Obama speech

[Gulo Blue]

I disagree, I think the fixed asset investment from the private sector is entirely due to tax reform, as is the uptick in blue collar employment.

But the investment and employment increased before the tax reform. (And as I said before and I thought you agreed, those curves started turning before he was the nominee.)

I also don't think Trump is anti-trade and while I'm not fan of Trump's tariffs I think the purpose of them is to get better trade deals, not permanent tariffs. It worked with Mexico and it brought Canada to the table. I'm willing to wait to see how it works with China. Again, I don't like tariffs but nothing else has worked in terms of negotiating better trade deals. I agree with most economists who say trade deficits themselves aren't bad, but that's not the problem. The problem is those deficits are the results of trade deals dramatically that favor one side. When China's economy was in the very early stages of development, that made more sense, but they have a substantial economy, growing middle class and are the stage now where a more fair deal needs to be negotiated.

He is at the very least, anti-trade deficit. But if you believe the Woodward book, and I predominantly do, he's been held back from engaging far more aggressively in trade war behavior.

 

[biggunsbob]

I disagree, I think the fixed asset investment from the private sector is entirely due to tax reform, as is the uptick in blue collar employment.

I also don't think Trump is anti-trade and while I'm not fan of Trump's tariffs I think the purpose of them is to get better trade deals, not permanent tariffs. It worked with Mexico and it brought Canada to the table. I'm willing to wait to see how it works with China. Again, I don't like tariffs but nothing else has worked in terms of negotiating better trade deals. I agree with most economists who say trade deficits themselves aren't bad, but that's not the problem. The problem is those deficits are the results of trade deals dramatically that favor one side. When China's economy was in the very early stages of development, that made more sense, but they have a substantial economy, growing middle class and are the stage now where a more fair deal needs to be negotiated.

So my housing value increased from 170,000 to 220,000 under Obama and maybe from 220,000 to 240,000ish under Trump so who gets the credit for the housing market? I know you want the GOP to crush the Democrats but until we offer healthcare for everyone, and have fair elections I do not believe this administration is good for America. How the hell can you not give Obama and the democrats any credit for what he had to get out of ?Plus all of the obstruction the GOP used . It is so disingenuous to let Trump take all of the credit. Anyway there are so many other indicators on how corrupt Trump's administration is and the base turning a eye to what this guy is flat out Incredible.

If any sitting democratic president had done 1/4 of the what Trump has done the GOP would be going crazy. It is amazing now that they are in power how they turn a blind eye Trump's. I would buy into what you are saying if The money didn't seem to be going upward and not down to who really needs it. Until we have healthcare for everyone there will be a portion of American always in trouble sadly.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...nd-a-ballooning-federal-deficit/#6f5cc3c222fa

 

[Spartanmack]

But the investment and employment increased before the tax reform. (And as I said before and I thought you agreed, those curves started turning before he was the nominee.)

I did not agree, I said the declines slowed and some flat lined in the year leading up to the election. Trump announced he would be working on tax reform from the beginning, it took until September to introduce the actual bill and until December for it to pass, but it was well known what would be in it and it. He also issued and executive order in week one scaling back parts of the ACA. There were plenty of signals early on that the president was going to be pro growth and he had both houses of Congress. And the workforce chart was trending higher but if you watch the video, the point made there is that it accelerated at the same time the other indicators hit their inflection points.

He is at the very least, anti-trade deficit. But if you believe the Woodward book, and I predominantly do, he's been held back from engaging far more aggressively in trade war behavior.

I have read about the woodward book but not read it. I think the guy is a partisan hack with an axe to grind. When anonymous sources start coming out and proving the stuff in his book is true I'll take him more seriously. If Trump truly thinks trade is bad and he wants to close us off economically from the rest of the world, then I'll take issue with that, but so far, if you disregard all the partisan noise, the results of his trade policies so far have been better trade deals for the US. Sure, I'd rather hear he said/wrote "that trade deal is bad" than "trade is bad" but I care a lot more about results and so far, the results are more consistent with the sentiment of the former statement than the latter.

 

[Spartanmack]

So my housing value increased from 170,000 to 220,000 under Obama and maybe from 220,000 to 240,000ish under Trump so who gets the credit for the housing market? I know you want the GOP to crush the Democrats but until we offer healthcare for everyone, and have fair elections I do not believe this administration is good for America. How the hell can you not give Obama and the democrats any credit for what he had to get out of ?Plus all of the obstruction the GOP used . It is so disingenuous to let Trump take all of the credit. Anyway there are so many other indicators on how corrupt Trump's administration is and the base turning a eye to what this guy is flat out Incredible.

If any sitting democratic president had done 1/4 of the what Trump has done the GOP would be going crazy. It is amazing now that they are in power how they turn a blind eye Trump's. I would buy into what you are saying if The money didn't seem to be going upward and not down to who really needs it. Until we have healthcare for everyone there will be a portion of American always in trouble sadly.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...nd-a-ballooning-federal-deficit/#6f5cc3c222fa

Don't believe either of those numbers until you actually sell your house.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I did not agree, I said the declines slowed and some flat lined in the year leading up to the election.

Thought you were satisfied with the late 2015 read on when things started shifting. You went so far as to propose Obama being a lame duck as a factor.


Trump announced he was running June 2015 and was the presumptive candidate May 2016. At what point do you think most business leaders knew he was going to win? I think investors overwhelmingly donated more to Clinton, but I don't know about manufacturers.

 

[Spartanmack]

Thought you were satisfied with the late 2015 read on when things started shifting. You went so far as to propose Obama being a lame duck as a factor.


Trump announced he was running June 2015 and was the presumptive candidate May 2016. At what point do you think most business leaders knew he was going to win? I think investors overwhelmingly donated more to Clinton, but I don't know about manufacturers.

I proposed his lame duck as a factor for the declines leveling off. It's the election of Trump that marks the inflection point. It makes sense that several of the charts leveled off during the election year with a lame duck in the oval office and the uncertainty of who would be president and what their economic agenda would be. I don't know that the initial move was justified, but the follow through makes perfect sense to me so far.

 

[Gulo Blue]

It's the election of Trump that marks the inflection point.

I see it in 2015. Clear as day. Maybe the investment world has another meaning, like how literally is now often used to mean figuratively (or is that a dying fad?), but you call Trump's election an inflection point on those charts on a math test, you get it marked wrong.

 

[Spartanmack]

this is a technicality - yes, it's incorrect to call it the inflection point but what we're really identifying is the reversal of the trend. I think it's accurate that the inflection point in 2015 is a slowing of the negative trend, not the beginning of the reversal and that's because Obama was a lame duck and there was no good way to handicap the outcome of 2016 election. It's disingenuous to say that after 7 years, Obama's policies finally started to take effect and these indicators then flatlined for a year then skyrocketed immediately after the election. Clearly, the sentiment changes weren't due to responders suddenly realizing what a great job he had done.

I mistakenly called the reversal the inflection point, but the premise of the argument stands.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If the argument stop at not giving Obama credit, then I'm not going to argue. If the argument extends to giving Trump credit, I think it's a load of BS.

 

[Spartanmack]

If the argument stop at not giving Obama credit, then I'm not going to argue. If the argument extends to giving Trump credit, I think it's a load of BS.

You've got plenty of company, I'm sure.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You've got plenty of company, I'm sure.

Maybe. It feels like most people think one side or the other deserves credit. I can't prove it, but my gut says the US economy generally does well when government is gridlocked or tied up for some reason.