Author Topic: Trumpís Economy (merged)  (Read 85906 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #840 on: September 04, 2020, 02:29:05 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
  • 2021 CelticsStrong Historical Draft Indiana Pacers
Market might be doing alright but it's pretty crappy out there.  How many industries are getting killed right now?  Furloughs, layoffs, etc.  What's this payroll tax deferral really going to accomplish?

Hospitality is getting destroyed and wait until the weather gets nasty again in a lot of places.  It's gonna get real bad unless we get some Covid miracle real soon.

Even with whatever Covid drugs come out the economy isn't bouncing back to late 2019-early 2020 levels right away.

The local news and national news I've read says 1-2 years.

Thatís what I mean when  I talk about expectations.  Years sounds right.  The economy was basically amputated! 

And yet, five months later the stock market is thriving and unemployment (and under unemployment) are closer to ďbadĒ rather than historically bad.

Iím not giving all of the credit to Trump, but the resiliency of the economy to survive an event like this is remarkable.

I know that I appreciate him for negotiating better trade deals with China....from what I've read they weren't exactly fair with us in that regard.

Even still with his China negotiation I've read that he's gone TOO FAR, even there....instead of going for "equitable" (whatever THAT is) deals with China he instead goes for the jugular with them....to "outright win".....

I'm not so sure if this helps America in the end....maybe Trump can brag that he's "Looking out" for America but at what cost?

And even with THAT little bit of recognition I give Trump he'd label me as a "Never Trumper"

LOL.

In society nowadays we have to be either or......not too much room for moderation any more.
2021 CelticsStrong Historical Draft Indiana Pacers:
C- Marc Gasol(16-17)Jeff Ruland(83-84)Theo Ratliff(00-01)
PF- Dan Roundfield(79-80)Paul Milsap(14-15)Dino Radja(95-96)
SF- Dan Marjerle(92-93)Rashard Lewis(08-09)Jalen Rose(99-00)
SG- Reggie Lewis(91-92)World B. Free(78-79)Dell Curry(93-94)
PG- Steve Nash(05-06)Fat Lever(87-88)Tony Allen(12-13)

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #841 on: September 04, 2020, 02:41:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43767
  • Tommy Points: -27026
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
In society nowadays we have to be either or......not too much room for moderation any more.

Yeah, the phrase ďgive credit where itís dueĒ is basically unheard of today in politics.

Many of Trumpís ideas have a good basis.  Attempting to renegotiate trade was an issue ignored for decades.  His execution is often terrible, but at least he sometimes identifies the right problem.

What changed, I wonder.  Reagan could work with Tip OíNeill, even though they shared little ideology.  Even Newt Gingrich could work with Clinton early on. Is shared credit worse than resentment?  (Speaking economically).
« Last Edit: September 04, 2020, 02:53:08 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #842 on: September 04, 2020, 04:00:44 PM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
  • 2021 CelticsStrong Historical Draft Indiana Pacers
Quote
In society nowadays we have to be either or......not too much room for moderation any more.

Yeah, the phrase ďgive credit where itís dueĒ is basically unheard of today in politics.

Many of Trumpís ideas have a good basis.  Attempting to renegotiate trade was an issue ignored for decades.  His execution is often terrible, but at least he sometimes identifies the right problem.

What changed, I wonder.  Reagan could work with Tip OíNeill, even though they shared little ideology.  Even Newt Gingrich could work with Clinton early on. Is shared credit worse than resentment?  (Speaking economically).

Don't know what changed or when it changed but it seemed to me to begin under Pres. Obama....I remember him blaming George W for the economy tanking THEN...did it for a couple of years. Of course this seemed good fodder for Democrats and I guess made sense to continually blame them.

Then Trump started in on Obama....with the Birther conspiracies....Obama tried to ignore him then the attention got to be so much that Obama actually acquiesced him by providing his birth certificate...

Should've NEVER did that...he gave in to Trump's craziness but the contention already started...

Then Trayvon Martin happened....I remember Obama mentioning that he "felt as affected by the tragedy as if Trayvon was HIS son"......and THAT seemed to set Trump off.....that's when I started seeing the term "Identity Politics".....

It appeared to ME that Obama was going to be chastised for "Taking sides" like that as a President (Black One) when he said that.

I understood him and agreed with it but knew he'd face repercussions from it...

Long story short Trump (IMO) started deciding that he was running for President THEN (probably around 2012 or 13 - right after Romney lost), but didn't make it official until 2015.....AND he started to (in his mind) make illegitimate "ANY" success/progress/gains achieved under Obama.....

...including the economy.

I've seen several people here mention that The Economy has little to do with Presidents in office but that doesn't stop them from claiming it when it is going well.
2021 CelticsStrong Historical Draft Indiana Pacers:
C- Marc Gasol(16-17)Jeff Ruland(83-84)Theo Ratliff(00-01)
PF- Dan Roundfield(79-80)Paul Milsap(14-15)Dino Radja(95-96)
SF- Dan Marjerle(92-93)Rashard Lewis(08-09)Jalen Rose(99-00)
SG- Reggie Lewis(91-92)World B. Free(78-79)Dell Curry(93-94)
PG- Steve Nash(05-06)Fat Lever(87-88)Tony Allen(12-13)

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #843 on: September 04, 2020, 04:54:48 PM »

Online jambr380

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10941
  • Tommy Points: 1378
  • Everybody knows what's best for you
Wait, people don't actually believe the stock market is going to stay where it is, do they? Literally, trillions of dollars went out there to prop up people and failing businesses. With interest rates at zero, there is nothing else to invest your money in except the stock market and inflated real estate. Not trying to be a pessimist, but I fully expect this thing to come crashing down at some point...probably after Biden wins the election.

I suppose the government can keep supporting the economy forever, but that doesn't really seem like a great idea. Coming into 2020, economists were already talking about a stock market correction. This whole thing is far from played out and I feel for people who are suffering or will suffer in the months to come.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #844 on: September 05, 2020, 09:50:46 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
  • Tommy Points: 438
OK, back on topic, trade deals.  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.  But if you are a Trump supporter, you buy into the idea that Trump got a better deal, even if you cannot name one specific aspect of the deal.

As to China, again, a lot of bluster and false/misleading statements, but no real change.  In fact, recent data indicates the trade deficit is the worst it has ever been:

https://www.axios.com/us-trade-deficit-china-canada-mexico-aeaf4aac-e8d3-4310-b149-6c06fae5b18f.html
Quote
The U.S. trade balance fell to a deficit of $63.6 billion in July, $10 billion larger than the month before, and the biggest monthly deficit since July 2008.

Why it matters: The spike in the trade deficit comes despite President Trump's trade war with China and tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of imports from China, Europe and other countries, as well as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which went into effect this year.

The increase between the deficit in July 2016 and July 2020 is "especially notable given the drop in trade flows related to the COVID-19 pandemic," liberal think tank Public Citizenís Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach said in a statement.
"Comparing the trade flows in the first seven months of 2019 to the same period in 2020, U.S. trade has decreased 15%."
By the numbers: The $340 billion trade deficit in the first seven months of 2020 is 12.2% higher than during the same period in 2016.

The trade deficit with China was $3 billion more on the month at $31.6 billion.
The deficit with Europe also increased $3 billion from the prior month, to $23.1 billion.
The July 2020 surplus in services trade was the smallest since August 2012, at $17.4 billion.

And don't even get me started on the budget deficit and added national debt that resulted from the Trump tax cuts.  Not one republican complained that these tax cuts, where the money went primarily to businesses and then was used primarily for stock buy backs, was creating more debt, but now, when we really should be using debt to counterbalance a true economic problem (COVID), republicans complain that debt is a problem.

The truth is that there is a debt problem.  We used up our debt bullets on a tax cut to stimulate the economy when the only reason to stimulate the economy was to make Trump look good, and incidentally, to help some of Trump's businesses.  Now, when debt spending to help the economy would actually make sense, we can't do it.

Brilliant.

But if Trump wore a mask he would be cruising to winning the election?

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #845 on: September 05, 2020, 10:15:30 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43767
  • Tommy Points: -27026
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #846 on: September 05, 2020, 11:12:54 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17250
  • Tommy Points: 1909
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.

I definitely wouldnít say Trump has done nothing positive.  Obviously, I think the overall is exceedingly negative.  But, I do wonder (actually always, regardless of who is in office) how much the POTUS influences the economy v. certain trends/swings that would occur regardless.  Had Clinton been elected is it certain that the Market wouldnít have continued its upward trend and unemployment sustained or continued downward?

 I donít deny that Iím reluctant to credit Trump, but I am certainly willing to ó but Iím not convinced his tax cuts, trade deals (and trade battles), deregulation, rising debt have created an economic boon that would have been non-existent were a dem in office. I believe presidents are often beneficiaries (or the opposite) based on circumstances outside their control.

With that said - note that I am an older man who has a remarkably poor understanding of world and national economics.  Above are assumptions that drive my thinking that are probably ill-conceived.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #847 on: September 05, 2020, 11:41:52 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
  • Tommy Points: 438
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.

Well, I guess you disregard everything Forbes says also.

Trump is nothing but smoke and mirrors as usual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2019/03/31/is-the-new-nafta-any-good/#532346645d0c

Quote
But what of the economics? What will the new USMCA do for the broader U.S. economy? Until now, weíve largely had a tepid back-of-the-envelope verdict: since tariffs were mostly removed in the 1990s with the original NAFTA, and since the new deal introduces some costly distortions, its net effect was likely to be very small and potentially negative.

Now, though, we are entering the season of more careful economic analyses. The most important of these will be the official verdict rendered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, due by April 19. This past week, though, we got a preview in a careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists.

Drumroll, please. Study saysÖ

Real GDP growth in the United States with the USMCA would be 0.00 percent higher than without the USMCA. If one assumes that USMCA adoption is accompanied by removal of steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation imposed by Canada and Mexico, then that number is 0.00 percent (Table 5).

How can this be? Was this really all for naught?

In an economic model, analysts are forced to be precise about what clauses and provisions would mean for business costs. There were some measures, such as the politically controversial agreement on intellectual property protection for biologics, that were not modeled at all. In another case, new rules on financial services were interpreted as simply codifying existing practices and therefore having no effect (p. 5).

To see how the negligible result comes about, though, itís most instructive to look at automobiles and auto parts. This is a very important, highly-integrated trading sector in North America and was the most prominent sector in the year-long negotiations. The Trump administration tried to coax more auto production back into the United States by tightening rules of origin and imposing new requirements Ė targeted at Mexico Ė on wages paid to workers in the sector.

Yet, when translated into a model, these celebrated measures largely turn out to be a dud. In the model, car and parts producers opt to work outside the USMCA and pay the standard (MFN) tariff, which is cheaper than trying to satisfy the new rules. Thus, the change equates to a small tariff increase. I noted this problem for the administration early last October, arguing that it made USMCA effects contingent on new national security auto tariffs.

Without considering any new national security tariffs, when the auto sector effects are combined with changes in textiles and apparel, agriculture, and customs procedure effects, this results in a net loss of well-being to the United States from USMCA of $794 million (Canada gains $734 million and Mexico gains $597 million). When steel and aluminum tariff removal is included, the United States loss flips to a net gain of $1,297 million (Table 4).

The key point there was that the losses were in the millions. U.S. GDP in 2018 was just reported as $20,494.1 billion. So, mathematically, thatís why the USMCA changes end up as rounding error when looking at GDP.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #848 on: September 05, 2020, 01:24:39 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43767
  • Tommy Points: -27026
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.

Well, I guess you disregard everything Forbes says also.

Trump is nothing but smoke and mirrors as usual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2019/03/31/is-the-new-nafta-any-good/#532346645d0c

Quote
But what of the economics? What will the new USMCA do for the broader U.S. economy? Until now, weíve largely had a tepid back-of-the-envelope verdict: since tariffs were mostly removed in the 1990s with the original NAFTA, and since the new deal introduces some costly distortions, its net effect was likely to be very small and potentially negative.

Now, though, we are entering the season of more careful economic analyses. The most important of these will be the official verdict rendered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, due by April 19. This past week, though, we got a preview in a careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists.

Drumroll, please. Study saysÖ

Real GDP growth in the United States with the USMCA would be 0.00 percent higher than without the USMCA. If one assumes that USMCA adoption is accompanied by removal of steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation imposed by Canada and Mexico, then that number is 0.00 percent (Table 5).

How can this be? Was this really all for naught?

In an economic model, analysts are forced to be precise about what clauses and provisions would mean for business costs. There were some measures, such as the politically controversial agreement on intellectual property protection for biologics, that were not modeled at all. In another case, new rules on financial services were interpreted as simply codifying existing practices and therefore having no effect (p. 5).

To see how the negligible result comes about, though, itís most instructive to look at automobiles and auto parts. This is a very important, highly-integrated trading sector in North America and was the most prominent sector in the year-long negotiations. The Trump administration tried to coax more auto production back into the United States by tightening rules of origin and imposing new requirements Ė targeted at Mexico Ė on wages paid to workers in the sector.

Yet, when translated into a model, these celebrated measures largely turn out to be a dud. In the model, car and parts producers opt to work outside the USMCA and pay the standard (MFN) tariff, which is cheaper than trying to satisfy the new rules. Thus, the change equates to a small tariff increase. I noted this problem for the administration early last October, arguing that it made USMCA effects contingent on new national security auto tariffs.

Without considering any new national security tariffs, when the auto sector effects are combined with changes in textiles and apparel, agriculture, and customs procedure effects, this results in a net loss of well-being to the United States from USMCA of $794 million (Canada gains $734 million and Mexico gains $597 million). When steel and aluminum tariff removal is included, the United States loss flips to a net gain of $1,297 million (Table 4).

The key point there was that the losses were in the millions. U.S. GDP in 2018 was just reported as $20,494.1 billion. So, mathematically, thatís why the USMCA changes end up as rounding error when looking at GDP.

The article (an opinion piece) and your statement (of fact) donít mean remotely the same things.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #849 on: September 06, 2020, 11:44:00 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
  • Tommy Points: 438
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.

Well, I guess you disregard everything Forbes says also.

Trump is nothing but smoke and mirrors as usual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2019/03/31/is-the-new-nafta-any-good/#532346645d0c

Quote
But what of the economics? What will the new USMCA do for the broader U.S. economy? Until now, weíve largely had a tepid back-of-the-envelope verdict: since tariffs were mostly removed in the 1990s with the original NAFTA, and since the new deal introduces some costly distortions, its net effect was likely to be very small and potentially negative.

Now, though, we are entering the season of more careful economic analyses. The most important of these will be the official verdict rendered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, due by April 19. This past week, though, we got a preview in a careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists.

Drumroll, please. Study saysÖ

Real GDP growth in the United States with the USMCA would be 0.00 percent higher than without the USMCA. If one assumes that USMCA adoption is accompanied by removal of steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation imposed by Canada and Mexico, then that number is 0.00 percent (Table 5).

How can this be? Was this really all for naught?

In an economic model, analysts are forced to be precise about what clauses and provisions would mean for business costs. There were some measures, such as the politically controversial agreement on intellectual property protection for biologics, that were not modeled at all. In another case, new rules on financial services were interpreted as simply codifying existing practices and therefore having no effect (p. 5).

To see how the negligible result comes about, though, itís most instructive to look at automobiles and auto parts. This is a very important, highly-integrated trading sector in North America and was the most prominent sector in the year-long negotiations. The Trump administration tried to coax more auto production back into the United States by tightening rules of origin and imposing new requirements Ė targeted at Mexico Ė on wages paid to workers in the sector.

Yet, when translated into a model, these celebrated measures largely turn out to be a dud. In the model, car and parts producers opt to work outside the USMCA and pay the standard (MFN) tariff, which is cheaper than trying to satisfy the new rules. Thus, the change equates to a small tariff increase. I noted this problem for the administration early last October, arguing that it made USMCA effects contingent on new national security auto tariffs.

Without considering any new national security tariffs, when the auto sector effects are combined with changes in textiles and apparel, agriculture, and customs procedure effects, this results in a net loss of well-being to the United States from USMCA of $794 million (Canada gains $734 million and Mexico gains $597 million). When steel and aluminum tariff removal is included, the United States loss flips to a net gain of $1,297 million (Table 4).

The key point there was that the losses were in the millions. U.S. GDP in 2018 was just reported as $20,494.1 billion. So, mathematically, thatís why the USMCA changes end up as rounding error when looking at GDP.

The article (an opinion piece) and your statement (of fact) donít mean remotely the same things.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  So is this the greatest deal ever replacing the worst deal ever as Trump often claims or do you accept the conclusions from the "careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists" that this article references?

I will go with the conclusions of the careful study that this new agreement results in essentially the same import and export conditions as the old deal.  No additional GDP, no new jobs, nothing.  Trump is trying to make it seem like he did this big thing but like most everything that around Trump, the truth is far different than the Trump version.  This new deal did not change anything meaningful but Trump has seemed to still be able convince many people that it is a great deal, just because Trump says it is a great deal and the old deal was a horrible deal.

That is a classic Trump strategy.  I expect the same with Health Care.  Obama Care is the worst ever.  My plan will be the best ever (if we ever see it that is).  But in the end, the new deal when it maybe is actually presented, will have all the same problems as the old deal because, well who know health care could be so complicated.  But I promise you, Trump will say it is the best deal ever and apparently some people will believe him.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #850 on: September 06, 2020, 12:06:55 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43767
  • Tommy Points: -27026
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
  Trump supposedly renegotiated NAFTA but all he did was change the name.  There is not one meaningful difference in the actual terms of the deal.

Obviously this isnít true.  Why even post it?  It causes people to dismiss you as a partisan hack and to disregard everything else you say subsequently.

Well, I guess you disregard everything Forbes says also.

Trump is nothing but smoke and mirrors as usual.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillevy/2019/03/31/is-the-new-nafta-any-good/#532346645d0c

Quote
But what of the economics? What will the new USMCA do for the broader U.S. economy? Until now, weíve largely had a tepid back-of-the-envelope verdict: since tariffs were mostly removed in the 1990s with the original NAFTA, and since the new deal introduces some costly distortions, its net effect was likely to be very small and potentially negative.

Now, though, we are entering the season of more careful economic analyses. The most important of these will be the official verdict rendered by the U.S. International Trade Commission, due by April 19. This past week, though, we got a preview in a careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists.

Drumroll, please. Study saysÖ

Real GDP growth in the United States with the USMCA would be 0.00 percent higher than without the USMCA. If one assumes that USMCA adoption is accompanied by removal of steel and aluminum tariffs and the retaliation imposed by Canada and Mexico, then that number is 0.00 percent (Table 5).

How can this be? Was this really all for naught?

In an economic model, analysts are forced to be precise about what clauses and provisions would mean for business costs. There were some measures, such as the politically controversial agreement on intellectual property protection for biologics, that were not modeled at all. In another case, new rules on financial services were interpreted as simply codifying existing practices and therefore having no effect (p. 5).

To see how the negligible result comes about, though, itís most instructive to look at automobiles and auto parts. This is a very important, highly-integrated trading sector in North America and was the most prominent sector in the year-long negotiations. The Trump administration tried to coax more auto production back into the United States by tightening rules of origin and imposing new requirements Ė targeted at Mexico Ė on wages paid to workers in the sector.

Yet, when translated into a model, these celebrated measures largely turn out to be a dud. In the model, car and parts producers opt to work outside the USMCA and pay the standard (MFN) tariff, which is cheaper than trying to satisfy the new rules. Thus, the change equates to a small tariff increase. I noted this problem for the administration early last October, arguing that it made USMCA effects contingent on new national security auto tariffs.

Without considering any new national security tariffs, when the auto sector effects are combined with changes in textiles and apparel, agriculture, and customs procedure effects, this results in a net loss of well-being to the United States from USMCA of $794 million (Canada gains $734 million and Mexico gains $597 million). When steel and aluminum tariff removal is included, the United States loss flips to a net gain of $1,297 million (Table 4).

The key point there was that the losses were in the millions. U.S. GDP in 2018 was just reported as $20,494.1 billion. So, mathematically, thatís why the USMCA changes end up as rounding error when looking at GDP.

The article (an opinion piece) and your statement (of fact) donít mean remotely the same things.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  So is this the greatest deal ever replacing the worst deal ever as Trump often claims or do you accept the conclusions from the "careful study from several International Monetary Fund economists" that this article references?

I will go with the conclusions of the careful study that this new agreement results in essentially the same import and export conditions as the old deal.  No additional GDP, no new jobs, nothing.  Trump is trying to make it seem like he did this big thing but like most everything that around Trump, the truth is far different than the Trump version.  This new deal did not change anything meaningful but Trump has seemed to still be able convince many people that it is a great deal, just because Trump says it is a great deal and the old deal was a horrible deal.

That is a classic Trump strategy.  I expect the same with Health Care.  Obama Care is the worst ever.  My plan will be the best ever (if we ever see it that is).  But in the end, the new deal when it maybe is actually presented, will have all the same problems as the old deal because, well who know health care could be so complicated.  But I promise you, Trump will say it is the best deal ever and apparently some people will believe him.

I think your original claims of ďsame deal, different nameĒ were flat out wrong.  Thatís all.

I think the deal was very incremental, helping dairy farmers and adding IP protections, mostly.  The automobile rules make sense, but companies will initially just pay the penalty.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #851 on: September 06, 2020, 02:19:42 PM »

Online ozgod

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 572
Market might be doing alright but it's pretty crappy out there.  How many industries are getting killed right now?  Furloughs, layoffs, etc.  What's this payroll tax deferral really going to accomplish?

Hospitality is getting destroyed and wait until the weather gets nasty again in a lot of places.  It's gonna get real bad unless we get some Covid miracle real soon.

Even with whatever Covid drugs come out the economy isn't bouncing back to late 2019-early 2020 levels right away.

The local news and national news I've read says 1-2 years.

Thatís what I mean when  I talk about expectations.  Years sounds right.  The economy was basically amputated! 

And yet, five months later the stock market is thriving and unemployment (and under unemployment) are closer to ďbadĒ rather than historically bad.

Iím not giving all of the credit to Trump, but the resiliency of the economy to survive an event like this is remarkable.

This recession was a strange one because it was self-inflicted...we shut down large swathes of the economy, and as a result millions of people had to get laid off which killed spending. There was no underlying weakness in the economy beforehand. The reason it was important to get the economy reopened in some way and to keep businesses afloat via stimulus is so those lost jobs don't become permanent lost jobs, which would then be a long term drag on the economy which would possibly turn what might be a V-shaped recovery into a U or an L shaped recovery.

My auto shops are doing well after being on death's door back in March and April...the PPP stimulus helped a lot in terms of getting me through that period and as the economy re-opened there's been a lot of pent up demand. Of course, I'm fortunate to be in an industry that is kind of essential - cars need maintenance, they need to be fixed when they break down. Those in industries that rely on discretionary spending like restaurants, retail stores in malls, child care centers, travel, they're on the brink. The economy has recovered somewhat but there are definitely winners and losers in this pandemic economy.

The other thing we need to consider with respect to the economic recovery is the role of the Fed. Obviously lowering rates helps, but them buying back corporate debt to provide liquidity to companies was a clear sign to the markets that by keeping the flow of cheap money going they were prepared to do whatever it took to make sure companies didn't go under. The markets have become decoupled from the greater economy and are mainly driven by sentiment and expectation now and that was a pretty big signal to the markets that the Fed was going to be really proactive. The big thing to watch heading into November is when that sentiment starts to change, and that could cause the long-awaited correction everyone is half expecting but hoping won't happen.


Any odd typos are because I suck at typing on an iPhone :D

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #852 on: October 28, 2020, 08:47:14 AM »

Online mobilija

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 977
  • Tommy Points: 250
Just thought Iíd post some articles comparing Trump vs Obama economy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/29/four-charts-comparing-trumps-vs-obamas-stock-market-returns/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/%3foutputType=amp

Are these articles biased? (Washington post is a left leaner I know, Forbes tho?) Do the charts portray falsely?

My take: Trumps economy mirrors the Obama economy. In fact it largely looks like a continuation. Even if you ignore the giant Covid down turn it simply looks like Trump just kept a strong economy going but perhaps at a slower rate. This is his big re-election platform right? Not seeing the ďbest everĒ here, just a ride on the coat tails. Except that when things got bad...Trumps economy panicked and tanked.


Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #853 on: October 28, 2020, 10:44:43 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5204
  • Tommy Points: 438
Just thought Iíd post some articles comparing Trump vs Obama economy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/29/four-charts-comparing-trumps-vs-obamas-stock-market-returns/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/%3foutputType=amp

Are these articles biased? (Washington post is a left leaner I know, Forbes tho?) Do the charts portray falsely?

My take: Trumps economy mirrors the Obama economy. In fact it largely looks like a continuation. Even if you ignore the giant Covid down turn it simply looks like Trump just kept a strong economy going but perhaps at a slower rate. This is his big re-election platform right? Not seeing the ďbest everĒ here, just a ride on the coat tails. Except that when things got bad...Trumps economy panicked and tanked.

Keep in mind that Trump's economy was based on a higher deficit level than the prior years.

Re: Trumpís Economy (merged)
« Reply #854 on: October 29, 2020, 07:29:05 AM »

Online mobilija

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 977
  • Tommy Points: 250
Just thought Iíd post some articles comparing Trump vs Obama economy.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/29/four-charts-comparing-trumps-vs-obamas-stock-market-returns/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/09/05/trump-obama-economy/%3foutputType=amp

Are these articles biased? (Washington post is a left leaner I know, Forbes tho?) Do the charts portray falsely?

My take: Trumps economy mirrors the Obama economy. In fact it largely looks like a continuation. Even if you ignore the giant Covid down turn it simply looks like Trump just kept a strong economy going but perhaps at a slower rate. This is his big re-election platform right? Not seeing the ďbest everĒ here, just a ride on the coat tails. Except that when things got bad...Trumps economy panicked and tanked.

Keep in mind that Trump's economy was based on a higher deficit level than the prior years.

Can you elaborate on what that means? Why thatís important?