Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

[PolishHeadlock]

Unemployment rate will go down if someone decides to leave the labour force, i.e., if you lost your job, unemployment rate would go up. If you decided, fuck working, I'm just going to sit around and leech off the government, unemployment rate would go down, because you are technically no longer in the work force (actively looking for a job). Therefore, if everyone who was unemployed and looking for a job decided to just say fuck it and sit on their asses all day, the unemployment rate would be 0%. Or if you take in some refugees who aren't considered actively looking for a job, unemployment rate will stay the same.

But we know how much money is going to public assistance outside of retirees.

So you could quantify that impact but your didn't

 

[Viva]

Trumps tax plan (and to be fair, we should call it the Paul Ryan church of Ayn Rand tax play that trump doesn't understand at all but is willing to go along with so long as he can claim a win), has been in effect for a whopping 2 1/2 weeks. Are you going to try and contribute a 4 year trend to that? If so how?

This isn't rocket science. I will ask for the 4th time, what policy in particular can you contribute the current economy (for good, or bad) to trump?

You can write off the tax plan all you'd like but I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim it has no bearing on the economy even in its infancy. The tax cuts and decreased regulation introduced in the plan are inherent elements in establishing a more stable, prosperous economy. Another element are businesses reactions to Trump's plan, spending more to develop more oppurtunities, thus allowing them more freedom for growth.

I'm not attributing it to a 4 year trend, as that would imply levels of stagnation that Trump has yet to establish.

 

[Scheme]

Should you count the retired against your employment rate?

What about students?

How about the physically and or mentally unable?

Retirees/students don't affect the labour force or unemployment rates. Not sure if people with physical/mental impairments do either. Labour force is based on people who are capable of working. Unemployment rate (U-3) is based on labour force who have jobs vs who are actively looking for jobs.

 

[Scheme]

But we know how much money is going to public assistance outside of retirees.

So you could quantify that impact but your didn't

How is that related to job growth?

 

[Darkballs]

I'm not attributing it to a 4 year trend, as that would imply levels of stagnation that Trump has yet to establish.

The article the TS cites does just that, which is why I'm in dispute.

Now to be fair, the TS'er is a known troll and outright turd. Be that as it may...

I think we're in agreement, in that Trump's only possible legislative act that could effect the economy, has been in place for less than three weeks.

Take a step back and really let that sink in. The only policy that trump could take credit for, has been in effect for about half a month.

Whatever you think of the economy, there is no way you can contribute any part of it, to a man who's done next to nothing to influence it.

If you wanted to try and point to any trend that trump influenced, (and really mate, we're talking about the republican plans he's rubber stamping) the best thing you could point to would be a very direct form of trickle down economics. The closest thing you could parallel to recent american or western history, would be the actions taken by nation states in the aftermath of the world wide recession of '07. There, republicans begged for a similar tax plan that trump just signed off on. Wisely, Obama ignored them. Other nations, such as england, didn't. The results: America broke out of a recession in ways that no right-leaning economist predicted, and the brits doubled down on their recession.

The bottom line is that trump hasn't done shit that could have impacted the economy, and you aren't even trying to make a case for him doing so. Check back in three years and see if the economic trends have shifted. You'll still have to account for a shitone else, but at least you can then honestly gauge this administrations effects on the economy.

Until then, you're just hanging you hat on the word of 68 partisan cucks.

 

[EGarrett]

Did I need to spell out in more detail why I'm unmoved on the opinions of 68 "business leaders" and economists in regards to credit for the economy?

First, the President, by himself, has very little overall effect on the economy. Second, what policies has Trump made that could have possibly effected the economy in any way? The only thing you could point to would be the recent tax bill, which has barely taken effect.

The only way you can give Trump credit for the economy (and in his defense, the only way you could put blame on him for it) would be the vague notion that by simply being in office, his presence inspires/depresses businesses and therefore is to credit/blame for the economy. That notion is stupid, regardless of which president you apply it to.

If you want to talk about trumps effect on the economy, point to specific acts or policies he's spearheaded, and try to draw direct trends from there to economic movement.

Asking 68 random business leaders how they feel is about the dumbest fucking way you could go about measuring the presidents role in the economy.


Now did you really need me to break that all down for you sweetheart?

You don't know much about economics or investing, do you?

 

[Darkballs]

You don't know much about economics or investing, do you?

Either elaborate, or address my actual points.

 

[EGarrett]

Either elaborate, or address my actual points.

Your post is trivially wrong, and it makes me assume that you've never run any kind of business, invested in anything or taken any class in economics. But I might be wrong. If so please correct me.

EDIT: I say this because it would be rude for me to assume that you made such a simple error without asking first.

 

[Darkballs]

Your post is trivially wrong, and it makes me assume that you've never run any kind of business, invested in anything or taken any class in economics. But I might be wrong. If so please correct me.

EDIT: I say this because it would be rude for me to assume that you made such a simple error without asking first.

What exactly was my error? I've explained how the trump administration has taken next to no steps to actually influence the economy, for good or bad. If you believe I'm wrong, please list the reasons why you felt the administration did in fact have a significant impact on the economy.

 

[EGarrett]

What exactly was my error? I've explained how the trump administration has taken next to no steps to actually influence the economy, for good or bad. If you believe I'm wrong, please list the reasons why you felt the administration did in fact have a significant impact on the economy.

The economy, in this case through investments, works off of anticipation. People try to stay in front of the market, they don't chase it. So if a President is elected who people think will be good for business, they will invest immediately. This is why there was a big rally immediately after Trump won the election, before he was even inaugurated.

The tax cut is just following through on what investors expected.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Well guys the experts agree...this is Trump's economy.


Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.
Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.

Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.

A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.

The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.

A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.

Why would Trump rate higher than Obama with this group? Economists point to the upturn in business confidence that accompanied Trump’s election, and tie that to increasing business investment. Spending on capital goods accelerated sharply over the first three quarters of last year, growing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent.

Such outlays will spur productivity gains and lead to wage hikes, creating a virtuous circle complete with rising consumer confidence and spending.

Unhappily Trump, voters have not yet caught up with the experts. Democrats have done an excellent job of trashing Trump’s policies, issuing hysterical alarms over the supposed dangers of deregulation (toxic water, foul air!) and vilifying the GOP tax bill.

Imagine the nation polling negative on a tax cut for an estimated 90 Percent of the workers. That takes genius.

http://archive.is/pvowG#selection-1729.0-1845.20

Does not compute. So Obama gets credit for low unemployment rates, low inflation and GDP growth from 2008 till 2017, right? Cool!

Glad we are on the same page.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

@TheComebackKid thread^^^^

 

[P4p Islam]

Well this thread was a fail

 

[bobgeese]

Numerous buisinesses have already tied their investment directly to Trump.



It is known.

 

[Darkballs]

The economy, in this case through investments, works off of anticipation. People try to stay in front of the market, they don't chase it. So if a President is elected who people think will be good for business, they will invest immediately. This is why there was a big rally immediately after Trump won the election, before he was even inaugurated.

The tax cut is just following through on what investors expected.

This is D-level investment advice. Sure, speculators (mostly the big money firms/people) will jump at such a vague chance to throw money at the change of administration. Most particularly, they'll pick industries with high tax liabilities to invest in with a republican controlled WH/Congress, off the speculation that this tax liability will shrink. Those investments are usually shorts, and you rarely see any long-term trend of continuous cash infusions just off a sitting administrations political affiliation.

Nonetheless, you have to realize that the economy is more than the stock market right? Things like job growth, wage growth, (both already contracting under trump) and a whole host of other factors have to be taken into account in order to gauge the health of the overall economy.

Again, there is no new economic trends in the past year. We're on the same trajectory we have been for the past seven years. The notion that the economy is growing, because investors feel excited about trump, just isn't supported by the facts.

 

[Prutfis]

So does Obama get credit for the massive turnaround and following boom 2008 - 2016?
To me the trends and trajectory seem on par with the last several years.

 

[EGarrett]

This is D-level investment advice. Sure, speculators (mostly the big money firms/people) will jump at such a vague chance to throw money at the change of administration.

What are you talking about? This is the most fundamental aspect of investment.

Most particularly, they'll pick industries with high tax liabilities to invest in with a republican controlled WH/Congress, off the speculation that this tax liability will shrink. Those investments are usually shorts, and you rarely see any long-term trend of continuous cash infusions just off a sitting administrations political affiliation.

Shorts? Are you talking about short-selling? Short-selling is when you think a stock is going to go down in price, not up.

Do you mean short-term? It depends entirely on what you think the investment will be worth over time. If you expect continuous growth, then you hold, if you expect a bump, then you would sell when you think it's peaked, but we haven't seen that. There has been a series of rallies since Trump starting from when Trump became President-Elect.

Nonetheless, you have to realize that the economy is more than the stock market right? Things like job growth, wage growth, (both already contracting under trump) and a whole host of other factors have to be taken into account in order to gauge the health of the overall economy.

That's why I said the economy in terms of investments. The stock market is just a convenient way to gauge a larger trend.

Again, there is no new economic trends in the past year. We're on the same trajectory we have been for the past seven years. The notion that the economy is growing, because investors feel excited about trump, just isn't supported by the facts.

Well, CNN, who hates Trump's guts, disagrees.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/30/investing/dow-24000-stocks-wall-street-trump/index.html

Regardless, you've made a lot of claims that are just trivially wrong and make me think that you've never ran a business of any type, invested, or had an economics class. I would appreciate it if you'd correct me on that if it's not accurate.

You said that a President can't have had an effect on the economy this early, which was of course wrong, and that a President can't have a strong effect on an economy. To talk about that would require a basic discussion of how the President relates to Congress and veto power and how that effects spending and other bills.

You should review some of this information because you seem quite combative and negative without having a real basis in it.

 

[Sketch]

Just imagine all the hilarious rationalization if there's a recession or a big drop in the markets at any point during Trump's presidency.

Won't happen. Better chance of an asteroid taking the earth out.

 

[mixmastermo]

Funny when conservatives selectively choose to believe experts. They sure as hell don't trust expert opinions on climate change and homosexuality.

 

[kpt018]

So, a "majority" of or "most" experts believe that the sitting president is at least "somewhat" effectual on the economy and deserves "at least some credit" for its upturn.


@HomerThompson Power up the Ford

Also notable that when experts have a favorable opinion of TCK’s tribe it’s great and we should rely on their opinion. But when they don’t, like say climate change, its total horseshit and que up the ad hominem attacks and bogus science.

It’s utterly absurd to form an opinion like this a month or so after the bill. It’s way, way too early (and I’m sure experts are answering the question as “so far”) and the fucking bill will last ten years with major changes down the road.

Let’s see how people feel when their taxes go up and the bump from reducing the corporate rate wears off or we have a recession with one less tool to combat it.