Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[mcsluggo]

39 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

@mcsluggo that's just jealousy. 

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html

 

I wouldn’t say “never seen before” but still really good. Especially considering corona headwinds which certainly existed in feb.

 

That's one aspect and jobs are the easiest thing for government to manipulate.  GDP growth has been low (only 2.1% in the 4th quarter) and deficit spending has been up.

 

"Government Spending in the United States increased to 3331.87 USD Billion in the fourth quarter of 2019 from 3310.37 USD Billion in the third quarter of 2019."

 

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-spending

 

If the government spends, even in the face of low GDP growth, there will be jobs.  That's all you are really seeing with the unemployment numbers.

[mcsluggo]

28 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html

 

I wouldn’t say “never seen before” but still really good. Especially considering corona headwinds which certainly existed in feb.

 

this administration has juiced the economy for three years with HUGE fiscal surges (a giant tax ct that exploded the deficit during an expansion) and monetary (by pressuring the Fed to LOWER interest rates, again...during an expansion)

 

In essence they have emptied the policy drawer of tools that will be needed to to counter an actual slowdown (like Corona?) to falsely inflate growth figures now.... but growth has been downright pedestrian compared to what SHOULD be expected from those nitro-bursts, because of the self created headwinds from massive policy uncertainty (having a stupid ****ing orangatan jolting policy and bunch of spineless turds constantly trying to adjust reality to those jolts), and  trade wars with no discernible actual objectives. 

 

   

[NoCalMike]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/economy/jobs-report-february/index.html

 

I wouldn’t say “never seen before” but still really good. Especially considering corona headwinds which certainly existed in feb.

 

This is what I am referring to, the actual rate of growth. It is lower and pretty flat under Trump.   

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/01/trumps-economic-growth-is-slower-than-obamas-last-3-years/#ea858704fedf

 

Quote

Over the 12 quarters Trump has been President only four of them have had GDP growth over 3% and six of the quarter’s growth was 2.3% or lower. And for the past three quarters GDP growth has been 2.0%, 2.1% and 2.1%, respectively. This is a far cry from Trump’s claim that the economy could growth 4%, 5% or maybe even 6% when he was President.

 

Trump's claims are complete nonsense.  His 1 piece of major legislation, the tax cuts,  did nothing to positively effect the economy. 

 

Jobs reports are not enough to base the health of the economy on.  

 

Growth has and still is slowing down during his Presidency. Instead of looking ways to increase growth, he decided a massive tax cut was the way to go.  Now he is talking about cutting Social Security & Medicare, but saying "growth will be so great that it won't matter" when the statistic shows the rate of growth under him as been flat and falling.

[PeterMP]

8 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

this administration has juiced the economy for three years with HUGE fiscal surges (a giant tax ct that exploded the deficit during an expansion) and monetary (by pressuring the Fed to LOWER interest rates, again...during an expansion)

 

In essence they have emptied the policy drawer of tools that will be needed to to counter an actual slowdown (like Corona?) to falsely inflate growth figures now.... but growth has been downright pedestrian compared to what SHOULD be expected from those nitro-bursts, because of the self created headwinds from massive policy uncertainty (having a stupid ****ing orangatan jolting policy and bunch of spineless turds constantly trying to adjust reality to those jolts), and  trade wars with no discernible actual objectives. 

 

   

 

I'll point out, I hope this is a point that Biden is clearly able to articulate during debates.  Yes, the economy seems to be doing well, but it is doing well because you are spending a ton of money and pressured the fed to keep rates low.

 

That's not true economic growth.

[TheDoyler23]

Wait, you all mean these massive tax cuts aren't paying for themselves with exploding growth? It was all just an excuse to pay off the rich, including himself?

 

I'm so disillusioned! 

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2-2.5 percent gdp in a large economy (the largest) is actually really good.  When Obama was in office we did higher percentage growth but we were coming out of a recession. It takes huge $$ amounts to move the needle percentage wise when $$ amount starts off high. 2 percent of 100 is 2 dollars. 2 percent of 102 dollars is more than 2 dollars.

 

it seems odd to criticize a president for using the tools capable of creating economic growth to great economic growth, especially when inflation is low.  
 

 

[mcsluggo]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'll point out, I hope this is a point that Biden is clearly able to articulate during debates.  Yes, the economy seems to be doing well, but it is doing well because you are spending a ton of money and pressured the fed to keep rates low.

 

That's not true economic growth.

 

it is economic populism at is most basic and purist form.   "conservatives"  (if those actually exist anymore) like to clutch their pearls and say that if we elect a democrat we will end up like Argentina and/or Venezuela...   but REALITY is that the democrats have been the "grown-ups"  and have been every fiscally conservative president we have had since  Eisenhower (except Bush senior...and he got eviscerated by "conservatives" for the very sin of acting like a fiscal conservative) 

 

the two LEAST economically conservative presidents we have had over last century were Reagan and Trump.   Then comes W, and Nixon (with his widespread Kirchener-esque price controls).   then comes Johnson (trying to pay for both the great society and the vietnam war at the same time).

 

Carter was TRULY an economic conservative.   went completely against the grain and tried to rein in spending when there was a supply shock (OPEC oil crisis) and simultaneusly hired a vicious inflation hawk as the chair of the fed.   THese conservative choices cost himself the election ...and also were THE reasons that there was huge growth in the 1980s (in spite of Reagan being an absolute economic ****-show of a president)... oh yeah.. and he was ALSO the only truly religious president we have had in  the last century.... it is clear why conservatives hate him above all others.   

 

Bush SR, Obama, And Clinton all had pragmatically (economically) conservative administrations, that at the very least reduced deficits during periods of growth.    Bush Sr was the ONLY republican president to come even close to TRYING to do that in the last 70 years. 

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

it seems odd to criticize a president for using the tools capable of creating economic growth to great economic growth, especially when inflation is low.  
 

 

 

Yes..it seems odd to people that have zero understanding of economics.   that is precisely how we got into this **** show.   

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I have a mba in economics, literally.  I know a little bit about it. 

[Forehead]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I have a mba in economics, literally.  I know a little bit about it. 

 

Oh cool.  You went to Hollywood Upstairs Economics College too?

[techboy]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I have a mba in economics, literally.  I know a little bit about it. 

 

Oooh! Is there going to be a credentials showdown? This could be interesting...

 

How much more is a PhD worth in this contest?

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, Forehead said:

 

Oh cool.  You went to Hollywood Upstairs Economics College too?

 

Grand Canyon Antelopes represent!

[CousinsCowgirl84]

11 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

Oooh! Is there going to be a credentials showdown? This could be interesting...

 

How much more is a PhD worth in this contest?

nah, just don’t call someone dumb for linking to facts, is all I’m saying.

 

i understand y’all want low economic growth to continue your narrative so you create stories in your mind that explain away economic growth... but facts are facts.

 

The argument as presented is “if the president wasn’t using the tools he was given, there wouldn’t be economic growth.” Well, I agree on that point but it’s a dumb point to make.

[techboy]

16 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I have a mba in economics, literally.  I know a little bit about it. 

 

Okay, so jokes aside***, @mcsluggowould look bad if he pointed it out, but I'm not under the restraints of that social convention, so I'll do it... He literally has a PhD in economics and is working* in the field**, so your appeal to authority here is probably less impressive to him than it might be to some others.

 

*If one can describe economists as "working".

** I don't know how long he has been working in the field, but postings here give off the "angry old man shakes fist at cloud" vibe, so it's probably been at least a little while. 😀

*** Okay, maybe not jokes aside.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

No appeal to authority. I said I know a little about it. Never called him dumb.

[techboy]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

nah, just don’t call someone dumb for linking to facts, is all I’m saying.

 

He didn't call you dumb. He implied you have zero understanding of economics. That might be inaccurate, but you aren't doing a good job of proving it in this particular exchange.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

He didn't call you dumb. He implied you have zero understanding of economics. That might be inaccurate, but you aren't doing a good job of proving it in this particular exchange.

Dumb in economics if you require someone to spell it out for you.  Keep up with the conversation we are having?

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

nah, just don’t call someone dumb for linking to facts, is all I’m saying.

 

Your "linking to facts" appears to consist of:  

 

"Trump great economics President.  Jobs forecast good." 

 

"Yeah, but he's been using emergency-only tools for the last three years, without an emergency.  And all he's achieved with it is some economic numbers which were almost as good as before he took office."

 

"Yeah, well, Obama had it easy.  All he had was the worst economy of the last 100 years, and a congress that wouldn't allow him to use the normal emergency tools (because they didn't want the economy to get better in a Dem administration).  And even if the numbers are close to the same, it's still better, when Trump does it.  And besides, what's wrong with using emergency tools to inflate a bubble for political purposes?"  

 

- - - - 

 

And if you really wonder what's so bad about using your emergency tools when it's not an emergency, to make your political party look good?  You might be about to find out, when we actually do have an emergency, and the fire extinguisher's empty, because we've been using to run the fog machine.  

 

[sportjunkie07]

54 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

this administration has juiced the economy for three years with HUGE fiscal surges (a giant tax ct that exploded the deficit during an expansion) and monetary (by pressuring the Fed to LOWER interest rates, again...during an expansion)

 

In essence they have emptied the policy drawer of tools that will be needed to to counter an actual slowdown (like Corona?) to falsely inflate growth figures now.... but growth has been downright pedestrian compared to what SHOULD be expected from those nitro-bursts, because of the self created headwinds from massive policy uncertainty (having a stupid ****ing orangatan jolting policy and bunch of spineless turds constantly trying to adjust reality to those jolts), and  trade wars with no discernible actual objectives. 

 

   

This is a major problem and will lead to an economic downfall. 
 

as much as I like trump, monetary policy is not his strong suit.

[techboy]

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Dumb in economics if you require someone to spell it out for you.  Keep up with the conversation we are having?

 

Yes, thanks for asking. I'm not sure you have been, though, because your summary of @mcsluggo's argument isn't close to complete (or accurate).

[CousinsCowgirl84]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Your "linking to facts" appears to consist of:  

 

"Trump great economics President.  Jobs forecast good." 

 

 

I never said trump was responsible for the economic growth. 
 

Quote

"Yeah, but he's been using emergency-only tools for the last three years, without an emergency.  And all he's achieved with it is some economic numbers which were almost as good as before he took office."

 

"Yeah, well, Obama had it easy. 
 

 

where did I say that?

2 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

Yes, thanks for asking. I'm not sure you have been, though, because your summary of @mcsluggo's argument isn't close to complete (or accurate).

i wasn’t referring to mcsluggos argument. I was referring to PeterMPs. But McSluggos point is still not a great one.
 

So, if we didn’t use the tools available to us, we would be growing less. We all agree on this.

 

McSluggo is saying that we shouldn’t use fiscal stimulus to grow at 2 percent, because when a real crisis hits, we will need to those tools. So, he is suggesting saving those levers.

 

But, if that results in not growing the economic or having a slightly retracting economy what is the point in saving them. You might as well try to grow the economy whenever you can.

[techboy]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

i wasn’t referring to mcsluggos argument. I was referring to PeterMPs.

 

Well, then, what you are missing is that @mcsluggowas simply making explicit the criticism that @PeterMPwas making implicitly.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

Well, then, what you are missing is that @mcsluggowas simply making explicit the criticism that @PeterMPwas making implicitly.

They are slightly different, as above. 
 

peter says that economic growth isn’t real because the government is deficit spending money and keeping the interest rate low. McSluggo said that is bad because it limits your ability to react to crisis in the future.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I never said trump was responsible for the economic growth. 
 

 

You responded to a post criticizing Trump's promise of growth like you've never seen before, by claiming that the growth was really good.  

 

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

where did I say that? (Obama's economic growth was easier than Trump's)

 

 

39 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2-2.5 percent gdp in a large economy (the largest) is actually really good.  When Obama was in office we did higher percentage growth but we were coming out of a recession. It takes huge $$ amounts to move the needle percentage wise when $$ amount starts off high. 2 percent of 100 is 2 dollars. 2 percent of 102 dollars is more than 2 dollars.
 

 

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

You responded to a post criticizing Trump's promise of growth like you've never seen before, by claiming that the growth was really good.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, because growth is really good. I never said trump deserved credit for it though. I understand we live in a post-fact world but I try to avoid living in a post-fact world.