Jobs Are Booming in Trump Country
- Thread starter Grokmaster
- Start date
One of the great things about the Obama years was that the economy was setting an all-time record for consecutive months of job creation even as we worked on bringing the fundamentals in line. It wasn't "sugar rush" job creation driven by rising deficits and exploding consumer debt. Quite the contrary -- the federal budget deficit fell dramatically on Obama's watch, and we had the most rapid decline in household debt as a share of GDP in history. That set us up for sustained economic strength, as opposed to financing a little short-term job creation at the cost of long-term economic headaches.
The good thing about the Trump years, so far, is that we have managed to continue Obama's streak of job creation. The bad news is that we've done it by way of a sugar rush. Federal budget deficits have exploded, with no end in sight for the increase. At a point in the business cycle when any sane economist would tell you we should be paring deficits, we're growing them rapidly. And the big decline in household debt from the Obama years appears to have been replaced by another Bush-style surge in that private debt burden. This comes with a mirror deficit in the form of the trade deficit, as effectively Americans are buying stuff on foreign credit. That's the economic equivalent of empty calories.... it can fuel some immediate activity, but it isn't healthy in the long run.
Can we get back to having both sustained employment growth and gradually improving economic fundamentals? I'd like to think so, but I just don't see it as politically likely. The "conservatives" only pretend to compare about fiscal responsibility when we have Democratic presidents. They're completely satisfied with all the empty calories Republicans want to binge on.
cawacko
Well-known member
Wow!! I don’t mean to be offensive but I would pay to know if you wrote that with a straight face. We just had the worst economic recovery since the depression. We didn’t have a single year of 3% annual growth but all that matters is we had positive job growth every month?
We had an almost trillion dollar stimulus and ran up trillions in debt all the while having three rounds of QE and close to record low interest rates for a decade but we had no sugar high?
Did we live through the same past decade in America?
Of course I did. I suspect you realize that, since you were so unable to find any substantive angle to take issue with that the only tactic you were left with was inarticulate feigning of incredulity.
Worst in what sense? We had pretty much across-the-board improvement of social and economic indicators, which is not something we typically see during a recovery (for example, the Bush, Reagan, and Trump recoveries involved no improvement in the deficit).
Now, it's true that you could select a particular indicator, while ignoring others, and say that your cherry-picked measure improved unusually slowly. For example, you could look at GDP and say it improved more slowly than in other recoveries. But the cherry-picking would be done in a way to leave out the factors that resulted in slower-than-normal GDP growth: massive deleveraging of US households, which cured their long-standing reliance on ever increasing debt to fuel consumer spending, and massive declines in budget deficits, which meant we were weaned off the usual stimulus of ever-increasing amounts of annual government borrowing.
Well-rounded improvement is almost never elite improvement along a single line. For example, the most improved NBA player is unlikely to be the player who had the biggest improvement in a single stat, like steals. The way to achieve the biggest improvement in one area would be to neglect others and focus monomaniacally there, which would likely mean worsening or stagnation elsewhere and less overall improvement. In the same way, when you're focusing on growing the GDP, creating jobs, lowering the deficit, and reducing consumer debt, all at once, you're not going to be able to show as big an improvement in, say, GDP growth, as if you vastly increased the deficit and did nothing to halt a return to massive consumer borrowing, in order to stimulate more GDP growth.
Obviously, I said nothing to imply that I thought only that job growth record mattered. That's just a straw man you invented because you found my actual argument intimidating. But your straw man is THE OPPOSITE of my argument, which was that there are multiple important considerations happening all at once, and that it's a good thing that Trump continued Obama's streak of job creation, and a bad thing that he didn't continue the streaks of improving the sustainability of the economic fundamentals, rather than spiking growth with the sugar-rush of federal and household borrowing. Wouldn't it be better to address THAT argument, rather than one you've invented simply to have something you feel you can counter?
Yes, exactly. As with any stimulus, you desensitize to particular levels, so the major factor is the change in the stimulus levels over time. If you get used to huge sugar intake, you become insensitive to it and you stop getting the benefit of all that sugar for energy. In fact, when you cut back on sugar, even to levels that would be fairly high in a broader context, you can feel flat and exhausted, because your body got used to mega doses. But, you're putting yourself in a better long-term position by re-sensitizing. That's effectively what the Obama years were like for federal deficits and household debt. Levels were still high, but were moving unusually rapidly in a direction that led to something more sustainable. The Trump years, by comparison, have involved a return to escalating amounts of unsustainable stimulus.
Yes, but I had my eyes wide open during the decade, whereas you had your head planted firmly in the ass of the conservative movement, which really obscures one's view.
cawacko
Well-known member
GDP is how we measure economic output and production in our country yet I'm cherry picking by using it? I guess that's the response you have to use when you don't like what it tells us. (now I've seen folks argue how we measure GDP needs to be upgraded and if you want to make that argument I'm open to hearing your thoughts, but that's not what you were doing here)
And we had a federal reserve that gave us a zero interest rate environment for years as part of their three round of QE. And they fueled massive asset bubble in housing and equities. That's acceptable to you? That's what we should be aiming for? Recognizing that is having my head up the ass of the conservative movement?
Nope. You are overlooking all that because you want to defend Obama and you support a more government run control type economy even thought the results of such actions speak for themselves.
Yeah...that 1.6% growth in his final Triumphant Year was a hard act to follow...der....
evince
Truthmatters
trump loves the taste of Putin asshole
I'm afraid "oneuli" has you there "cawacko," GDP may be a leading indicator, but no one indicator defines the economy, and he does make a point with the "across-the-board improvement of social and economic indicators, which is not something we typically see during a recovery."
So you are talking about the Trump economy.
Yes, obviously that's exactly what you're doing. The claim was that it was the worst recovery. There are all sorts of ways a recovery could be measured: its impact on median incomes, its impact on the poverty rate, its impact on the fiscal balance, its impact on job count, its impact on private debt, its impact on median net worths, and so on. You selected a single measure: it's impact on real annual production. There's nothing wrong with that measure. It gives us one view of the quality of an economic recovery. But when that's ALL you want to look at then, obviously, you're cherry-picking.
Yes, I'm glad you brought up the Federal Reserve, since that's another factor to consider when judging the recovery. This wasn't a recovery super-charged by the Fed dropping interest rates, as during the Reagan or Bush recoveries. Quite the contrary -- the interest rate by the end of Obama's presidency was higher than what he'd inherited from Bush, which represents an additional external drag on the recovery -- but one that arguably put us on a stronger footing, in terms of fundamentals.
Actually, housing value growth in the Obama years was fairly typical, net. This wasn't a "bubble recovery" like the Bush years, when artificially high housing cost growth stimulated a lot of unsustainable activity in the construction sector, while also resulting in a huge flow of capital into the country from foreign investors, by way of those exotic securitized mortgage obligations. It was more of a "plain vanilla" fundamentals recovery. These days, though, we're back to having a sugar-rush, by way of rapidly increasing deficits and private debt. Conservatives like to pretend they care about that kind of thing, but only when the president is not from their masters' party.
cawacko
Well-known member
Come on archives, she has me nowhere. This has been the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. We have not had 3% GDP growth in this country since 2005. That numbers have 'improved' means nothing if the numbers still aren't good. Sure, we always want numbers to get better but a number improving in and of itself means little if it's not good overall.
And interesting I have my head of conservatives asses according to her considering:
1) i didn't vote for Trump
2) I've spoken out against tariffs and trade wars since 2016
3) even post an article a few weeks back on recession signs in the economy
If I really had my head up conservatives asses I'd be like a lot of the posters here who's knowledge of economics extends to Obama good, Trump bad (or the reverse). (And to be clear I'm no economics expert. In fact I'm pretty dumb on the topic. But I can at least hold discussions on the subject beyond name calling over who people voted for)
cawacko
Well-known member
Wow!!!! Please never call others partisan or having their heads up someone's asses when you write what you just did. Dear Lord the ignorance.
Yes, obviously that's exactly what you're doing. The claim was that it was the worst recovery. There are all sorts of ways a recovery could be measured: its impact on median incomes, its impact on the poverty rate, its impact on the fiscal balance, its impact on job count, its impact on private debt, its impact on median net worths, its impact on secondary measures of social well-being, and so on. You selected a single measure: it's impact on real annual production. There's nothing wrong with that measure. It gives us one view of the quality of an economic recovery. But when that's ALL you want to look at then, obviously, you're cherry-picking.
Yes, I'm glad you brought up the Federal Reserve, since that's another factor to consider when judging the recovery. This wasn't a recovery super-charged by the Fed dropping interest rates, as during the Reagan or Bush recoveries. Quite the contrary -- at no point in the Obama presidency were interest rates lower than what he inherited, and the interest rate by the end of Obama's presidency was higher than what he'd inherited from Bush, which represents an additional external drag on the recovery -- but one that arguably put us on a stronger footing, in terms of fundamentals.
Actually, housing value growth in the Obama years was fairly typical, net. This wasn't a "bubble recovery" like the Bush years, when artificially high housing cost growth stimulated a lot of unsustainable activity in the construction sector, while also resulting in a huge flow of capital into the country from foreign investors, by way of those exotic securitized mortgage obligations. It was more of a "plain vanilla" fundamentals recovery. These days, though, we're back to having a sugar-rush, by way of rapidly increasing deficits and private debt. Conservatives like to pretend they care about that kind of thing, but only when the president is not from their masters' party.
Who said anything about wanting to "slow down the pay of folks in the Silicon Valley and other tech hubs?"
Your inability to think of a substantive response has been noted, and your ignominious defeat has been thoroughly enjoyed. It's always fun smacking you around.
According to the US Constitution?
It's more likely meth.
Um...yes, Legion.
EC votes are pretty damn important.
They sent Crooked Hillary home to...