Citations are forthcoming… at about the same time Charles Krauthammer shows his gay sex tape on air, I presume.
Well shit, it’s almost as if economics is complicated, and a president who has done approximately fuck-all is a little difficult to attribute to actual events.
Okay. Why?
Why?
Ooh, 3,000 jobs! That’s only two orders of magnitude below last year’s numbers!
This would be funny if it wasn’t incredibly sad, as John Mace pointed out.
A mindset change that makes people…continue doing what they were doing before.
As for the business reports, see above and seriously check your reading comprehension. The reason Obama had the stimulus is because W and Co. fucked the economy over wholesale and Obama had to dig us out. Your guys fucked us, Dems save us, then Repubs try to take the credit.
As for the businesses “planning on” building US factories, I believe if you check the internal timelines these plans have been either on the schedule for more than a year, or never happen at all.
But go on…tell us more fairy tales.
And if you really believe that Tim Cook actually picked up the phone, called Trump and promised he was going to build “three big beautiful factories” in the US - send me your e-mail address. My friend the beleaguered Nigerian prince needs your help and there’s a lot of money in it for you.
Wow, CNN is actually reporting the news.
What level of the economy have to it for him to get any credit?
From a math and numbers point, Trump has already passed Obama 8’s years in six months. And he did it without borrowing billions. FACT, FACT, FACT. If CNN points this out,I’ll fall out of my chair.
But from an angry liberal prospective, I’d like to hear it what it would take for him to get credit? GDP over 3%? Unemployment under 4% Bet on it!
You’ll have to translate that into English if you want a response from me.
Real easy to do when Obama ran almost the entire race before handing off to Trump 50 yards from the finish line. And Trump trying to claim he ran a 10K.
If CNN reports that, so will I. It’s tough to point something out that only exists in your imagination.
It seriously got exhausting under Obama. The Republicans ran out and screamed about the U5 employment rate. They screamed about the Labor Force Participation Rate.
It seriously got exhausting. If I tell you it is 82 degrees Fahrenheit and it is nice and then you turn around and accuse me of lying because it’s 28 degrees (Celsius ) but it is COLD! Because it is 28 degrees and we all know that’s COLD!
The people that work for the BLS are probably a combination of Republicans, Democrats, and apolitical folks. They do their jobs, collect their paychecks, and look forward to Friday, their families, and their vacations, just like most people do in any office.
Would you rather converse in French?
Simple stated Mr. Mace, Trump’s first six months economically speak ing is better than anything Obama accomplished in 8 years while borrowing billions.
The economic indicators are as follows:
Lower unemployment - Lower than anything Obama achieved.
A higher labor rate - Obama’s time was a low tide.
A higher GDP - Higher percentage by Trump.
A higher consumer confidence
And if you use the stock market as a judge, a higher DOW.
Only six months have passed.
You have to give him some credit here, and as noted factories are being built here in greater frequency.
If Trump gets the corporate tax rate cut, I predict even bigger eccomomic gain.
He hasn’t done anything to fuck it up.
This.
Obama deserves serious credit for stabilising the economy. Things were really squiffy for a while.
Cite for this being beyond normal levels?
Trump is profiting from Obama’s work, but he’s done nothing to jeopardise it. Yet.
That would probably be more understandable than that post.
You misspelled “Simplistically” (emphasis added, and you also misspelled Simply, btw).
Measuring in absolute numbers is meaningless. If you want to compare, you need to compare the change. But I would suggest we wait at least a couple years before we start attributing anything to Trump. Frankly, I go with the experts on this, who generally discount the ability of presidents to influence the economy (as opposed to other factors). However, if they do affect it, it’s going to be a delayed response since policies take time to have an effect.
By your reckoning, President A is better than President B if the Dow went up 1 point under A vs 1,000 points under B as long as the Dow was continually going up under both.
That’s exactly the nonsense the OP is trying to pass off. In more ways than one, and in so many more instances than this, Trump was “born on third base but thinks he hit a triple.” But if you look at his history in business, any time it’s been just him, he’s fucked it up beyond measure. The only reason he has anything to point to economically-speaking is because he inherited it from someone else. Kinda like his entire life, really.
It has been increasing steadily for a while now.
[QUOTE=Arne Alsin, “The Ugly Truth Behind Stock Buybacks”, Forbes]
In November 2016, Goldman Sachs’ chief equity strategist David Kostin estimated that, in 2017, S&P 500 companies will spend $780 billion on buybacks — a new record.
[/quote]
I have made my feelings about Trump known, but I actually do give him some credit for implementing policies that may have resulted in short-term growth and optimism. The promise to lower taxes and deregulate have probably excited businesses about the prospects of investments and profitability. Of course it helped that his predecessor did a lot of heavy lifting and put into place an apparatus that ensured stability.
The question is, how long will the Trump economy keep producing these sorts of short term effects? Policies have short term effects, and effects over the longer term. We will revisit the Trump economy in a few years.
The graph in that article shows that buybacks were decreasing and has no actual data for 2017.
One of the articles to which that one links is of more interest and a better cite.
That sounds like a lot. However:
So it’s basically a tax-efficient way of repatriating shareholder funds.
Sure, but overall the graph shows a general incline for several years, and the OP is saying that it’s the result of Trump’s first six months.
(Bolding mine)
You say the bolded as though that’s evidence that Trump is some kind of genius. It’s not. It’s evidence that he’s had virtually no time to do anything except coast on the successes of his predecessor. The one thing you can give him any credit for is consumer confidence - and the reason for that is purely partisan.
I think Trump gets credit for giving investors some optimism, even if the policies themselves that he has proposed are almost certainly going to harm the economy in the long run. Of course, that’s the fundamental problem I have with Wall St, investors, and economists: they never look beyond the balance sheets and never seem to account for fundamental factors that will impact the economy over time: income inequality, failure to invest in jobs, trade policy, access to affordable healthcare. They prefer instead to look strictly at the quantitative metrics like consumer prices, interest rates, profits and losses, and earnings per share.
Wall St is excited about Trump’s talk of deregulation, which they assume will improve profitability in the short run. But as you say, there’s really nothing in terms of long-term economic policy that Trump has put into effect that we can measure. But we may not have to wait too much longer for that to change: he’s already destabilizing health insurance markets, threatening access to affordable healthcare, threatening trade wars with major economic partners, trying to slash regulation in various industries, and giving companies the green light to destroy the environment. Those will have economic long-term consequences, and probably not good ones.
So any talk of Trump’s success is obviously quite premature. It’s like congratulating a starting pitcher for getting two outs in the first inning of a ballgame. There’s a long way to go and a lot can happen.
It’s like congratulating a pitcher for getting two outs in the first inning when he switched in one pitch ago.
The S&P 500 has actually under-performed the French and German equivalent (CAC40 and the DAX) in election day. Here you can see the results in index terms and then adjusted for the falling dollar, which makes the difference even worse:
So, many stock markets are doing well. Silver Lining, are you saying that the French and German leaders are even better than Trump?
Back when the Dow hit 18,000, Trump claimed it was a bubble. Now, at 22,000, he’s taking credit. Weird. Back when he was running, he said the unemployment rate was, I don’t know, 40%? Now, he’s taking credit for the same unemployment measurment that he said was #FAKENEWS during the election. Weird.