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

[bearrock]

37 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

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

 

If you really have a MBA with concentration in Economics, you should know better than most why proping up job numbers and GDP growth during Trump's term with mechanisms that we typically need and use in recessions is a bad idea.  Anyone reading a newspaper knows why that's a bad idea. 

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

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.

 

And the big boys who do this for a living (not me) are trying to tell the rest of us how that growth was achieved matters.  No one is disputing the facts.  They are telling us what those facts mean.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

If you really have a MBA with concentration in Economics, you should know better than most why proping up job numbers and GDP growth during Trump's term with mechanisms that we typically need and use in recessions is a bad idea.  Anyone reading a newspaper knows why that's a bad idea. 
 

 

... which is. Your argument is that it is better to grow at zero percent and not  prop up the job numbers than it is to grow at 2 percent.

 

Why?

 

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

And the big boys who do this for a living (not me) are trying to tell the rest of us how that growth was achieved matters.  No one is disputing the facts

 

the economy is growing. That fact was infact disputed.

 

4 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

 

.  They are telling us what those facts mean.

It’s bad, ain’t said why yet. I don’t think it is bad. I’ve said why.

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Yes, because growth is really good.

 

Your standard for "really good" is . . . ?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Your standard for "really good" is . . . ?

2% on an economy that is already the largest in the world isn’t bad. I think 3 percent is the best you could realistic hope for.

 

 

If there was high wage growth and higher gdp and high inflation, then I would agree cutting rates and high deficit spending wouldn’t make since. But sense inflation and wage growth are low I don’t see we we shouldn’t continue to stimulate our economy.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

I encourage @PeterMP and @mcsluggo to explain or guess what the real gdp growth and unemployment rate would be without the “artificial” inflation of government spending and low interest rates* would be, and how that would be preferable to low unemployment and 2 percent gdp growth.

 

 

[techboy]

29 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

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.

 

 

I mean, I guess I have to give you credit. You managed to find a position on stimulus that both Keyenesians AND Austrians would find wildly irresponsible and dangerous.

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

2% on an economy that is already the largest in the world isn’t bad.

 

Looking at "real GDP growth" (which seems to simply be inflation adjusted), looks like we've had that for 7 of the last 10 years.  And 20 of the last 30.  

 

And none of the previous ones were done by doubling the federal deficit during growth that was already "really good", before we doubled it.  

[bearrock]

10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

... which is. Your argument is that it is better to grow at zero percent and not  prop up the job numbers than it is to grow at 2 percent.

 

Why?

 

In a world of those two false binary choices, one could argue that government intervention was needed because absent aggressive intervention by Trump admin, economy would be near recession levels.  The truth is that growth during the last 3 years was unlikely to plunge to 0 without government intervention.

 

 

Quote

the economy is growing. That fact was infact disputed.

 

The closest I see is Nocal's original term flat.  The experts, PeterMP and McSluggo most definitely did not.  Feel free to point out anything I missed

 

Quote

It’s bad, ain’t said why yet. I don’t think it is bad. I’ve said why.

 

McSluggo already explained it.  It's bad because we need room to cut fed rates and increase government spending in case of a recession or bad economic event like a catastrophic pandemic or financial crisis.  The extra juice Trump is squeezing to boost his reelection chances are not worth using up those tools we may (most likely will) end up needing down the road.  This really has to be explained to a person with an Econ Concentration MBA?

8 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I encourage @PeterMP and @mcsluggo to explain or guess what the real gdp growth and unemployment rate would be without the “artificial” inflation of government spending and low interest rates* would be, and how that would be preferable to low unemployment and 2 percent gdp growth.

 

 

 

How much extra growth do you think Trump's fed reserve pressure and deficit spending created?  And if somebody made you the Econ Czar, would you rather have the growth or room to cut rates and increase deficit spending in the future when there's a bad economic downturn?

[NoCalMike]

My original quote from Forbes was showing growth that is flat and in fact lower than Obama's final 3 years.  That would indicate the growth is contracting.   So despite Trump's attempts to artificially inject life into it, the growth is remaining flat.  

 

I also do get a kick out of the same people that said for Obama's last 6 years "slowest recovery ever" are now praising 2% growth as great.  

 

The economy works in cycles, Presidents do what they can whether in times of expansion or contraction.  Obama did the stimulus package, which ended up being a lot less than he originally wanted it to be.  It worked out okay, could have been better, a lot of the criticisms of the current economy I have now, I also had back then as far as actual wages/wage growth and what kind of employment was contributing to the job numbers, even Republicans were voicing these concerns during their primary season, until Trump got elected of course.

 

Trump got elected at a time where Obama's measures were still moving along but slowing down.  The time was here when we needed something new to ward off the next downward cycle.  Trump chose a massive tax cut.

[Larry]

Pretty sure we are now seeing someone who claims to be an expert in economics, arguing that Trump's use of emergency stimulus measures in non-emergency times, (in order to produce growth that was almost as good as what he inherited), is responsible management because, well, there might have been an emergency if he hadn't done it.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

30 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

In a world of those two false binary choices, one could argue that government intervention was needed because absent aggressive intervention by Trump admin, economy would be near recession levels.  The truth is that growth during the last 3 years was unlikely to plunge to 0 without government intervention.

 

 

 

so, If it makes no difference either way why does it matter? 
 

 

Quote

The closest I see is Nocal's original term flat. 

 

which is who I responded to... 

 

Quote

 

 

McSluggo already explained it.  It's bad because we need room to cut fed rates and increase government spending in case of a recession or bad economic event like a catastrophic pandemic or financial crisis.  The extra juice Trump is squeezing to boost his reelection chances are not worth using up those tools we may (most likely will) end up needing down the road.  This really has to be explained to a person with an Econ Concentration MBA?

you would choose to grow at zero percent long term so that when a catastrophe does occur we can limit contraction by a couple of percentage points. Maybe. Eh.... ok.

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

Pretty sure we are now seeing someone who claims to be an expert in economics, arguing that Trump's use of emergency stimulus measures in non-emergency times, (in order to produce growth that was almost as good as what he inherited), is responsible management because, well, there might have been an emergency if he hadn't done it.  

exactly. Sort of. I said I knew something about it.
 

If your position is that Trumps management of the economy is artificially boosting the economy, then the alternative to that is zero economic growth.  Right?

 

Is government spending really “emergency stimulus measures”? I also don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of Obama had it easier because that’s really not my point, but by comparison interest rates were lower and we had qualitative easing during most of his tenure. The point is actually that interest rates are as a practical matter higher than they were during the rebuilding after the economic crisis of 2008.

[The Sisko]

 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

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.  

 

I said this to my wife the morning after the election. It was obvious to me then that with full control the Grand Oligarch’s Party was going to run up the debt with tax cuts, re-deregulate the banks and we’d eventually have another 2008 crash with little available to respond. They’ve played around the margins with financial deregulation but, to their credit, they haven’t gutted it. Even so, given their M.O. I wouldn’t be surprised if the stuff they have done silently deregulates it while leaving protections in place in name only.

 

26 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I encourage @PeterMP and @mcsluggo to explain or guess what the real gdp growth and unemployment rate would be without the “artificial” inflation of government spending and low interest rates* would be, and how that would be preferable to low unemployment and 2 percent gdp growth.

 

 

But weren’t the tax cuts for the “job creators” supposed to do that? I guess the cut provided about as much growth as it did additional tax revenue to pay for itself.🙄

 

Semi-jokes aside, the premise is simple. Economic growth gained with the smoke and mirrors of debt, unpaid for tax cuts and unnecessary interest rate cuts, is little more than a Ponzi scheme. But by all means, keep that money from the bottom of the pyramid flowing into returns as long as you can....because that’s totally sustainable. 

[bearrock]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

so, If it makes no difference either way why does it matter? 
 

 

 

which is who I responded to... 

 

you would choose to grow at zero percent long term so that when a catastrophe does occur we can limit contraction by a couple of percentage points. Maybe. Eh.... ok.

 

I hope it's reading comprehension issue rather than bad faith.  Everyone here said economy would've grown even without intervention.  (Even Nocal's "flat" was not actual zero if you read all of his posts).  

 

No one choses to have GDP growth stuck at zero long term.  That's pretty much recession (not technically since it's zero Instead of negative for two quarters) and intervention is needed.  If you think economy would've been stuck at zero or worse without Trump's intervention, enjoy  being on that island all by yourself.

 

If these points still don't make sense, I would encourage you to reread and pay attention to what PeterMP, McSluggo, and Techboy wrote here.  If it still doesn't make sense after that, I guess you could go all the way and get a PhD in economics.  Maybe then high school level econ concepts will become clearer to you.

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If your position is that Trumps management of the economy is artificially boosting the economy, then the alternative to that is zero economic growth.  Right?

 

1)  Your position is that Trump's actions are artificially boosting the economy.  You're just trying to defend it anyway.  

 

2)  And I got a D in Econ 101, and learned that there are numbers between two and zero.  (Well, actually, I knew that before I got the D.)

[NoCalMike]

My Econ credentials are probably near the bottom of the regular tailgate posters. I'll own that. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1)  Your position is that Trump's actions are artificially boosting the economy.  You're just trying to defend it anyway.  
 

 

ultimately that is a role of government.

 

Quote

 

2)  And I got a D in Econ 101, and learned that there are numbers between two and zero.  (Well, actually, I knew that before I got the D

 

 

so the economy really is growing then? Without “intervention” we would be growing at 1 percnet,  but “thanks to trump” we are growing at 2 percent. Is that what you are saying? And @mcsluggo wants to save that percent for when we really need it...

[LadySkinsFan]

Trump is talking even more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy. We know that means bigger deficits. We can't survive that. And he's talking cuts to Social Security and Medicare. As one who relies on both programs having paid into them for 50 years, I am appalled. Everyone should be.

 

Republicans are dangerous to We the People.

[visionary]

 

[88Comrade2000]

30 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Trump is talking even more tax cuts for the corporations and the wealthy. We know that means bigger deficits. We can't survive that. And he's talking cuts to Social Security and Medicare. As one who relies on both programs having paid into them for 50 years, I am appalled. Everyone should be.

 

Republicans are dangerous to We the People.

Don't touch my medicare. Well, actually I don't have it yet; though I applied for it since I can get it now since I'm a dialysis patient.

 

The GOP wants to dismantle as much of the government as possible.

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

ultimately that is a role of government.

 

 

 

so the economy really is growing then? Without “intervention” we would be growing at 1 percnet,  but “thanks to trump” we are growing at 2 percent. Is that what you are saying? And @mcsluggo wants to save that percent for when we really need it...

The only time the government should boost the economy is during a recession/depression.   Trump is just encouraging deficit spending  to ensure  his reelection.  When we have to pay the bill, he will be long gone.  

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

My Econ credentials are probably near the bottom of the regular tailgate posters. I'll own that. 

 

Everytime I think I'm getting close, I realize "it's not that simple" again

 

 

[No Excuses]

Trump and the Republicans in general have been practicing modern monetary theory (deficits don’t matter long term and in the short term can actually boost economic activity) since Eisenhower and it seems to be working fine. They just do it while somehow convincing millions of goobers that deficits are bad. A standard that is only applied when Democrats are in power. I would like to see a Democratic president full on embrace MMT in my lifetime and just watch all the hypocritical heads explode.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

15 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

Trump and the Republicans in general have been practicing modern monetary theory (deficits don’t matter long term and in the short term can actually boost economic activity) since Eisenhower and it seems to be working fine. They just do it while somehow convincing millions of goobers that deficits are bad. A standard that is only applied when Democrats are in power. I would like to see a Democratic president full on embrace MMT in my lifetime and just watch all the hypocritical heads explode.

 

That's probably what it would take, but would we survive it?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]