U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2018, 08:47 PM
 
1,656 posts, read 1,830,187 times
Reputation: 3716

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
Lots of partisan b.s. on this board now.

The best economy the U.S. ever had was 1965-69, under LBJ, the most liberal president we ever had. However, the stregnth of the economy at that time had little to do with him.

Sometime people should read the actual constitution. The president does not, and was never intended to have significant economic powers. The House of Representatives has the most significant economic power since it ultumately controls taxation and spending.

Even with the expanded interpretation of the president's powers we have today, his economic powers are severely limited by congress. The president can do little things. Sometimes those little things might add up to medium things, but in no way can the president make or break the economy on his own.

All this b.s. about Trump's economy being great and Obama's being terrible are just that, because the economy is not "theirs.". The president is not CEO of GDP. He can't even control the government's spending because congress does that. Ie: Trump can't get his wall built. Once congress appropriates, THEN the executive branch has some latitude to make financial & regulatory decisions, but the real power still belongs to congress.
For those who know more about economics than I do: On financial blogs, I frequently read that 1965-66 were the worst two years in the history of the US to retire (including Great Depression).

I am ashamed of my ignorance about economic history, and would be grateful to anybody who could enlighten my befuddlement about the contradictory stances: "best economy the U.S. ever had was 1965-69" vs. "1965-66 were the worst two years in US history to retire".

Last edited by toosie; 06-11-2018 at 03:50 AM.. Reason: No signatures please
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2018, 11:02 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, Arizona
2,600 posts, read 1,004,271 times
Reputation: 1557
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlowerPower00 View Post
I read the headlines, listen to the news. The headlines(some) say, " The Economy is Booming Under Trump. " Is The U.S
economy that influenced by who is in the presidential office?
I took a basic economics class you know "equilibrium, opportunity cost, etc.
Would like input from folks who know about this subject.
Generally speaking economics is influenced by 3 major things:

1) Banking - Specifically Lending
2) Consumer "Confidence"/Decision making
3) Regulations - Taxes and various Laws

Basic economics (microeconomics) does not cover what you've mentioned, as that assumes your specific behavior given a set of limited resources and unlimited wants.
You need to learn about macroeconomics - essentially the economy as a whole due to the sum of all of the individual economic decisions of consumers/businesses

In a nutshell: your decision to spend is influenced by how secure you think your job is, if the economy is about to head south, and various incentives offered to spend your money (taxes, or otherwise).

The government influences it... but it does not control it as much as you think. The government can try to make you feel good about spending in good economic times, and try to make you think everything will be OK in bad economic times by using deficit spending/unemployment benefits/etc.. (like in 2008). Because your spending is tied to how you project the future and thus, if everyone thinks the economy will go south and halt their spending, the economic will literally go south because you've all halted your spending... and so forth.

How secure your job is depends on how well the management at your company you work for is, how good they are with money, and the products they produce. Since every institution or individual owes some form of debt to another party, it's not about getting rid of debt, as much as how well you manage the debt over time.

Watch this video and it'll tell you in detail how the 3 points I put above interact with each other and work together to what we know as the economy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2018, 07:29 AM
 
Location: Planet Earth
2,768 posts, read 2,311,670 times
Reputation: 4956
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857 View Post
Generally speaking economics is influenced by 3 major things:

1) Banking - Specifically Lending
2) Consumer "Confidence"/Decision making
3) Regulations - Taxes and various Laws

Basic economics (microeconomics) does not cover what you've mentioned, as that assumes your specific behavior given a set of limited resources and unlimited wants.
You need to learn about macroeconomics - essentially the economy as a whole due to the sum of all of the individual economic decisions of consumers/businesses

In a nutshell: your decision to spend is influenced by how secure you think your job is, if the economy is about to head south, and various incentives offered to spend your money (taxes, or otherwise).

The government influences it... but it does not control it as much as you think. The government can try to make you feel good about spending in good economic times, and try to make you think everything will be OK in bad economic times by using deficit spending/unemployment benefits/etc.. (like in 2008). Because your spending is tied to how you project the future and thus, if everyone thinks the economy will go south and halt their spending, the economic will literally go south because you've all halted your spending... and so forth.

How secure your job is depends on how well the management at your company you work for is, how good they are with money, and the products they produce. Since every institution or individual owes some form of debt to another party, it's not about getting rid of debt, as much as how well you manage the debt over time.

Watch this video and it'll tell you in detail how the 3 points I put above interact with each other and work together to what we know as the economy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHe0bXAIuk0
Thank you, I truly would like to learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2018, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Oregon, formerly Texas
5,242 posts, read 3,393,710 times
Reputation: 8783
Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73 View Post
For those who know more about economics than I do: On financial blogs, I frequently read that 1965-66 were the worst two years in the history of the US to retire (including Great Depression).

I am ashamed of my ignorance about economic history, and would be grateful to anybody who could enlighten my befuddlement about the contradictory stances: "best economy the U.S. ever had was 1965-69" vs. "1965-66 were the worst two years in US history to retire".
It was the best for the median person. It might not have been the best for Wall Street.

I say that based on the purchasing power of the dollar, the proportional cost of major goods such as houses, cars, etc..., also things like gas prices. Inflation rate was relatively low. The unemployment rate was sub-4% for most of those years, while wage growth was >5% the majority of the time too. The minimum wage in 1968 was the proportionally highest it had ever been equivalent to about $12 an hour today, college was cheap and paid off handsomely if you graduated.

The U.S. was in a sweet spot on all those things at that time, although there were a few warning signs, ie: weakness in the steel industry. Signs of weakness appeared in the early 1970s, then the oil shock & inflation produced about 7-8 "stagflation" years from the mid-70s to early 80s.

Could you include some link that states that 1965-66 was the worst year to retire? I'm not sure why someone would say that although it might be because the stock market was not particularly dynamic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2018, 12:35 PM
 
135 posts, read 63,673 times
Reputation: 544
Highest Growth Rate: 62-66
Lowest Unemployment Rate: 65-69

The only time period that looks to rival the one above is 1997-2000, which ended with the burst of the dotcom bubble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top