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.
Active policy. The only way to add more liquidity to the market has not happened automatically under Trump. That is the point. He is continuing the trend that the automatic stabilizers were adding. However they don't add anymore The push is coming from the tax cuts , not the automatic deficits.
Still has nothing to do with your claim. This is like saying 4 is a larger number than 5, getting called out on it, and then shifting the discussion to Cartesian planes.
The Labor Force Participation Rate is a specific metric. You made a specific claim that the rate stabilized under Trump. I'd expect you to defend that statement by discussing the only thing that matters within the confines of the argument--the Labor Force Participation Rate.
How come people always talk about Trump when it comes to tariffs and now his commerce secretary? Wilbur Ross is the one calling the shots and he's a pretty intelligent guy.
Why should America continue to to have countries put tariffs on the US & we can't do it to them?
True.
Can Harley Davidson sell motorcycles in China? ........ Newp. Too expensive. 30% tariff on Harleys.
NeverTrumpers hate it, but the economy is doing well. My friend is a NeverTrumper and he sold off all his stocks in order to avoid the "financial meltdown" that was "sure to happen" when a billionaire replaced the community organizer in The White House.
So what do NeverTrumpers do?.... They accuse Trump of not being wealthy. (That's pretty funny)
Then they accuse him of using The White House for personal gain...... Ignoring the fact that Obama arrived broke and left a multimillionaire.
The tariff shakeout will be good for America, long term.
I would have liked to have an actual liberation over him but I had a feeling you were a little brighter than the rest.
Your economic paradigms are?
I will give you mine.
Classical economics( three forms of income)
Public finance (Modern Money theory ). Its just the way it is .....
private finance( endogenous money, Schumpeter Fisher , Minsky )
I don't have economic paradigms that I subscribe to, and I am not going to pretend like I have any understanding of the ones you mentioned.
I am a software developer, so along those lines, my mindset is data and logic. Where have we been and what were the data outcomes of various policy. If data isn't present, does a claim satisfy or fail logic based on the information you do have. I am not a big fan of adhering tightly to theory or ideology, It only limits the search for solutions in my opinion.
If you are asking what my personal beliefs are regarding government and economics:
Personally, I like the markets to be as free as possible, but I am non-ideological and realize absolute free trade is not a practical governing philosophy. I like tax cuts, but not when we don't offset them with spending cuts. I don't like uncontrollable spending or debt. I dislike paying interest unless it is to invest in a business where the returns will likely result in a net plus. Interest is evil. I consider myself a libertarian on the federal level, not because I don't want people to have things or don't want my money to help people, but because the federal government is incapable of doing anything efficiently or without corruption or waste. There is no accountability for their behavior, the Trump administration is a perfect example of this in my opinion. I am far more supportive of social programs on the state and local levels because there is more accountability and the community knows its needs better than anyone in Washington. Let the states keep their money. Let them compete and try different solutions so we can see what works and why. The federal one size fits all doesn't work, we know this. When a bad policy is implemented, we cannot even agree to fix it or get rid of it. States have different issues and should have the freedom to address them.
Probably more information than you wanted or needed, but that is it in a nutshell and I need to get some work done
Isn't it amazing when everything started to improve in 2009 it was due to the king Obama and all the problems were created by the old administration but now it is different. all the wonderful things that are happening with our economy is just a carry over from the king Obama. Hate to tell you guys this, but it works both ways. Either we give Bush credit for starting the recovery or we give Trump credit for bringing us back to a better economy. There is an old theory, the coach has to take credit for failure or success, not the old coach nor the players who make mistakes.
To be honest very little of the credit can go to any of them. However what little there is ..
Its hard to say what would have happened under Trump in 2008.
I don't have economic paradigms that I subscribe to, and I am not going to pretend like I have any understanding of the ones you mentioned.
I am a software developer, so along those lines, my mindset is data and logic. Where have we been and what were the data outcomes of various policy. If data isn't present, does a claim satisfy or fail logic based on the information you do have. I am not a big fan of adhering tightly to theory or ideology, It only limits the search for solutions in my opinion.
That is the refuge of the ignorant and I am not doing it to insult you. I am doing it because you seem to have a mind worth using. I believe in Keynesian style fiance but I am financially conservative believing in limited federal government. However neoliberal , Ricardian finance is just broken. Marx was fatally flawed but had strokes of genius. No one displayed better that capital is a lousy wat to store wealth uner current conditions. Fisher was humiliated after missing the Depression but driven to madness by his mistake contributed essentials to how private debt actually works. The leading economists are bright indeed but they are bright with respect to the times they lived in, so you can only apply the principles to today in approximations. It is not about being dogmatically in love with a paradigm.
If you are asking what my personal beliefs are regarding government and economics:
Personally, I like the markets to be as free as possible, but I am non-ideological and realize absolute free trade is not a practical governing philosophy. I like tax cuts, but not when we don't offset them with spending cuts. I don't like uncontrollable spending or debt. I dislike paying interest unless it is to invest in a business where the returns will likely result in a net plus. Interest is evil. I consider myself a libertarian on the federal level, not because I don't want people to have things or don't want my money to help people, but because the federal government is incapable of doing anything efficiently or without corruption or waste. There is no accountability for their behavior, the Trump administration is a perfect example of this in my opinion. I am far more supportive of social programs on the state and local levels because there is more accountability and the community knows its needs better than anyone in Washington. Let the states keep their money. Let them compete and try different solutions so we can see what works and why. The federal one size fits all doesn't work, we know this. When a bad policy is implemented, we cannot even agree to fix it or get rid of it. States have different issues and should have the freedom to address them.
Probably more information than you wanted or needed, but that is it in a nutshell and I need to get some work done
I'd say we largely agree. However failing to understand a few counterintuitive things in economic can be fatal to the cause.
I will say it again.
Our economy is too dependent on cash flows from rising asset prices( much of which is so called fictitious as in maintained by access rights aka a toll booth economy). Lets put it this way. Two free people may be denied a bank loan .
However if slavery were instituted then one person could become a slave asset which could be used as collateral to borrow money. That's how we've been creating assets in this country in recent years. Its how we have been crating cash flows.
If that is not addressed then we will have booms and busts. If we are going to have boom and bust there is a better way to fix them then what we have seen. Bank bailouts is absurd. There is no need to fund banks in a liquidity trap. Bank loans should manage the supply side , adding funds to the economy when there is a need of new supply to cover it. When demand plummets, there is no need to worry about supply during a glut. Just stop taxing and use a blunt instrument.
Still has nothing to do with your claim. This is like saying 4 is a larger number than 5, getting called out on it, and then shifting the discussion to Cartesian planes.
OK . I will concede to you that things stopped getting worse under Obama in his 7th year. And it stopped getting worse because of automatic deficits.
Trump does benefit from not being tested in 2008. Obama was severely tested, but he failed the test.
Trump is not being severely tested. So who knows? His reforms are also mild and Reagan like so we know how it will end without further reform.
Can't give you anymore than this.
Quote:
The Labor Force Participation Rate is a specific metric. You made a specific claim that the rate stabilized under Trump. I'd expect you to defend that statement by discussing the only thing that matters within the confines of the argument--the Labor Force Participation Rate.
Well if you want to get into technicalities again it level off under Obama automatically.
The falling unemployment rate is real at the moment and it is because we have a larger deficit than other wise would have been without tax cuts. Without Trumps policy the deficit would have been smaller and the trend would have probably reversed. The automatic deficits are too stingy.
Wrong. Maybe in Fox News land that was the cause but in reality, Clinton left this country with one of the best economies in its history and a surplus. Bush squandered that with tax cuts for the wealthy. The only thing that kept the economy humming through most of Bush's Presidency was the real estate boom.
While it is true that for most of his time in office, the Clinton economy was pretty strong, you seem to be forgetting about the .com bust at the end of his term. I would also contend that the housing industry and associated financing issues were indeed one of the primary causes or the recession....the seeds of which were planted well before "Bush the Younger."
OK . I will concede to you that things stopped getting worse under Obama in his 7th year.
It's nice to be somewhat grounded in reality here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
Trump does benefit from not being tested in 2008. Obama was severely tested, but he failed the test.
Voters evidently believed otherwise, which is why he was elected to a second term, capturing 51.1% of the popular vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
The falling unemployment rate is real at the moment and it is because we have a larger deficit than other wise would have been without tax cuts. Without Trumps policy the deficit would have been smaller and the trend would have probably reversed. The automatic deficits are too stingy.
Huh? So you are saying that unemployment is falling because deficits are growing faster under Trump?
Was the decline in unemployment real under Obama or did it only become real on January 20, 2017?
It's nice to be somewhat grounded in reality here.
Voters evidently believed otherwise, which is why he was elected to a second term, capturing 51.1% of the popular vote.
I think they believed Romney was worse . I agreed with them. In fact I liked Obama foreign policy better , at the time. it went to hell after 2012. Trump has Obama's first term foreign policy.
Quote:
Huh? So you are saying that unemployment is falling because deficits are growing faster under Trump?
Yep. One reason why I believe Modern Money Theory is true is because it occurred to me independently. When I went looking for it I found it under that title.
Quote:
Was the decline in unemployment real under Obama or did it only become real on January 20, 2017?
Well as I said there was no Obama policy worth mentioning after 2010. He betrayed the labor faction of the party, and exposed himself as a banker puppet. Its really not distinguishable from Hoover economics. So he lost enough support to be locked up by the Republicans( who were also morons and in some cases even more so). So from then on what fixed the economy was a blow up doll on auto pilot.
In fiscal year 2012, CBO estimates, automatic stabilizers added $386 billion to the federal budget deficit, an amount equal to 2.3 percent of potential GDP. That outcome marked the fourth consecutive year that automatic stabilizers added to the deficit by an amount equal to or exceeding 2.0 percent of potential GDP, an impact that had previously been equaled or exceeded only twice in the past 50 years, in fiscal years 1982 and 1983. (Those historical calculations, as well as the projections presented below, involve potential GDP rather than actual GDP because potential GDP excludes fluctuations that are attributable to the business cycle.)
386 billion on auto pilot and there is nothing to see here.
If I were to turn some attention to the Republicans here, why wouldn't the left point this out? How could Obama be responsible for the deficit when 386 billion was automatic? And given how it works it could not be lowered because any cutting would mean more would be added. I mean with all this balanced budget amendment talk, don't you think its kind of wield or wildly insane that its not discussed? The entire system is designed to add to debt during recessions which is when the deficit hawks preach balanced budgets the most.
Now if i cannot depend a Democrats to point out the dumbest positions of the Republicans...That 's a problem. Given that the Democrats have lots of their own dumb positions , they are good for nothing. Trump is basically a 1970s Democrat that ran as a Republicans and it looks like the blue dog rust belt was the only one to notice. Someone is smelling the coffee...but very few.
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.
