Trump & GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama.That's not what happened

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 10:25 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm not talking about Mike's. Your guy picked a time frame to declare failure. 

And I'm talking about two different things.

Ask the guy who picked the 21 months  and Mike wanting to shoehorn minority unemployment rates into the discussion.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 10:31 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I'm talking about two different things.

Ask the guy who picked the 21 months  and Mike wanting to shoehorn minority unemployment rates into the discussion.

I asked you.  Why is two years considered the make or break in a President's campaign promise?

The other guy picked 21 months because when he wrote the article, 7 complete quarters had passed.  

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 10:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I asked you.  Why is two years considered the make or break in a President's campaign promise?

The other guy picked 21 months because when he wrote the article, 7 complete quarters had passed.  

I answered you.

If you want me to guess (and I guess you do since you keep asking over and over) I'd say that is the amount of official data they have so far.  Sometimes those numbers get refined after the fact and they are talking about quarters. But that's just a guess as I didn't write the article.

Good enough?  Or do you want me to call the author to satisfy your curiosity?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 10:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: I answered you.

If you want me to guess (and I guess you do since you keep asking over and over) I'd say that is the amount of official data they have so far.  Sometimes those numbers get refined after the fact and they are talking about quarters.  But that's just a guess as I didn't write the article.

Good enough?  Or do you want me to call the author to satisfy your curiosity?

Well no you posted it so you must have agreed that 2 years was the pass/fail mark.  

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 10:46 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Well no you posted it so you must have agreed that 2 years was the pass/fail mark.  

Or I agreed that so far Trump has not done what he said he would do and the article points out he probably won't given the trends of the economy.

But go ahead with the 21 months is the end all be all and ignore the rest of it.  Ignoring seems to be what happens when DJT is criticized for anything around here.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Or I agreed that so far Trump has not done what he said he would do and the article points out he probably won't given the trends of the economy.

But go ahead with the 21 months is the end all be all and ignore the rest of it.  Ignoring seems to be what happens when DJT is criticized for anything around here.

Nobody, including the article, says the 21 months is the end all be all. It would be stupid to declare success after 21 months. It was merely posted as a rebuttal.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 10:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody, including the article, says the 21 months is the end all be all. It would be stupid to declare success after 21 months.  It was merely posted as a rebuttal.

So the rebuttal to an article about data available for the past so far is that the article doesn't use data they may not even have? Even thought the article didn't even say that is the "end all be all"?

Okie dokie.

That really reads like "I don't like what the data says so I'll complain that they don't have up to date data for the extra couple months rather than acknowledge what the data says DID happen."

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the rebuttal to an article about data available for the past so far is that the article doesn't use data they may not even have?  Even thought the article didn't even say that is the "end all be all"?

Okie dokie.

That really reads like "I don't like what the data says so I'll complain that they don't have up to date data for the extra couple months rather than acknowledge what the data says DID happen."

I don't even know what you're saying here.  Let's call quits on this one.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 11:15 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't even know what you're saying here.  Let's call quits on this one.

[hollodero]

(03-01-2019, 04:32 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That would account for eight months at most, and most people thought Hillary would win easily. Maybe that scared them.

Maybe... I mean, there was reason to be scared either way.
Or maybe the economy is not that closely tied to the presidency in the first place. Europe has economic growth as well, and it's not because of Trump, no matter how hard he believes we only should thank him for that. It's not because of ouw own heads of state either.

Also, I find it weird how economy trumps every other topic. Sure one could just abandon all worker's rights, disregard their wealth and well-being, let go of all environmental protections, let the companies just poison everything while paying no taxes. The economy would love it...!
Which is, on a way smaller scale, what is happening now, as far as I can tell. Cut back regulations is so universally believed to be a positive because the economic data reacts well. But well, as I see it economic data isn't close to everything. Americans have a bit of a fetish with that.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 11:59 AM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe... I mean, there was reason to be scared either way.
Or maybe the economy is not that closely tied to the presidency in the first place. Europe has economic growth as well, and it's not because of Trump, no matter how hard he believes we only should thank him for that. It's not because of ouw own heads of state either.

Also, I find it weird how economy trumps every other topic. Sure one could just abandon all worker's rights, disregard their wealth and well-being, let go of all environmental protections, let the companies just poison everything while paying no taxes. The economy would love it...!
Which is, on a way smaller scale, what is happening now, as far as I can tell. Cut back regulations is so universally believed to be a positive because the economic data reacts well. But well, as I see it economic data isn't close to everything. Americans have a bit of a fetish with that.

Ask Dino to tell you some of his fetishes and you'll long for an economic fetish.

I think you are right that the economy probably isn't that closely tied to the President.  It is a massive thing with so many variables that it's probably not very accurate to assign credit or blame.  But it can be fun.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2019, 12:24 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ask Dino to tell you some of his fetishes and you'll long for an economic fetish.

I think you are right that the economy probably isn't that closely tied to the President.  It is a massive thing with so many variables that it's probably not very accurate to assign credit or blame.  But it can be fun.

Not that I have been saying that in almost every thread where we try to do that or anything.  

I get why it happens. Presidential performance is a qualitative variable that is difficult to measure. We inherently look for ways to measure it, and the economy is one way to do so. I don't think it's so much "fun" as it is satisfying. It fulfills our need to measure something.

[fredtoast]

(02-28-2019, 09:25 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Today:
Unemployment for Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/Women is at an all time record low,

Trump First 21 Months/Obama's last 21 months

GDP:  2.9%/1.5% Doubled
New Jobs avg per month: 75,000/900... No comment needed
Number of Employed Americans per month: 214,000/157,000 36% improvement
Weekly earnings increased on avg per month: $2.31/$1.31  76% improvement

Yes Fred, I must have gotten this info from a Right-Wing source, considering my number matched what Dino posted.
Is that your auto default mode when someone shows you something good that DJT does?

Sorry, but my problem with those numbers was in the way they were labeled.  For example over Obamas last two years there were over 5 million jobs added.  I don't see how that would be possible with just 900 "job openings" per month.  So there actually were some "comments needed"

Also the "number of employed Americans" is in the millions.

The "weekly earnings" numbers are very deceiving because you are talking about an increase of one-tenth of one percent in weekly wages (76% of 0.14%)

Those numbers were "spun" out by Andrew Puzder, a very biased source who Trump nominated for Secretary of Labor.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 12:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not that I have been saying that in almost every thread where we try to do that or anything.  

I get why it happens. Presidential performance is a qualitative variable that is difficult to measure. We inherently look for ways to measure it, and the economy is one way to do so. I don't think it's so much "fun" as it is satisfying. It fulfills our need to measure something.

Sorry I don't recall you ever saying that.  I'm pretty sure I just came up with it, and it should probably change how we interact with each other across the nation from now on.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-01-2019, 12:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, back then everyone was scared about a possible president Trump... so that's not fair either. 

Also, the part of the article quoted just represents the words of a Mr. Andrew Puzdar, which after a quick google search I identify as a severely biased source.

The author of the article himself concludes "The bottom line is that there’s no reason to expect big economic improvements under Trump, at least in the long run. His good policies on taxes and regulation are offset by bad policies on spending and trade."

Before Trump was declared winner, who was scared he would win? Everything I ever read said Hillary would win. Once Trump won though, that's when the stock market started shooting up and that's not open for dispute.

As far as Bias goes, I don't hear you complaining about the OP's extreme left slanted bias.
I mean geeez Harwood was busy giving Clinton's group advice while getting questions from Podesta to ask the Republicans while moderating the Republican Debate. At the end of the debate, all we had learned is that Harwood is a Liberal ass.

And yes, its quite possible that there will be no more big economic movement under Trump, but we won't know that for sure until 2024 when he's finally out of office.

[GMDino]

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Before Trump was declared winner, who was scared he would win? Everything I ever read said Hillary would win. Once Trump won though, that's when the stock market started shooting up and that's not open for dispute.

As far as Bias goes, I don't hear you complaining about the OP's extreme left slanted bias.
I mean geeez Harwood was busy giving Clinton's group advice while getting questions from Podesta to ask the Republicans while moderating the Republican Debate. At the end of the debate, all we had learned is that Harwood is a Liberal ass.

And yes, its quite possible that there will be no more big economic movement under Trump, but we won't know that for sure until 2024 when he's finally out of office.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/12/26/stock-market-performance-dow-under-every-president-past-100-years/38775295/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfman/2017/10/30/trump-ranks-sixth-in-stock-market-performance-behind-obama-and-clinton/#2a9c435c6644

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-01-2019, 12:02 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But why 21 months!?



Edit: Just saw your edit after I posted this. While comparing economic performance under presidents to operationalize presidential performance is a fool's errand, using any period that includes different quarters would be extra so. Final 21 months for Obama would have been April 2015 through December 2016, while Trump's first 21 would be January 2017 through September 2018. Different economic quarters bring with them different trends, which means comparing those two data sets would not work out as they are too dissimilar.

All in all, it's stupid to look at these things in general. Presidents are stupid for making promises, and they are stupid for touting good numbers. The population is stupid for putting so much stock in economic numbers as an indicator of what a president is doing.

21 Months before Trump took office is a good time frame to see how everything was trending while under Obama, once it was announced that Trump was POTUS, the stock market and the businesses were confident again in the future and starting growing again, up to that point they were stagnant.

It is impossible to do a type of comparison that you are requesting of the exact same quarters, so why are you making it a point to discuss that?

Besides if Hillary had won, we would be hearing all about how great she is for the Economy.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-01-2019, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the rebuttal to an article about data available for the past so far is that the article doesn't use data they may not even have?  Even thought the article didn't even say that is the "end all be all"?

Okie dokie.

That really reads like "I don't like what the data says so I'll complain that they don't have up to date data for the extra couple months rather than acknowledge what the data says DID happen."

What the DATA in my link says DID happen is that Trump beat Obama's predictions on Economy and Unemployment, but go on with your bad little self calling Trump a liar about not making it to 3.0. His term isn't even over yet, he could still make it or not. Let's just wait and see?

[hollodero]

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Before Trump was declared winner, who was scared he would win?

Well... I was...

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Everything I ever read said Hillary would win. Once Trump won though, that's when the stock market started shooting up and that's not open for dispute.

Fair enough. My remarks weren't quite serious.

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As far as Bias goes, I don't hear you complaining about the OP's extreme left slanted bias.

If you mean in general, I had my polite disagreements with the OP and nearly anyone really. If you mean specifically, well, I guess I didn't feel like doing that. That doesn't mean anything though.

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I mean geeez Harwood was busy giving Clinton's group advice while getting questions from Podesta to ask the Republicans while moderating the Republican Debate. At the end of the debate, all we had learned is that Harwood is a Liberal ass.

I have no idea how to explain how irrelevant I feel that is, for everything really.

(03-04-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And yes, its quite possible that there will be no more big economic movement under Trump, but we won't know that for sure until 2024 when he's finally out of office.

Just to be clear, that is the take of the author of the article you linked. The one that had Mr. Puzdars numbers in it that you reflected.

It isn't necessarily my take. My take is that you pay for that economic movement by destroying the environment, by piling up debt your children will have to pay for, by allowing a new financial crisis to happen, by losing all movability when the next recession hits, by further widening the gap between rich and poor, and by impairing working conditions.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-04-2019, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.macrotrends.net/2481/stock-market-performance-by-president

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/12/26/stock-market-performance-dow-under-every-president-past-100-years/38775295/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johndorfman/2017/10/30/trump-ranks-sixth-in-stock-market-performance-behind-obama-and-clinton/#2a9c435c6644

Ranks 6th after 2 years? Not bad eh?
But you moved the goal posts of what I said.

I'll try it again. From the MOMENT it was officially announced that TRUMP was POTUS, the stock market jumped and kept jumping til recently. Will it pick back up again? None of us know the answer to that, but many will be wrong again just like they were when they said it would crash if Trump became POTUS.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/11/09/investing/dow-jones-trump-wins-election/index.html

The Dow soared 257 points and brushed up against lifetime highs on Wednesday, in defiance of those who predicted Trump's election would bring about a plunge in the stock market. The S&P 500 and the Nasdaq rose 1.1% apiece.

The impressive market performance represents a dramatic reversal from the knee-jerk panic in global markets overnight as the results were coming in. Dow futures plummeted nearly 900 points at one point as investors expressed fear that no one would emerge victorious and concern about the inherent uncertainties brought on by a Trump White House.


This is DATA from something that really happened, but this run up in Nov-Dec counts on Obama's turn.