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.
For eight years, I had to endure articles from the Left about all the jobs Obama had created. Now that the White House has changed hands, it is all the bloggers on the Right breathlessly reporting job creation by Trump and heralding the February job figures (example). Though the Left is still trying to credit Obama (example)
Presidents do not create private jobs. Period. Even so-called infrastructure spending and stimulus merely take private money from whatever it was being used for previously and applies it to investment projects that politicians want. Sure, there are new easy to see infrastructure jobs from these projects, but what is also there, largely unseen, are whatever jobs would have been created (or not lost) had the money used for these projects been left to private individuals to spend or invest as they see fit.
Presidents do have long-term effects on prosperity, but these are usually based on regulatory and tax policy that can take years to play out -- not the span of days from January 20 to February. The main effect government officials can have is negative, by creating drags on private enterprise. The best they can achieve is generally removal of past negatives.
To the extent individual companies credit Trump with various job growth steps, this is a function of our corporate crony state, not any underlying economic reality. I have been at the highest levels of Fortune 50 companies (not as an executive but as a consultant and later as executive staff). Corporations do not suddenly make changes in business strategy and capital investment plans based on elections. They do make changes based on real changes, e.g. this tax policy was changed or that regulation was changed, none of which has yet occurred. Of course, they may credit the new President as responsible for certain investments or changed decisions, but this is generally flattery attached to actions that would have happened anyway, or crass calculations meant to garner higher crony status in the future.
For eight years, I had to endure articles from the Left about all the jobs Obama had created. Now that the White House has changed hands, it is all the bloggers on the Right breathlessly reporting job creation by Trump and heralding the February job figures (example). Though the Left is still trying to credit Obama (example)
Presidents do not create private jobs. Period. Even so-called infrastructure spending and stimulus merely take private money from whatever it was being used for previously and applies it to investment projects that politicians want. Sure, there are new easy to see infrastructure jobs from these projects, but what is also there, largely unseen, are whatever jobs would have been created (or not lost) had the money used for these projects been left to private individuals to spend or invest as they see fit.
Presidents do have long-term effects on prosperity, but these are usually based on regulatory and tax policy that can take years to play out -- not the span of days from January 20 to February. The main effect government officials can have is negative, by creating drags on private enterprise. The best they can achieve is generally removal of past negatives.
To the extent individual companies credit Trump with various job growth steps, this is a function of our corporate crony state, not any underlying economic reality. I have been at the highest levels of Fortune 50 companies (not as an executive but as a consultant and later as executive staff). Corporations do not suddenly make changes in business strategy and capital investment plans based on elections. They do make changes based on real changes, e.g. this tax policy was changed or that regulation was changed, none of which has yet occurred. Of course, they may credit the new President as responsible for certain investments or changed decisions, but this is generally flattery attached to actions that would have happened anyway, or crass calculations meant to garner higher crony status in the future.
If I dump $20M dollars into foreign shell corporation to avoid domestic taxes and let it appreciate overseas... how many American jobs does that create?
For eight years, I had to endure articles from the Left about all the jobs Obama had created. Now that the White House has changed hands, it is all the bloggers on the Right breathlessly reporting job creation by Trump and heralding the February job figures (example). Though the Left is still trying to credit Obama (example)
Presidents do not create private jobs. Period. Even so-called infrastructure spending and stimulus merely take private money from whatever it was being used for previously and applies it to investment projects that politicians want. Sure, there are new easy to see infrastructure jobs from these projects, but what is also there, largely unseen, are whatever jobs would have been created (or not lost) had the money used for these projects been left to private individuals to spend or invest as they see fit.
Presidents do have long-term effects on prosperity, but these are usually based on regulatory and tax policy that can take years to play out -- not the span of days from January 20 to February. The main effect government officials can have is negative, by creating drags on private enterprise. The best they can achieve is generally removal of past negatives.
To the extent individual companies credit Trump with various job growth steps, this is a function of our corporate crony state, not any underlying economic reality. I have been at the highest levels of Fortune 50 companies (not as an executive but as a consultant and later as executive staff). Corporations do not suddenly make changes in business strategy and capital investment plans based on elections. They do make changes based on real changes, e.g. this tax policy was changed or that regulation was changed, none of which has yet occurred. Of course, they may credit the new President as responsible for certain investments or changed decisions, but this is generally flattery attached to actions that would have happened anyway, or crass calculations meant to garner higher crony status in the future.
I agree 100%. The funny part was when the economy improved dramatically under Obama, while conservatives argued that it really wasn't that good and that Obama should have been credited with destroying the American economy.
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.
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.
