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

[Falsedawn]

You can think that but that's why asked the question.

Historically we've always looked at unemployment and not labor participation.

Why are we changing perception now?

Should we change perception?

How accurate is that perception?

Which rate more accurately tracks variables in the market?

We won't even get into the fact that Prime Labor Force Participation is the more important LFP metric anyway.

 

[DickSarp]

Whores say the same thing: All that matters is the market.

Presidential power to affect the economy is a lagging indicator and Trump has done nothing to change the economy in any positive manner. Tax cuts don't run the economy and are always a net loss to the government.

The 'pros' that attribute the market gain 'somewhat' to Trump point to deregulation.

No shit. When you make polluting easier, remove accountability and sunshine provisions for Wall street and generally turn a blind eye to any governmental oversight of business, guess what? The economic royalists will steal with both hands and foul our air, water, and soil as fast as they can turn a profit.

The American right wing is a disease...a personality disorder. We have to address this and do it soon.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You could boil it down into concise thoughts rather than absurd ramblings. And your analysis is way off point as the supple side economic plan Trump laid out is largely to blame for the prosperous economic shift the US has experienced. This is not a fringe belief, this is actually a rather common observation from many economists.

It is a fringe belief. You won't find any serious attempts to analyze the economy that say that the current solid numbers are because of Trump's plan. The economy is just continuing the trajectory it was on before the election, and Trump hasn't actually done anything that could plausibly affect it (and generally the economy isn't driven by politics). It's an embarrassment to the forum that people are seriously trying to argue that Trump has anything to do with the economy at this point, and it's a certainty that the same people making that silly claim will realize that the president doesn't affect stock markets and economic growth at some point.

 

[Ultra O’Dia]

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.

Yes, it will very likely go both ways. But its going this way right now.

 

[Rational Poster]

There are low quality posts and then there's shit like this.

Present a decent counter argument at least fam.

Ok.

Trump still hasn't passed a budget.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

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

pretty clear to see what trump, not obama, did there. thanks trump. your work on the apprentice really helped the US shine. the truth is, neither one of them had a whole lot to do with this imo.

 

[Jack V Savage]

pretty clear to see what trump, not obama, did there. thanks trump. your work on the apprentice really helped the US shine. the truth is, neither one of them had a whole lot to do with this imo.

Good post, but here's taking it up to date:

So some people believe that economists are looking at the last ninth of the graph and thinking, "what happened there?" then looking into the possible causes and concluding that it is a result of Trump doing something or inspiring confidence or something. Alternate theory: nothing unusual happened in that last ninth that even needs to be explained.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which theory is more likely to be true.