Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's Economy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Fed warns U.S. economic recovery is weakening
    I don't see how the economy can truly begin to recover well while the pandemic is still in full swing, while the population lacks effective long term herd immunity. I don't expect that to happen for a long while yet.

    Last edited by JRT; 31 Jan 21,, 03:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Fed warns U.S. economic recovery is weakening
    “The pace of the recovery in economic activity and employment has moderated in recent months, with weakness concentrated in the sectors most adversely affected by the pandemic,” the Fed’s rate-setting committee said in its post-meeting statement.

    The Federal Reserve on Wednesday struck a more somber tone about the U.S. economy, saying the recovery is weakening as the country waits for widespread vaccinations against the coronavirus.

    “The pace of the recovery in economic activity and employment has moderated in recent months, with weakness concentrated in the sectors most adversely affected by the pandemic,” the Fed’s rate-setting committee said in its post-meeting statement. That contrasts with its observation last month that the economy had “continued to recover.”

    Economic pain is still acute for tens of millions of people and for businesses across the country as the pandemic, which has taken the lives of more than 400,000 Americans, continues to spread.
    The central bank emphasized that the outlook would depend greatly on the course of the pandemic and, more specifically, “progress on vaccinations.” It left its main policy rate unchanged at near zero.
    ________

    Leave a comment:


  • JRT
    replied
    Originally posted by Bloomberg_Politics

    U.S. Jobless Claims Jump by Most Since March
    published on 14 January 2021



    U.S. initial jobless claims in regular state programs rose by 181,000 to 965,000 in the week ended Jan. 9, Labor Department data showed Thursday. Bloomberg's Mike McKee breaks down the numbers on "Bloomberg Surveillance.

    .

    ...
    Last edited by JRT; 14 Jan 21,, 15:41.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Speaking of ... the original Mad Max was set in 2021.
    Coincidence? I think not . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    I also recall how conservatives here were saying how California was going to go completely bankrupt and turn into Mad Max territory.

    right now, in the middle of a pandemic, the Golden State has a $26 billion budget surplus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Albany Rifles
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Dow Jones Rockets 500 Points After Georgia Elections; Financial Stocks Surge;

    The stock market appears to be on board with the results of the special Senate elections in Georgia. One of the races has been called by major media outlets for Democrat Raphael Warnock, while the other race is too close to call but has Democrat Jon Ossoff currently in the lead. If Democrats win both races, the party will have control of the Senate along with the House and the Presidency when President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in later this month.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES:^DJI) was up nearly 2% at 1:05 p.m. EST Wednesday, soundly beating the other major stock indices. Financial stocks were up big, with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, and The Travelers Companies surging. Meanwhile, shares of Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) slumped after a third analyst downgraded the stock.
    ___________

    Weird! Weren't we promised doom and gloom instead?
    Can't find the the link that works but Kai Ryssdal on Marketplace on NPR did a great run down on the whys on this.

    His show is mandatory daily listening in our household....

    Leave a comment:


  • TopHatter
    replied
    Dow Jones Rockets 500 Points After Georgia Elections; Financial Stocks Surge;

    The stock market appears to be on board with the results of the special Senate elections in Georgia. One of the races has been called by major media outlets for Democrat Raphael Warnock, while the other race is too close to call but has Democrat Jon Ossoff currently in the lead. If Democrats win both races, the party will have control of the Senate along with the House and the Presidency when President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in later this month.

    The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJINDICES:^DJI) was up nearly 2% at 1:05 p.m. EST Wednesday, soundly beating the other major stock indices. Financial stocks were up big, with Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, American Express, and The Travelers Companies surging. Meanwhile, shares of Coca-Cola (NYSE:KO) slumped after a third analyst downgraded the stock.
    ___________

    Weird! Weren't we promised doom and gloom instead?

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    I didn't miss it, there are just other metrics we use to judge economic performance. There were less poor people, people had more money, and we were producing more stuff. Localized weakness in some sectors does not offset that, and COVID is an indictment of pandemic strategy, not economic strategy.

    WRT trade war, future generations might thank us more if we learn to break ourselves of our addiction to cheap Chinese credit and cheap Chinese goods.
    No one ever shopped at Target or Wal-Mart because they didn't like the selection at Saks Fifth Avenue.
    Like it or not, hundreds of millions -- billions -- of people have no choice but to buy cheaper products.
    Driving down their standards of living by restricting their access to less expensive goods is amoral, and when done simply to boost the profits of another company, immoral.

    Leave a comment:


  • astralis
    replied
    Barrack Obama had lackluster economic results. He had a tough start and his team had some decent programs and some decent success getting us out of the hole in maybe the first 2 years, followed by a whole lot of "meh."

    If we're keeping the football metaphor, Obama is basically a Colin Kapernick. A guy who had some good stats for a few seasons, wasn't good enough to win the Big Game, and ultimately ended up mediocre but still juices social justice controversies to make himself look like a Top 10 QB.

    LFPR by itself does not tell you anything meaningful. Civilian-Employment ratio would be better, unemployment is best. If you think you still have structural issues or discouraged workers, Employment-Population Ratio topped out at 80% in Jan 2020, same rates as peak-2000s and nearing a 81-82 peak in the dot-com era. It continued to rise through 2019. The trade war did NOT end up having an impact on the FINAL numbers.

    Were we at full employment? Dunno, the next time we have an economic recovery we should be aggressively targeting to get back to that rate as quickly as possible rather than accepting "New Normal." Even 2016 looks tepid compared to late 2019-2020 and we thought we were all doing pretty good in 2016.


    I am not interested in targeting inequality. Targeting unemployment and inflation means something, targeting inequality is an exercise in futility. Either way, tight labor markets are achievable and IMO better for raising middle class wages, and the associated hot economy is better at ensuring high tax revenues to fund social programs. "New Normal, we all suck forever, let's tax Amazon and give money to people who don't feel like working" is not a solution that appeals to me.
    I essentially view the whole Presidential 'economic results' view as badly skewed, particularly over the last 20 years with rising polarization.

    IE, the Republicans forced Obama to eat a smaller stimulus than originally envisioned-- which was already artificially small due to the Obama economic team's innate monetary biases + "pre-emptive cutting" to get a stimulus bill under the politically charged figure of $1 trillion -- then forced the government into shutdown, and then we went "stupid austerity" with the blanket cuts.

    meanwhile, with the Trump administration, it was stimulus money everywhere, even as the economy grew. that's precisely why "2016 looks tepid compared to late 2019-2020".

    there's a reason why Pelosi et al are bargaining like mad with McConnell right now; McConnell is only playing because he doesn't want to risk the 2 Georgia Senate seats getting away, while the Democrats fear getting nada without a Senate majority.

    it's straight up politicized economic sabotage.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    I was tempted to file this under 2020 Political Scene, because the GOPers are on the verge of screaming and ranting about the massive debt, and how the Democrats are going to ruin the economy by not shutting down federal spending and giving massive tax breaks to the rich and famous. But, ... judge for yourself (and pay attention to the last time the GOPers were frothing at the mouth).
    What, me worry?

    Federal Net Interest Costs: A Primer

    Congressional Budget Office, December 2020

    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...est-Primer.pdf





    This is an extremely timely and highly useful explanation of what the massive increase in federal debt this year means to America's long-term ability to repay it's debts. In a nutshell, don't worry about it because the cost of servicing that debt – interest payments plus a small amount that is cashed in without being replaced by new T-bills – is actually falling.




    Average Annual Net Interest Repayment

    _ _ Percent of GDP _ _ _ US$ Billions
    1945-49 _ 1.6% _ _ _ _ $4.1 billion p.a.

    1950-54 _ 1.4 _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ _4.8
    1955-59 _ 1.1 _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _5.3

    1960-64 _ 1.2 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ _7.3
    1965-69 _ 1.2 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 10.4

    1970-74 _ 1.3 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 16.7
    1975-79 _ 1.5 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 31.6

    1980-84 _ 2.4 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 81.4 Reagan blow-out
    1985-89 _ 3.0 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 145.0

    1990-94 _ 3.0 _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ 196.0
    1995-99 _ 2.8 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 237.6 Clinton surpluses

    2000-04 _ 1.7 _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ 182.7
    2005-09 _ 1.6 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 217.5

    2010-14 _ 1.4 _
    _ _ _ _ _ _ 209.3
    2015-19 _ 1.5 _ _ _
    _ _ _ _ 285.1

    2020-24 _ 1.3 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 291.2 CBO projections
    2012-29 _ 1.4 _ _
    _ _ _ _ _ 393.2 CBO projections






    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied



    The third quarter $178.5 billion current-account deficit (3.4% of GDP) is the largest in 13 years, and the physical trade shortfall ($245.6 bn) the largest since records began, in 1961.




    Current Account Deficit Widens by 10.6 Percent in Third Quarter

    The U.S. current account deficit, which reflects the combined balances on trade in goods and services and income flows between U.S. residents and residents of other countries, widened by $17.2 billion, or 10.6 percent, to $178.5 billion in the third quarter of 2020, according to statistics released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The revised second quarter deficit was $161.4 billion.

    The third quarter deficit was 3.4 percent of current dollar gross domestic product, up from 3.3 percent in the second quarter.

    The $17.2 billion widening of the current account deficit in the third quarter mostly reflected an expanded deficit on goods that was partly offset by an expanded surplus on primary income.

    Exports of goods and services to, and income received from, foreign residents increased $99.4 billion, to $796.0 billion, in the third quarter. Imports of goods and services from, and income paid to, foreign residents increased $116.6 billion, to $974.5 billion.

    Exports of goods increased $68.4 billion, to $357.1 billion, and imports of goods increased $94.4 billion, to $602.7 billion. The increases in both exports and imports reflected increases in all major categories, led by automotive vehicles, parts, and engines, mainly parts and engines and passenger cars.

    Exports of services increased $2.8 billion, to $164.8 billion, mainly reflecting an increase in charges for the use of intellectual property, mostly licenses for the use of outcomes of research and development, that was partly offset by a decrease in travel, primarily education-related travel. Imports of services increased $6.5 billion, to $107.7 billion, mainly reflecting increases in charges for the use of intellectual property, mostly licenses for the use of outcomes of research and development; in transport, primarily sea freight transport; and in travel, primarily other personal travel.





    https://www.bea.gov/news/2020/us-int...d-quarter-2020

    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    Barrack Obama had lackluster economic results. He had a tough start and his team had some decent programs and some decent success getting us out of the hole in maybe the first 2 years, followed by a whole lot of "meh."

    If we're keeping the football metaphor, Obama is basically a Colin Kapernick. A guy who had some good stats for a few seasons, wasn't good enough to win the Big Game, and ultimately ended up mediocre but still juices social justice controversies to make himself look like a Top 10 QB.

    LFPR by itself does not tell you anything meaningful. Civilian-Employment ratio would be better, unemployment is best. If you think you still have structural issues or discouraged workers, Employment-Population Ratio topped out at 80% in Jan 2020, same rates as peak-2000s and nearing a 81-82 peak in the dot-com era. It continued to rise through 2019. The trade war did NOT end up having an impact on the FINAL numbers.

    Were we at full employment? Dunno, the next time we have an economic recovery we should be aggressively targeting to get back to that rate as quickly as possible rather than accepting "New Normal." Even 2016 looks tepid compared to late 2019-2020 and we thought we were all doing pretty good in 2016.


    I am not interested in targeting inequality. Targeting unemployment and inflation means something, targeting inequality is an exercise in futility. Either way, tight labor markets are achievable and IMO better for raising middle class wages, and the associated hot economy is better at ensuring high tax revenues to fund social programs. "New Normal, we all suck forever, let's tax Amazon and give money to people who don't feel like working" is not a solution that appeals to me.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 18 Dec 20,, 23:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied
    VChamp,


    Please check your sources.

    “Trump did do just fine and the facts show that's exactly the case. You and DOR are concentrating on metrics that just aren't the final metrics that we're interested in or ignoring other relevant context. Poverty hit a low, median family income hit a high, unemployment hit a low. GDP growth was solid.”

    But, inequality hit a high. Which matrix do you like best?

    “Meanwhile DOR's over here complaining that we don't have a 2000+ yard rusher, ...”
    So, Obama was a 2,000 yard rusher? Tough act to follow, and frankly I question the decision to change strategies after those kinds of results.

    “Trump's pointless short-term trade war was damaging bud did not derail the overall economy.”
    Correct. It was his massive, massive screw-up in dealing with COVID-19 that totally reamed the economy. However, you may have noted that I was posting a list of items that showed the economy was sharply slowing prior to COVID-19.


    Not sure why you're going back to the heady DotCom era bubble – which it most certainly was – pre- 9/11.

    I'm not sure where you're getting the full employment bit, either. Please note:
    Labor Force Participation Ratio
    2015 _ _ 62.7%
    2016 _ _ 62.8%
    2017 _ _ 62.8%
    2018 _ _ 62.9%
    2019 _ _ 63.1%

    That's a margin of error change right there.




    Leave a comment:


  • GVChamp
    replied
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

    Your original post had the overall premise of "Trump did just fine" (correct me if I'm wrong)

    The facts show that's just not the case. He took a humming economy and tried to jolt the hell out of it because...reasons. (Ego and his infantile understanding of economics)

    His major "achievements" were a tax cut that involved temporarily throwing a few nickels at everyone not a millionaire. Millionaires of course got permanent tax cuts.

    Oh and a bungled trade war (which are "easy to win!") which necessitated a massive bailout of American farmers and pushed massive tariff fees onto ordinary Americans. Trump of course insists that China paid those billions into tarffis...which, yet again, show his infantile understanding of economics(

    And considering how inextricably linked Pandemic strategy is to Economic strategy and vice versa, attempting to make a distinction between the two is pretty disingenuous.

    Let me be clear that I'm not arguing the necessity of changing the economic paradigm between the United States and China. I'm arguing the Trump's methodology was stupid and self-destructive.

    Maybe DOR can explain things better than I can but the last 4 years have been case study in how not to treat an economy.
    Trump did do just fine and the facts show that's exactly the case. You and DOR are concentrating on metrics that just aren't the final metrics that we're interested in or ignoring other relevant context. Poverty hit a low, median family income hit a high, unemployment hit a low. GDP growth was solid. Those are the metrics we're actually interested in. You guys are complaining that the Kansas City Chiefs had terrible 3rd Down Conversion % after they won the Super Bowl by putting up 30 points against a top-ranked defense. Meanwhile DOR's over here complaining that we don't have a 2000+ yard rusher, which is what you expect when we've switched to a passing lead and don't have Adrian Peterson-style power backs anymore.

    Trump's pointless short-term trade war was damaging but did not derail the overall economy.

    Two separate points re: Jolting.
    1. Jolting the economy in 2016-2018 WAS the correct move. Even by a conventional view, macroeconomic data was worrying. Your preferred metric of manufacturing entering "recession" applies to the 2015-2016 period. But even beyond that, the Trump years demonstrate that the heady DotCom era was NOT a "bubble," it's the expected results of a US economy operating at full employment. That's what policy-makers should target and that's what will ultimately lower poverty rates and improve income. Side-note, I'm sure you wouldn't describe 2016 as anything close to a recession. Neither was 2019. That's why focusing on these stats is misleading.
    2. The policies Trump pulled out for TCJA should not be confused with an effective counter-cyclical tax cut strategy.

    My biggest complaint is the growth in debt. But at this point we've baked in QE Infinity and Borrow Infinity for every economic crisis, until it breaks. If/When it breaks, it will be far uglier than 2019. which was absolutely a hot economy, which is a major reason why Trump picked up as many votes as he did in 2020.

    Slower GDP growth (again, pre-COVID-19) and faster inflation.
    Slower GDP growth and faster inflation is what you expect when you hit peak of the business cycle and don't have slack you can pull on.
    The last few years are disappointing but they aren't horribly disappointing.
    Q1 2013: 16.382
    2014: 16.616 (1.4%)
    2015: 17.300 (4.1%)
    2016:17,613 (1.8%)
    2017: 17.977 (2.1%)
    2018: 18.530 (3.1%)
    2019: 18.950 (2.3%)
    2020: 19.010 (3.2%)

    Leave a comment:


  • DOR
    replied


    More on the timing of the current downturn:
    • Industrial capacity utilization contracted year-on-year in March 2019, a year before COVID-19. It was the first contraction since Q-1 2017, and it's still falling.
    • Manufacturers' inventories-to-Sales ratios started rising strongly two years ago (Nov 2018).
    • Retailers began drawing down inventory about a year ago.
    • Real imports peaked in Q-3 2019, and then began a quick decline.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X