4 ms·

> 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?