4 ms·

Obama inherited an economy in free fall. By the time he left, the deficit had been cut in half (thanks to sequester), we had more quarters of 3%, 4%, even 5% GD

Obama inherited an economy in free fall. By the time he left, the deficit had been cut in half (thanks to sequester), we had more quarters of 3%, 4%, even 5% GDP growth not since the 90s. Unemployment fell from 10% to 4.7%. Home prices and the stock market appreciated considerably. Trump largely inherited a good economy from Obama, passed a reckless tax cut, and then failed to beat Obama’s final 3 years in terms of gdp growth or job growth. Those tax cuts blew a hole in the deficit before COVID and triggered a plethora of stock buyback activity depleting corporate cash reserves just in time for the pandemic leaving them with nothing to fall back on, and needing quicker and bigger bailouts that might have been necessary if they had bigger nest eggs. (Airlines especially) Obama had international inspectors in Iran’s nuke plants, Trump pulled the US out and now the situation is far worse with respect to th nuke profliferation issue. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

panick21_ 4y ago
It always amazing how Americans think presidents have much of an impact on things like economics and housing markets. It the same mistake people make everywhere, correlation is not causation. The Great Depression was not Hoovers fault. Hitler was not some amazing economic genius its just that he got to power after the worst of the recession was over. Trump certainty did some thing bad things in terms of trade, but that likely doesn't explain most of the numbers. > Obama had international inspectors in Iran’s nuke plants, Trump pulled the US out and now the situation is far worse with respect to th nuke profliferation issue. That actually is something the president has much influence on.
- _8j50 4y ago
  They have some influence. The fed chief is nominated by them. Laws they support get priority. Their policies can have effects on consumer confidence and economic activity, I mean americans belive the president is powerful so true or not their economic behavior is affected, and that isn't just consumers but investors as well. Let's say biden threatened nuke war against russia, that will crash stocks or mention tariffs on China which will affect some stocks more than others. CEOs also use what they say as an excuse to do things.
- cromwellian 4y ago
  I didn't say Obama was the cause of these things, merely that they happened on his term. This is in response to Trump fans who like to trash Obama and celebrate Trump. My point is, if you want to blame Obama for the bad economics that happens on his term, you also have to credit him for the good things, and likewise for Trump. I have long said that Presidents don't have much effect on the economy, unless they trigger some major mal-investment or war (or a trade war). It's the Republicans who OBSESS about tinkering with marginal tax rates, as if cutting a rich guy's taxes from 39% marginal rate to 36% marginal rate transforms the economy. As Warren Buffet said, no real entrepreneur is scared away by marginal taxes, it's a nice problem to have if you manage to make it to that tier. But again, if you're going to play the President comparison game by crediting them for trends that happen when they take office, you have to apply it consistently, regardless of political party. (I will say that Presidents CAN have a major effect if they radically change the rules of the game suddenly, like Smoot-Hawley, or the creation Bretton-Woods/collapse of Bretton-Woods) Also, it's not just "Americans" who think political leaders control the economy, you see this in the UK, and you see it playing out in Italy right now. People overall ignore trends and forces that take a decade to unfold, from housing prices to regional sector collapses, by the time the political system realizes it, the actual change has already happened, and there's often political response that promises to "restore" what's already gone.
AlexTWithBeard 4y ago
Trump's year by year numbers are not that bad either, as can be seen in [1] Final numbers have been heavily affected by 2020 covid, so cannot be compared directly. That being said: > failed to beat Obama’s final 3 years in terms of gdp growth or job growth Obama's YoY for the final three years are 2.3%, 2.7% and 1.7%. Trump's first three years are 2.3%, 2.9%, 2.3%. [1] > Unemployment fell from 10% to 4.7% Employment rate under Trump's presidency has been also growing steadily until covid [2] [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/ [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate
- cromwellian 4y ago
  "Obama's YoY for the final three years are 2.3%, 2.7% and 1.7%" Yes, but those were brought down by a unlucky quarters in between. If you look at quarter-by-quarter GDP growth from 2012-2020, you'll see Obama had way more quarters above 3%, 4%, even 5% than Trump ever did. Trump came into office promising 4%+ GDP growth, he never achieved it in any quarter. Let me give you an example: Q1'2014 had a post-xmas slump of -1.4% growth. But Q2'2014, Q3'2014 had 5.2, 4.7, with Q4 hitting 1.8. So yeah, if you average that out, it's ~2.4%, but that's obscurring that there were two blistering quarters. "Unemployment fell from 10% to 4.7% Employment rate under Trump's presidency has been also growing steadily until covid" Yes, but the scale of the change from what Obama started with was much larger and deeper hole: a banking crisis. (If you look at IMF/WB studies of historical banking crises from the Great Depression up through Japan's lost decade, over 400 in their study, they're the worst recessions to dig out of, not V shaped at all). If you look at total number of jobs created, it was 10 million in Obama's second term. Trump ended up with -3 million, but if we're fair, and just compare Trump's best 3 years, with Obama's last 3 years, Obama had 3.0, 2.7, and 2.3 million jobs. Trump had 2.2, 2.7, 2.1, or 8 million vs 7 million. There's no sense in which the Obama economy was "bad" compared with Trump's first 3 years. Except for the fact that they didn't rescue home owners, just the wealthy and business internets, and so a ton of people lost generational wealth, and permanently exited the job market when their only factory or sector rolled up. Which is one more thing to say about recessions: There are some business sectors that are zombies -- dead men walking. Dying a slow death, everyone can feel it, going through the motions, and it is generally not until there is a recession that these businesses are killed, never to return, often replaced by new sectors or disruptive new tech or business models. In a way, recessions act as garbage collection, often spurring innovation. The Bush Sr recession lead to one of the greatest economic expansions since 60s.

panick21_ 4y ago

It always amazing how Americans think presidents have much of an impact on things like economics and housing markets. It the same mistake people make everywhere, correlation is not causation. The Great Depression was not Hoovers fault. Hitler was not some amazing economic genius its just that he got to power after the worst of the recession was over. Trump certainty did some thing bad things in terms of trade, but that likely doesn't explain most of the numbers. > Obama had international inspectors in Iran’s nuke plants, Trump pulled the US out and now the situation is far worse with respect to th nuke profliferation issue. That actually is something the president has much influence on.

_8j50 4y ago
They have some influence. The fed chief is nominated by them. Laws they support get priority. Their policies can have effects on consumer confidence and economic activity, I mean americans belive the president is powerful so true or not their economic behavior is affected, and that isn't just consumers but investors as well. Let's say biden threatened nuke war against russia, that will crash stocks or mention tariffs on China which will affect some stocks more than others. CEOs also use what they say as an excuse to do things.
cromwellian 4y ago
I didn't say Obama was the cause of these things, merely that they happened on his term. This is in response to Trump fans who like to trash Obama and celebrate Trump. My point is, if you want to blame Obama for the bad economics that happens on his term, you also have to credit him for the good things, and likewise for Trump. I have long said that Presidents don't have much effect on the economy, unless they trigger some major mal-investment or war (or a trade war). It's the Republicans who OBSESS about tinkering with marginal tax rates, as if cutting a rich guy's taxes from 39% marginal rate to 36% marginal rate transforms the economy. As Warren Buffet said, no real entrepreneur is scared away by marginal taxes, it's a nice problem to have if you manage to make it to that tier. But again, if you're going to play the President comparison game by crediting them for trends that happen when they take office, you have to apply it consistently, regardless of political party. (I will say that Presidents CAN have a major effect if they radically change the rules of the game suddenly, like Smoot-Hawley, or the creation Bretton-Woods/collapse of Bretton-Woods) Also, it's not just "Americans" who think political leaders control the economy, you see this in the UK, and you see it playing out in Italy right now. People overall ignore trends and forces that take a decade to unfold, from housing prices to regional sector collapses, by the time the political system realizes it, the actual change has already happened, and there's often political response that promises to "restore" what's already gone.

AlexTWithBeard 4y ago

Trump's year by year numbers are not that bad either, as can be seen in [1] Final numbers have been heavily affected by 2020 covid, so cannot be compared directly. That being said: > failed to beat Obama’s final 3 years in terms of gdp growth or job growth Obama's YoY for the final three years are 2.3%, 2.7% and 1.7%. Trump's first three years are 2.3%, 2.9%, 2.3%. [1] > Unemployment fell from 10% to 4.7% Employment rate under Trump's presidency has been also growing steadily until covid [2] [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/ https://www.factcheck.org/2021/10/trumps-final-numbers/ [2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/employment-rate

cromwellian 4y ago
"Obama's YoY for the final three years are 2.3%, 2.7% and 1.7%" Yes, but those were brought down by a unlucky quarters in between. If you look at quarter-by-quarter GDP growth from 2012-2020, you'll see Obama had way more quarters above 3%, 4%, even 5% than Trump ever did. Trump came into office promising 4%+ GDP growth, he never achieved it in any quarter. Let me give you an example: Q1'2014 had a post-xmas slump of -1.4% growth. But Q2'2014, Q3'2014 had 5.2, 4.7, with Q4 hitting 1.8. So yeah, if you average that out, it's ~2.4%, but that's obscurring that there were two blistering quarters. "Unemployment fell from 10% to 4.7% Employment rate under Trump's presidency has been also growing steadily until covid" Yes, but the scale of the change from what Obama started with was much larger and deeper hole: a banking crisis. (If you look at IMF/WB studies of historical banking crises from the Great Depression up through Japan's lost decade, over 400 in their study, they're the worst recessions to dig out of, not V shaped at all). If you look at total number of jobs created, it was 10 million in Obama's second term. Trump ended up with -3 million, but if we're fair, and just compare Trump's best 3 years, with Obama's last 3 years, Obama had 3.0, 2.7, and 2.3 million jobs. Trump had 2.2, 2.7, 2.1, or 8 million vs 7 million. There's no sense in which the Obama economy was "bad" compared with Trump's first 3 years. Except for the fact that they didn't rescue home owners, just the wealthy and business internets, and so a ton of people lost generational wealth, and permanently exited the job market when their only factory or sector rolled up. Which is one more thing to say about recessions: There are some business sectors that are zombies -- dead men walking. Dying a slow death, everyone can feel it, going through the motions, and it is generally not until there is a recession that these businesses are killed, never to return, often replaced by new sectors or disruptive new tech or business models. In a way, recessions act as garbage collection, often spurring innovation. The Bush Sr recession lead to one of the greatest economic expansions since 60s.