I used ALL of Trump's full quarters. I used Obama's most immediate 6 full quarters. There is no fairer comparison.
You excluded Trump's first quarter of 17 and if you include that, you will have to include Obama's 2nd quarter of 15. Including both of those would drop Trump to 2.8ish and raise Obama to 1.7ish. Clearly, not double, but 60% better.
The first quarter was both Obama's and Trump's. Assigning it to either would cause an argument with both sides able to mount very valid objections, so I assigned it to neither and compared only FULL quarters.
That is a slippery slope. How long did Obama's regulations affect the GDP. Just because he was not in office does not mean the effects are gone. Also, electing Trump could have effected the final quarter of Obama's term. Just include both or as I said before, compare years instead of arbitrary 6 quarter periods
They are not "arbitrary", they are ALL of Trump's full quarters, compared by an equal number of Obama's full quarters, the closest in time.
It is arbitrary because it will change as time goes on. Looking at a full year compared to other full years will not change. If Trump's economy has a full year of double GDP compared to recent years of Obama, it is much more meaningful. To look at a six quarter period and find this trend is less meaningful. There are seasonal effects in GDP that you are ignoring and these affects could be biasing this finding of double GDP which is the main reason I would advocate for looking a a full year of the same quarters comparisons, preferably one year with all four quarters.
Oh, so you're an economist? What "market" are you talking about? The banking system problems are different from the housing market. OMG. A genius economist. I taught economics. You're woofing. By all means, retire from the field. Subprime loans became the vehicle for widespread fraud in mortgage lending. It matters not that they have existed in one form or other for decades. The fraud continued in the creation and marketing of MBSs. When the market for MBSs created from subprime loans faltered, so did some of the overheated demand for housing. The importance of Lehman failing... interbank lending halted. They bought some of the bad paper, so they are partially to blame. Bush could have threatened their funding, btw. Relevance? I coached my father for his CA broker license years ago. Your legal knowlege, in terms of your training, is limited to what you need to know to do your job. You're blowing smoke. I don't need someone to feed me answers, I'm telling you what happened.
I acquired Canadian citizenship (I was born in California), so I can live in Canada if I don't like what's happening here. I don't need Social Security or Medicare. My wife and I have enough money for the rest of our lives. It works fine for us.
Since you taught economics, I would have more fun talking to you than the typical blow hard. Do you get joy trying to put other posters down? First, who are you quoting as to your analysis of why the housing market came into a serious problem? How can you blame MBS when that was a tiny part of the mortgage problem? I cite my bonafides only to trigger others into being more careful when they politicize what we discuss, economics. I do own a university economics book and of course over the years have self studied it. But even more, i have enjoyed reading economics books by economists. Explain why a tiny part of the overall market can damage the entire market? I am well aware of MBS and understand this. I do not deny my legal training is rather narrow and confined to real estate and some economic concepts and never said I know divorce law, criminal law, etc. Business law is a course I mastered. Real estate law too. Let's quit the annoying post styles and cut to the chase. What makes you accept your theory as opposed to other economists opposing theories?
A chart such as this chart really has little value. While true it is interesting, it represents such a broad market it really is not that useful.
They also use seasonally adjusted numbers in their discussion which means the current numbers can't be seasonally adjusted very well due to a variety of factors such as not predicting future inflation.
No, Keynes said the budget should be balanced over the business cycle. He would not have approved of running a deficit at this point in the business cycle, and he certainly wouldn't have approved a tax cut without a spending cut. P.S. The only two Presidents to balance the budget in the past fifty years--Bill Clinton and LBJ. Trump has his own spending on defense and his proposed spending on a border wall.
We'll see what growth is after Trump's personal income tax cuts play through system. The projections are for economic growth to slow, averaging through 2020 about what Obama managed over his Presidency.
Republicans could have passed the legislation in the House where there is no means for a minority to prevent the majority from passing bills.
It did help the economy, especially in his first term. Thanks for what? Continuing a trend? No, really.
There's no point in discussing the issue with someone who advances a cherrypicked argument. Here are the facts over the two Presidencies.
Cherry picking is using a subset to represent the whole, that is unrepresentative of the whole. As I used the ENTIRE set of full Trump quarters, your claim is wholly misguided. Trump's doubled growth rates, reduced Debt growth, reduced the Debt/GDP ratio, while driving wage growth to near decade highs. Which is great for Americans, but as welcome as a pinecone enema by anti-Trumpers.
You cherrypicked the last few months of the Obama presidency. Trump hasn't doubled growth compared to the entire Obama presidency. Moreover, economic growth is projected to drop as the impact of the Trump budget deficit works its way through the economy. It's rather obvious you're propagandizing the forum.
Trump has 6 full quarters, and Obama's final 6 quarters are the closest Obama set, in time and context. Yes he has. Trump hasn't had an entire presidency yet, Silly! The projections have been wrong about Trump's GDP growth, he has greatly exceeded expectations. Use REAL world numbers, not the mental construct of "projections". Trump's run up $9,711,584,108.80 LESS in debt over his presidency than Obama did over the same time frame. You wish to silence views that repudiate your fictions.
In fact, Fed projections haven't been wrong. The Fed uses "REAL world numbers" to make predictions, something you would know if you knew what you're talking about. Au contraire. I'm happy when Trumpites make fools out of themselves.
Graham: Acting AG Whitaker Was "Appropriately Appointed Legally" and Should Not Recuse Himself from Mueller Probe
