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.
There are no claims. They claims will be made in 6 months when we have something to look at. Be patient.
Wow, so now there are NO metrics you are claiming measure the success of a President...or his administration...or everyone? So what exactly is the point of this thread?
Wow, so now there are NO metrics you are claiming measure the success of a President...or his administration...or everyone? So what exactly is the point of this thread?
Many posters have wasted their time explaining it to you over and over, and you are not getting it. You come across as someone who is here only to distract and derail.
We have numbers now, and we will compare them to the numbers in 6 months. It is not complicated.
Many posters have wasted their time explaining it to you over and over, and you are not getting it. You come across as someone who is here only to distract and derail.
We have numbers now, and we will compare them to the numbers in 6 months. It is not complicated.
Feel free to not understand
OK, so just to be clear you can't justify gas prices, unemployment, DJIA, NASDAQ, but you are still going to use them to judge, sounds completely reasonable.
You appear to be splitting hairs with Finns wording, focusing on his use of "POTUS" when we all know that means the POTUS and thier administration.
Both of those articles that you posted are from 2011, a full 6 years ago. The oil price one seemed more like an article to justify a carbon use tax to decrease demand, which will increase supply. Here we are 6 years later, without a carbon use tax and more supply than demand keeping prices down.
Whether or not the administration can control gas prices directly and in the short term is debatable, they are still used as an economic indicator. If gas prices are $4/gallon, the rest of the economy is going to feel it. Trump has campaigned on energy sources and decreasing regulations to allow for more US oil production. Which should increase supply, driving the price even lower. If I recall when America was great, gas was less than $1/gallon.
The unemployment rate article, was all about "short term decreases".
From the article....
"The sad truth is that high unemployment will be sticking around, for long after 2012. The McKinsey Global Institute predicts that getting employment back to its pre-recession peak could take five years. And if you take the long view on U.S. joblessness, that isn’t Obama’s fault. Jobs recoveries have increasingly lagged economic recoveries in every recession since 1991, according to analysis of Fed data by economist Raghuram Rajan. That’s led to a rise in chronic unemployment levels over the years, which are even harder to fix.
That makes Obama’s jobs problem more political than economic, because policies that lead to sustainable employment in the long-run — better education, regulation, social insurance — take more than one term to pull off. In that sense, judging Obama for the economic message he uses to stay in office is fair game. But blaming him for the country’s joblessness is not."
So according to that article, the current rate should be Obamas true blue 5 year later rate from your article. The articles long term solutions is not the path that Trump campaigned on. He campaigned on "bringing jobs back", using trade deals, rebuilding infrastructure and decreasing regulations. Which is all in clear opposition to your article.
I like Finns metrics, according to the promises Trump has made. We should see improvements in all of them.
You appear to be splitting hairs with Finns wording, focusing on his use of "POTUS" when we all know that means the POTUS and thier administration.
Both of those articles that you posted are from 2011, a full 6 years ago. The oil price one seemed more like an article to justify a carbon use tax to decrease demand, which will increase supply. Here we are 6 years later, without a carbon use tax and more supply than demand keeping prices down.
Whether or not the administration can control gas prices directly and in the short term is debatable, they are still used as an economic indicator. If gas prices are $4/gallon, the rest of the economy is going to feel it. Trump has campaigned on energy sources and decreasing regulations to allow for more US oil production. Which should increase supply, driving the price even lower. If I recall when America was great, gas was less than $1/gallon.
The unemployment rate article, was all about "short term decreases".
From the article....
"The sad truth is that high unemployment will be sticking around, for long after 2012. The McKinsey Global Institute predicts that getting employment back to its pre-recession peak could take five years. And if you take the long view on U.S. joblessness, that isn’t Obama’s fault. Jobs recoveries have increasingly lagged economic recoveries in every recession since 1991, according to analysis of Fed data by economist Raghuram Rajan. That’s led to a rise in chronic unemployment levels over the years, which are even harder to fix.
That makes Obama’s jobs problem more political than economic, because policies that lead to sustainable employment in the long-run — better education, regulation, social insurance — take more than one term to pull off. In that sense, judging Obama for the economic message he uses to stay in office is fair game. But blaming him for the country’s joblessness is not."
So according to that article, the current rate should be Obamas true blue 5 year later rate from your article. The articles long term solutions is not the path that Trump campaigned on. He campaigned on "bringing jobs back", using trade deals, rebuilding infrastructure and decreasing regulations. Which is all in clear opposition to your article.
I like Finns metrics, according to the promises Trump has made. We should see improvements in all of them.
Fine, "play" all you want, but they were serious questions that I appreciate you at least trying to address. As for "POTUS" or not, that was a series of questions that as Finn answered he seemed to be changing his tune on, so I was looking for a firm solid answer and it went from POTUS to "everyone" in a few pages, obviously moving the goal posts on that.
Next, the age of the articles really has no relevance as my point is that either POTUS or administrations don't have some hard cut where their policies suddenly stop impacting the markets just because they left office. Heck I wouldn't be surprised if decisions from the Clinton administration are still making waves through economic measures, assuming of course you believe that they have more than a very marginal impact on things.
The president ultimately has little influence over gas prices.
Quote:
The other side of the equation—global demand—also is out of the White House's hands. When OPEC refuses to cut production even in light of flagging demand, there's an oversupply that keeps prices down, but it has little to do with any U.S. action.
When it comes to jobs, an administration can play with policy but at the end of the day its businesses that are in control of the majority of the hiring and firing. Other than federal jobs (which Trump just put a freeze on, excluding military) they don't control employment numbers. And in the case of the Trump freeze, regardless of politics, there are situations where a freeze could be the correct answer, and that would obviously limit growth numbers. Would just adding federal employees to the payroll like they did from 2007-2010 when every company was having major layoffs be considered a good thing? I mean the numbers are up, but obviously the employment landscape changed drastically and this wasn't necessarily the correct thing to be doing.
To say that Obama is responsible for some sort of recovery from 2008 in terms of jobs or the economy is a huge stretch. I mean economies go in cycles, any admistration could have been in office at the time and the financial markets and job markets would have corrected themselves. At best he MIGHT have sped it up some. You can argue day and night about why we were in such bad shape anyway.
it is likely that the housing boom and bust would have played out much the same way under President Gore as it did under President Bush, and it’s likely that the recovery would have been just as long (and just as disappointing) under President McCain or President Romney as it has been under President Obama.
And from the same article, this is probably my biggest point that I've been trying to make:
Quote:
True presidential impacts are often invisible — as much about what doesn’t happen as what does — and become clear only years or even decades after they leave office.
There is such a long tail on many of these decisions that they impact the markets over far too long periods of time to reliably assign all positive or negative results to one administration.
Overall its a cute game to play, but there just doesn't seem to be much reliable scientific backing to assign the movement of these numbers over a 4-8 year period to any one POTUS or administration. Add in the actual decisions made by the private sector on jobs and investing, as well as the global decisions made and it just gets a lot more cloudy.
I would again stress that the true measures should include things like the number of wars started/ended (although they SHOULD have congressional approval, but don't always), the number of times he makes a decision that supports or undermines the constitution, how long his selected cabinet members last in their roles, some sort of metrics around legislation on bills passed / vetoed
Those are the items a POTUS actually has direct control over and should be the true determination of how an administration is measured. Not by a bunch of arbitrary metrics that have outside influences (both in previous administrations as well as domestic and global happenings) that far outweigh the impact that an administration can have and that can be specifically measured in the black and white confines of the term of one administration.
according to the promises Trump has made. We should see improvements in all of them.
I missed that last statement in my original reply. If that is the baseline, then I absolutely don't care and its fine. But overall then, the metrics should just flat out be number of campaign promises made and kept. I think every one of them Dem and Republican are foolish any time they make promises about gas prices, jobs, or the market, and Trump has been great at making all kinds of foolish promises.
Bottom line to me is keep your campaign promises, but claiming victory on many of these traditional metrics is just a crap shoot and there is no true way to objectively measure success or failure.
'Appear' is putting it mildly. He has made 30 posts to bicker over nothing.
I've made plenty of posts in this thread, almost all of them posing questions about the use of these metrics and suggesting alternative metrics. You on the other hand have done nothing but attack me at a personal level and not respond to any of the legitimate questions I'v posed. I thought you were blocking me, I could do without hearing from you unless you actually reply to the issues I've pointed out with the metrics and methods you have proposed.
I've made plenty of posts in this thread, almost all of them posing questions about the use of these metrics and suggesting alternative metrics. You on the other hand have done nothing but attack me at a personal level.......
Feel free to use any metrics you want and quit whining.
Feel free to use any metrics you want and quit whining.
My new metrics:
Finn_Jarber Personal Attacks: ~10
Finn_Jarber Actually responding to legitimate questions: ~2
Last edited by t206; 01-25-2017 at 09:07 AM..
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.
