3 ms·

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 direc

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.
- AlexTWithBeard 4y ago
  > Yes, but those were brought down by a unlucky quarters in between. Am I reading it right: "Under Obama economy was great if we ignore periods when it was not"?
  - cromwellian 4y ago
    Well, when those periods were due to freak weather and rebounded immediately the next quarter? Q1'2014 analysis from Economists: "Data such as employment, manufacturing and services sectors point to a sharp acceleration in growth early in the second quarter. However, the pace of expansion could fall short of expectations, which range as high as a 3.6 percent rate. Economists estimate severe weather could have slashed as much as 1.5 percentage points from GDP growth in the first quarter. The government, however, gave no details on the impact of the weather. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased at a 1.0 percent rate. It was previously reported to have advanced at a 3.1 percent pace. Exports declined at a 8.9 percent rate, instead of 6.0 percent pace, resulting in a trade deficit that sliced off 1.53 percentage points from GDP growth. Weak export growth has been tied to frigid temperatures during the winter." So basically, consumer spending increased, but exports declined, supposedly due to freak weather. I mean, what if I said "Trump's economic growth was great, if we ignore the pandemic", do you really think it's wrong to separate out external factors like once-in-a-century pandemics, weather events, or major external wars in order to consider what impact fiscal policy or leadership may have had?

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.

AlexTWithBeard 4y ago
> Yes, but those were brought down by a unlucky quarters in between. Am I reading it right: "Under Obama economy was great if we ignore periods when it was not"?
- cromwellian 4y ago
  Well, when those periods were due to freak weather and rebounded immediately the next quarter? Q1'2014 analysis from Economists: "Data such as employment, manufacturing and services sectors point to a sharp acceleration in growth early in the second quarter. However, the pace of expansion could fall short of expectations, which range as high as a 3.6 percent rate. Economists estimate severe weather could have slashed as much as 1.5 percentage points from GDP growth in the first quarter. The government, however, gave no details on the impact of the weather. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, increased at a 1.0 percent rate. It was previously reported to have advanced at a 3.1 percent pace. Exports declined at a 8.9 percent rate, instead of 6.0 percent pace, resulting in a trade deficit that sliced off 1.53 percentage points from GDP growth. Weak export growth has been tied to frigid temperatures during the winter." So basically, consumer spending increased, but exports declined, supposedly due to freak weather. I mean, what if I said "Trump's economic growth was great, if we ignore the pandemic", do you really think it's wrong to separate out external factors like once-in-a-century pandemics, weather events, or major external wars in order to consider what impact fiscal policy or leadership may have had?