Well so much for that argument about the Trump economy.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5348 ... ma-clinton

Politicians don't have much long term sway over what the stock market does, whether good or bad.

Interesting.

Mind you Obama had that "slow" recovery issue.

johns624 wrote:

Politicians don't have much long term sway over what the stock market does, whether good or bad.

You are correct. But that didn't stop people (including Trump himself) from using the stock market performance as a metric of Trump's success. What's really funny is when one observes that the stockmarket has been on an upward trajectory more or less since the end of 2009, they make exactly your argument. Trump, somehow, becomes an exception--yet again.

We can create a new thread, or just use this info.

https://news.yahoo.com/numbers-statisti ... 19226.html

What was always most ridiculous were Trump’s proclamations that ‘your 401ks are doing great’ to crowds of people who mostly didn’t have 401ks.

Aaron747 wrote:

What was always most ridiculous were Trump’s proclamations that ‘your 401ks are doing great’ to crowds of people who mostly didn’t have 401ks.

I believe that many of them had 401K's, they just have hardly any money in them.

LCDFlight wrote:

Haha well Clinton and Obama were elected after recessions. I think Trump's stock market did notably well, considering nobody expected it to rise when he was elected. Remember? The news on election night was "futures markets are crashing."

By contrast, Clinton was elected after the 1991-1992 recession into the roaring '90s, as the US entered the first computerized financial era. Also, the dot-com bust occurred in Clinton's second term, which was of course not included here.

Obama's first 4 years were after the greatest crash in 80 years, so, although he deserves credit for not screwing things up, all he had to do was sit there. And that's about all he did, which was fine.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Biden.

Another load of hot bovine excrement.

Obama did not have to just 'sit there' and witness the recovery. He inherited an absolute mess, created by years, decades of wild deregulation to please the Wall Street types. His administration was very active in coming up with policies and recovery packages which were, in hindsight, quite successful in helping the recovery.

If someone had to only sit there and do nothing to witness a curve going up, it's Trump, who settled in in the midst of a booming economy. What he should have done was to strengthen the system to prepare for the next downturn by reducing deficit, slowly increasing interest rates and passing regulations that should have helped the lower classes achieve more financial security and stability.
What did he do instead? Deregulate, help corporations and the rich pay less taxes, massively increase the national debt, keep interest rates near 0 and did everything he could to dope the stock market growth as he used it as his only indicator for success... Then the crisis hit and he did absolutely bugger all about it.

This is the second time a Democratic administration is sworn in in the midst of a crisis born under Republican rule. It may not be as simple as that, but if I'm going to assign blame and credit for crises and their recovery, I know exactly who to give it to.

Also, the stock market is not an indicator of economic strength or success. Especially in an economy with increasing inequality. I wish people would stop parroting the stock market performance as a sign that all is well when in reality Americans are dying by the thousands every day and many of those who survive have to bury themselves in debt to pay their hospital bills as they watch themselves getting poorer and the rich minority getting richer.

The stock market is only one of many indicators one should use to measure a country and its economy's performance.

Francoflier wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Haha well Clinton and Obama were elected after recessions. I think Trump's stock market did notably well, considering nobody expected it to rise when he was elected. Remember? The news on election night was "futures markets are crashing."

By contrast, Clinton was elected after the 1991-1992 recession into the roaring '90s, as the US entered the first computerized financial era. Also, the dot-com bust occurred in Clinton's second term, which was of course not included here.

Obama's first 4 years were after the greatest crash in 80 years, so, although he deserves credit for not screwing things up, all he had to do was sit there. And that's about all he did, which was fine.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Biden.

If someone had to only sit there and do nothing to witness a curve going up, it's Trump, who settled in in the midst of a booming economy. What he should have done was to strengthen the system to prepare for the next downturn by reducing deficit, slowly increasing interest rates and passing regulations that should have helped the lower classes achieve more financial security and stability.
What did he do instead? Deregulate, help corporations and the rich pay less taxes, massively increase the national debt, keep interest rates near 0 and did everything he could to dope the stock market growth as he used it as his only indicator for success... Then the crisis hit and he did absolutely bugger all about it.

This, over and over and over again. Trump passed tax cuts at the worst possible time - as corporate earnings were soaring and foreign investment had mostly recovered in Obama's second term. Obama presided over a huge increase in national debt of $8.6T, but that was over two terms, while Trump unsurprisingly ballooned the debt by $7.8T in just one term. And while there were some modest gains in manufacturing hiring in 2017-18, manufacturing slid into recession for all of 2019 thanks to the metal tariffs with China, and 2020's failed COVID response all but obliterated all gains in the sector. Trump has been a complete failure at managing the economy to the extent the government can, but this was all predicted five years ago. His track record in business showed this would be the result.

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans- ... bt-4114401

Aaron747 wrote:

Francoflier wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Haha well Clinton and Obama were elected after recessions. I think Trump's stock market did notably well, considering nobody expected it to rise when he was elected. Remember? The news on election night was "futures markets are crashing."

By contrast, Clinton was elected after the 1991-1992 recession into the roaring '90s, as the US entered the first computerized financial era. Also, the dot-com bust occurred in Clinton's second term, which was of course not included here.

Obama's first 4 years were after the greatest crash in 80 years, so, although he deserves credit for not screwing things up, all he had to do was sit there. And that's about all he did, which was fine.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Biden.

If someone had to only sit there and do nothing to witness a curve going up, it's Trump, who settled in in the midst of a booming economy. What he should have done was to strengthen the system to prepare for the next downturn by reducing deficit, slowly increasing interest rates and passing regulations that should have helped the lower classes achieve more financial security and stability.
What did he do instead? Deregulate, help corporations and the rich pay less taxes, massively increase the national debt, keep interest rates near 0 and did everything he could to dope the stock market growth as he used it as his only indicator for success... Then the crisis hit and he did absolutely bugger all about it.

This, over and over and over again. Trump passed tax cuts at the worst possible time - as corporate earnings were soaring and foreign investment had mostly recovered in Obama's second term. Obama presided over a huge increase in national debt of $8.6T, but that was over two terms, while Trump unsurprisingly ballooned the debt by $7.8T in just one term. And while there were some modest gains in manufacturing hiring in 2017-18, manufacturing slid into recession for all of 2019 thanks to the metal tariffs with China, and 2020's failed COVID response all but obliterated all gains in the sector. Trump has been a complete failure at managing the economy to the extent the government can, but this was all predicted five years ago. His track record in business showed this would be the result.

https://www.thebalance.com/trump-plans- ... bt-4114401

With regards to the tax cuts let’s be real—Trump signed onto Paul Ryan’s dream. Ryan was happy to use Trump get it done, and then bailed before the honeymoon ended (spoiler, expect to see Paul Ryan consider a run in 2024). Trump had very little input in it other than to tell the drafters he wanted a tax bill. It’s pretty clear Trump paid very little tax for many years and the bill wasn’t going to do much for him personally. But yeah, adding a trillion dollars of debt in a good economy isn’t “fiscally conservative.” It’s Trumpian.

LCDFlight wrote:

Trump's tax cuts worked very well, both powering the economy to new heights, and also coinciding with record high tax revenue in 2019. He also did what he could to raise American wages, by decreasing the supply of illegal foreign labor in the USA. His tax law also cut into the tax immunity that sheltered immense greed and corruption in state-level governments in states such as New Jersey and California.

Sorry - the TJCA working 'very well' is just not a broadly adopted opinion among economists or business analysts. The WH claimed again and again they 'created' the greatest economy ever, but that's just plain BS.

Two detailed analyses by the AEI indicate when you really crunch the numbers, the TJCA did not work as advertised:

https://www.aei.org/economics/not-much- ... -jobs-act/

https://www.aei.org/economics/a-fixable ... -jobs-act/

LCDFlight wrote:

The ECDC says the EU / UK suffered 401,000 COVID deaths... exactly the same as the USA, albeit with more people. Not a strong case that Trump (factually) made the US do a lot worse than Europe.

Median age of the population is 5 years higher in the EU (9 years in Germany, 7 years in Italy, 5 years in Spain), and age is the primary factor in outcome. So it is still a factor 2+. The US is also 2~4 weeks behind timeline wise as well.

best regards
Thomas

As others have said the comparison is difficult to make (and for it to make sense) usually, but with Trump it's worse as he made huge tax cuts and let the deficit go completely, even before COVID.

Apparently in 2020 average US people have earned 6% more than in 2019, that's insane. We shall see if inflation comes back at one point.

Aesma wrote:

As others have said the comparison is difficult to make (and for it to make sense) usually, but with Trump it's worse as he made huge tax cuts and let the deficit go completely, even before COVID.

Apparently in 2020 average US people have earned 6% more than in 2019, that's insane. We shall see if inflation comes back at one point.

Don't forget that that is a one off. family bonus plan unemployment pay, skewed that number greatly. 2022 will look interesting compared to 2021 and 2020. Especially if the next round of Covid Relief comes through.
2020 and 2021 are what tax cuts and Relief funds are for though, and Trump did screw up royally in 2017, and 2018 with his tax plan. He is actually forcing many of the liberals to push into conservative territories such as Florida and Texas.

Curious that Bush was Republican and Clinton/Obama were Democrats.

You know the Socialist/Communist party.

bennett123 wrote:

Curious that Bush was Republican and Clinton/Obama were Democrats.

You know the Socialist/Communist party.

Actually that rather is the rule for both, GDP growth and lower national debt increase.

Best regards
Thomas