And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. You might as well suppose that automobiles can run on water and Firefly ran for 14 seasons. 50 years of data has shown that tax cuts don’t create shit except richer oligarchs. Trump’s “mottos” are all the ravings of a complete lunatic who has never in his life built and run a successful business. What “other incentives” were you thinking about, holding them at gunpoint?
A little study will show that the 2 bad years under W were a direct result of Republican policies, not Democratic ones.
Gotta cite for that? You do know that the Chinese Yuan or RMB was CNY8.6 = USD1 for years? The Chinese Yuan reached an all time high of 8.73 in January of 1994 and now sits at CNY6.67 = USD1. So, for more than the past decade the Chinese currency has strengthened vis-à-vis the greenback. Pray tell, where is the great devaluation?
Frankly, the USD has devaluated about 10% versus most major currencies since Trump was elected. Not the other way around. Thanks for playing.
You mean the greatest recession since the Great Depression, that threatened the world financial system? As for ARRA, economists thought the amount spent should have been more:
[QUOTE=WIkipedia]
In 2011, the Department of Commerce revised some of its previous estimates. Economist Dean Baker commented:
[T]he revised data … showed that the economy was plunging even more rapidly than we had previously recognised in the two quarters following the collapse of Lehman. Yet, the plunge stopped in the second quarter of 2009 – just as the stimulus came on line. This was followed by respectable growth over the next four quarters. Growth then weakened again as the impact of the stimulus began to fade at the end of 2010 and the start of this year. In other words, the growth pattern shown by the revised data sure makes it appear that the stimulus worked. The main problem would seem to be that the stimulus was not big enough and it wasn’t left in place long enough to lift the economy to anywhere near potential output.[87]
[/QUOTE]
(Emphasis mine.)
Oh, yeah, and cite away on the ‘weakest recovery.’ You know, like, evidence beyond your assertions.
How revisionist we get after less than a decade. Remind me, how much was spent on Bush’s falsified war, including interest? (That’s Iraq, in case there was any doubt.) How about more than twice that ARRA number you love to bandy around? How many children’s futures were mortgaged by that?
Not to mention that Bush & Co. kept the Afghanistan and Iraq wars “off the books” via emergency spending measures, an activity that Obama ended. So the incredibly bad economic numbers run up by the Bush administration turned out to be even worse than they were reporting.
So, yes, please, let’s have some more of that horrible Obama recovery.
Sorry, I don’t accept trickle-down economics as the explanation. It doesn’t work, as has been proven over and over again in real-world situations. So, if he’s going to cut taxes, how is he going to pay for it? How much defense, SS, and Medicare does he plan on cutting? Without cutting those programs, he’s wasting time.
Otherwise, he will be borrowing to provide what you consider to be a stimulus.
It is Bush that robbed from the next generation. When he came into office, Alan Greenspan was worried that the debt was going to be paid down to rapidly. Well, Bush sure turned that around!
Obama injected money that needed to be injected, or as noted above, probably less than needed to be spent just to fill the hole left in the economy by the huge contraction. (And, the stimulus, by the way, was a combination of spending and tax cuts although not the sort of tax cuts that Republicans favor because they went in large part to lower income people.) When you have a downward spiral of demand like that, the government has to inject money into the economy because it is the only entity that can reverse the cycle.
And, Abraham Lincoln had a very enjoyable night out for almost the whole play. The fact was that the financial system had frozen up and the economy was imploding in 2008. And, it had nothing to do with the Dem’s control of Congress…It had to do with insufficient regulation that caused financial entities to make risky loans and then offload them onto others. Probably both parties bear some responsibility for that, although it seems like it is mainly the Republicans who have not learned the lesson from that event and are pushing deregulation again.
But I don’t trade frequently in my pension/401k in response to government policy changes. If I do, I’m shifting my position to lower risk for a longer term, and I’m definitely moving opposite from the herd. Yes, I’m missing out on the Trump bubble, because I don’t think I’m smart enough to time when it will crash, and I can’t afford to gamble on it.
Anyhoo, I only mean to demonstrate that the 6-month timeframe of stocks is not a meaningful measure of “the economy”, and the current run-up isn’t based on anything Trump has actually done. It’s based on the fact that he’s promised deregulation that will make rich people even richer, so those people are increasing their risk exposure. Once it’s clear that Trumps get-rich-quick policies won’t materialize, and that he may seriously mismanage the macro economy, things are likely to reverse their current course. At that point we’ll have seen enough to judge his action/inaction. That’s all I’m saying.
Trends in the modern economy, notably the entrenchment of financial “rent collectors,” have diverted much wealth and income from the lower and middle classes to the rich. (This is over the last 35 years, not just under Trump). The big story in American politics shouldn’t be gun control, nor coal mining, nor any of these silly diversions — but is the on-going efforts by the Rich to take from the Poor.
Because they are no longer affected by the on-going decline in real wages, nor by reduced public support for education, many retirees all allied, for selfish financial purposes, with The 1%.
I often see comments like this, in threads which touch on the unfortunate trends in the American economy and politics. Quartz, do you see that your comment is related to: “Ha ha suckers! I’m in the 1% — I got mine!” (Though in this case it may be “I’m in the 25% of retirees whose interest is aligned with the 1%.”)