimension, and sanction a purge-like environment 24/7.

So there is a moral dimension but no human nature. Again do you read what you've typed. Since part of that moral dimension would be how we manage human nature.

I have no idea why you'd think that. There are moral truths. Most of us (not all) recognize that there are. That fact has nothing to do with human nature, far as I can tell.

Have the masses killed the few in the past? If the answer is yes then what is your point? Economic outcomes are often like a giant pyramid. Sure there is someone at the top but the base to support that top has to be massive as well. If it isn't the top just tips over and falls.

Where have I said they should have that power. Since I am not the one denying human nature, I'll gladly note that if you mistreat, harm, and oppress a group of people badly enough at some point they will likely kill you. I can say that because I believe in a human nature. You seem to believe there are large groups of people who never follow a norm, all while speaking in generalities about groups of course just to be ironic on your side of this discussion without realizing it.

Well, at least you are consistent. I guess I'd say the vast majority of folks see the obvious flaw here and wouldn't consider it very wise to live that way. It'd be far better to have a just economy and keep it that way in the first place. Then we don't have to have people starving left and right and violent revolutions every couple decades.

No need to wander down a digressive rabbit hole when the point you need to comprehend is that this is a digression.

Not a digression. If you think it is, you don't understand morality. Morality impinges on literally every subject there is. It is never a digression to invoke it when a moral truth has been transgressed. There is no adequate or accurate discussion that involves the contemplated or actual transgressing of a moral truth but that does not recognize that transgression and the moral truth in question.