4 ms·

I suppose a silver lining on a tanked economy caused by President Trump is that it probably ends his parties control of Congress in November. If he keeps wiping

I suppose a silver lining on a tanked economy caused by President Trump is that it probably ends his parties control of Congress in November. If he keeps wiping out market value at record pace with his policy statements and decisions he is going to have a hard time convincing people the Republican party is the party of smart business.

akhilcacharya 9y ago
The problem is it also allows him to take credit for a recovery like Reagan did in '84.
- nkozyra 9y ago
  Unlike Reagan, Trump didn't inherit an economy already in recession. Unemployment started to spike in 1980 and the economy was a significant factor in the election.
  - jghn 9y ago
    However according to Fox and the right on general he did. So it doesn’t matter what you and I think as his base believes they’re living in the Obama Recession
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  It doesn’t seem likely that this would happen before the midterms. Also, Trump is having a direct effect on the economy through his words (tweets) and actions (tariffs), Reagan was more of a bystander.
dmix 9y ago
Instead of fixing core problems exposed recently, ie, not letting a single person via the executive branch have direct control over important things like tariffs (this used to be something only congress had control over) people want to just blame the other party as a solution for everything. Despite the fact the executive branch grew the fastest and exercised some of the greatest amount of power under the previous party, much like the previous guy before him who also set a record of executive power expansion, etc, helping set the stage for current volatility. I seem to be one of the few people concerned by the fact such market volatility is even possible based on one man's decision making. Although I should note there is a uniquely large disconnect from the things said by the current administration as opposed to the actual actions - and the subsequent media (and lesser extent market) reactions. I'm happy people are concerned about abuse of power but it's disheartening that it's been so weakly correlated to real world power use/expansion.
tootie 9y ago
That's what I thought about Bush, but he checked out right when the crisis hit and let employment bottom out on Obama's watch. Then Trump was able to run on a pro-business campaign saying that Obama didn't create enough jobs. What we're seeing is possibly the bleeding edge of a downturn that may not hit for real for a year or two. It could easily hit the next administration and it will a hell of cleanup job since we haven't paid off our last recovery yet.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  Bear in mind a lot of the unemployment numbers are hilariously fake. Way too much is exempted, and for the last several administrations of both parties, this talking point is not reflected in people's lived experience. Bear in mind that what's considered 'employment' is far from what people called employment in the fifties. This does not translate into people attaining self-sufficiency.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    I would like to know why this is being downvoted. I cannot speak for the US, but the same has been happening in Germany in the last 20 or so years, at least anecdotally. The reported unemployment rate peaked at 13% in 2005 (which, whether coincidentally or not, is also the year when Merkel was first elected), then fell steadily [1] and is currently at 5-6%. Critics attribute a fair amount of that positive trend to tampering with the statistics. For example, unemployed people are excluded from the statistic while they are going through government-mandated job training. I've heard stories of people who had to sit through the same Excel course over and over again because the stat was lower while they did so. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentRate.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentR... - Notably, it's very hard to see the Great Recession in this chart. There is only a small negative dent in the overall positive trend.
    - existencebox 9y ago
      The specific metric you and the parent are looking for is "Labor Participation Rate".[0] This is a personal favorite metric of mine, because it makes readily apparent some of the distortions the parent brought up. I imagine they're likely being downvoted for some combination of more vociferous language, less citations, different perspectives on the merit of the math/historical comparison the poster is referring to, as well as good old "you're wrong" downvotes, but I certainly found myself agreeing with the thrust of the point. (that unemployment and in related fashion CPI are regularly distorted for one agenda or another; for a recent example of this look at the application of C-CPI in the latest tax code to help address budget shortfalls in a way one might fairly call "slight of hand."[1]) [0]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-permanent-tax-increase-inside-the-tax-cut-act https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-p...
uptown 9y ago
Or perhaps it’s designed to create a situation from which he intends to proclaim victory over prior to November in order to sway malleable voters who, while they are likely impacted by trade policies, likely aren’t directly affected by the daily fluctuations in the way that those with personal investment accounts and retirement accounts are.
- uptown 9y ago
  "Falling equity markets may produce a negative wealth effect, with economic implications, but barely half of Americans own equity (and most do not own very much equity)." - UBS' Paul Donovan I’d also bet more equity is concentrated in states that likely don’t vote republican.
refurb 9y ago
You realize the market is up almost 50% from the day he was elected? The Dow could drop to 20,000 and people would still be positive in his term.
- smileysteve 9y ago
  20% is in no way almost 50%. Spy went from 218.50 to 257.47.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Dow went from 18,000 to a peak of almost 26,000. 8,000/18,000 = 44%

akhilcacharya 9y ago

The problem is it also allows him to take credit for a recovery like Reagan did in '84.

nkozyra 9y ago
Unlike Reagan, Trump didn't inherit an economy already in recession. Unemployment started to spike in 1980 and the economy was a significant factor in the election.
- jghn 9y ago
  However according to Fox and the right on general he did. So it doesn’t matter what you and I think as his base believes they’re living in the Obama Recession
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
It doesn’t seem likely that this would happen before the midterms. Also, Trump is having a direct effect on the economy through his words (tweets) and actions (tariffs), Reagan was more of a bystander.

dmix 9y ago

Instead of fixing core problems exposed recently, ie, not letting a single person via the executive branch have direct control over important things like tariffs (this used to be something only congress had control over) people want to just blame the other party as a solution for everything. Despite the fact the executive branch grew the fastest and exercised some of the greatest amount of power under the previous party, much like the previous guy before him who also set a record of executive power expansion, etc, helping set the stage for current volatility. I seem to be one of the few people concerned by the fact such market volatility is even possible based on one man's decision making. Although I should note there is a uniquely large disconnect from the things said by the current administration as opposed to the actual actions - and the subsequent media (and lesser extent market) reactions. I'm happy people are concerned about abuse of power but it's disheartening that it's been so weakly correlated to real world power use/expansion.

tootie 9y ago

That's what I thought about Bush, but he checked out right when the crisis hit and let employment bottom out on Obama's watch. Then Trump was able to run on a pro-business campaign saying that Obama didn't create enough jobs. What we're seeing is possibly the bleeding edge of a downturn that may not hit for real for a year or two. It could easily hit the next administration and it will a hell of cleanup job since we haven't paid off our last recovery yet.

Applejinx 9y ago
Bear in mind a lot of the unemployment numbers are hilariously fake. Way too much is exempted, and for the last several administrations of both parties, this talking point is not reflected in people's lived experience. Bear in mind that what's considered 'employment' is far from what people called employment in the fifties. This does not translate into people attaining self-sufficiency.
- majewsky 9y ago
  I would like to know why this is being downvoted. I cannot speak for the US, but the same has been happening in Germany in the last 20 or so years, at least anecdotally. The reported unemployment rate peaked at 13% in 2005 (which, whether coincidentally or not, is also the year when Merkel was first elected), then fell steadily [1] and is currently at 5-6%. Critics attribute a fair amount of that positive trend to tampering with the statistics. For example, unemployed people are excluded from the statistic while they are going through government-mandated job training. I've heard stories of people who had to sit through the same Excel course over and over again because the stat was lower while they did so. [1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentRate.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GermanyUnemploymentR... - Notably, it's very hard to see the Great Recession in this chart. There is only a small negative dent in the overall positive trend.
  - existencebox 9y ago
    The specific metric you and the parent are looking for is "Labor Participation Rate".[0] This is a personal favorite metric of mine, because it makes readily apparent some of the distortions the parent brought up. I imagine they're likely being downvoted for some combination of more vociferous language, less citations, different perspectives on the merit of the math/historical comparison the poster is referring to, as well as good old "you're wrong" downvotes, but I certainly found myself agreeing with the thrust of the point. (that unemployment and in related fashion CPI are regularly distorted for one agenda or another; for a recent example of this look at the application of C-CPI in the latest tax code to help address budget shortfalls in a way one might fairly call "slight of hand."[1]) [0]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000 [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-permanent-tax-increase-inside-the-tax-cut-act https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-20/the-big-p...

uptown 9y ago

Or perhaps it’s designed to create a situation from which he intends to proclaim victory over prior to November in order to sway malleable voters who, while they are likely impacted by trade policies, likely aren’t directly affected by the daily fluctuations in the way that those with personal investment accounts and retirement accounts are.

uptown 9y ago
"Falling equity markets may produce a negative wealth effect, with economic implications, but barely half of Americans own equity (and most do not own very much equity)." - UBS' Paul Donovan I’d also bet more equity is concentrated in states that likely don’t vote republican.

refurb 9y ago

You realize the market is up almost 50% from the day he was elected? The Dow could drop to 20,000 and people would still be positive in his term.

smileysteve 9y ago
20% is in no way almost 50%. Spy went from 218.50 to 257.47.
- refurb 9y ago
  Dow went from 18,000 to a peak of almost 26,000. 8,000/18,000 = 44%