How has Trump done with jobs?

yeah. tedious.

Nothing then? Now who is being tedious?

STock market 29,000, employment up for all, including blacks and Hispanics. Tax refunds for many many people. Of course you won’t acknowledge any of this…so really…it IS a waste of my time.

You go ahead though…you got your little political agenda goin’ on there.

I’ll take that challenge. I supported him when he extended the Bush tax cuts during the recession. I supported him when he killed bin Laden and al Lockie (sp) who was the American who was using his language skills to recruit more terrorists from this country.

I support my country, and I support a president when he does things right. When Obama gave all of that cash to the Iranians, I slammed him. Why feed terrorism?

As for the rest of it Obama, the recovery was anemic under him. It was slow because over regulation and constant threats of new taxes. You can go to your little Democrat websites and get some more chants and graphs, but the that’s the truth.

In other words, you are fascist. That is what you advocate, government control of private property. Before long, it will morph into socialism because that economy will get so bad the "emergency” measures will be necessary. First you will socialize the medical system, then you go for the energy sector. Once you control that, you have the economy in a choke hold that will worse than the 1970s “energy crisis” which cause “stag-flation.”. Before long the government will control it all with your people in charge.

I’ve read your stuff, and that’s where you are headed. You don’t fool me for a minute.

Perhaps I should post a few my articles here. You might learn something.

The rest of what you have to say is Bernie Sanders boilerplate. Things have gotten better for Hispanics and Blacks under Trump, and many of them realize it. All the Democrats give them is welfare and rhetoric about how “oppressed” they are because bigotry.

The plain fact is you can be a loser regardless of you race. If you are lazy in school and are not prepared for anything, you on your way to failing in life. You don’t have to go college to succeed, but you have to be prepared to offer something to employers or come up with some great ideas on your own.

Already addressed this. Employment up for everyone

Why single out blacks and Hispanics?

Do you think the stock market is a good barometer of overall economic health?

If so, did you think the economy was doing well under Obama? No, but you think it’s doing well under Trump?

Try to remember that the market hit historic highs under Obama too.

And try to remember that unemployment for Whites Hispanics and blacks fell at the same rate under Obama as it did Trump, yet people like you were convicned that the economy sucked right up until Trump took office. Then you convinced yourself that everything has been wonderful since.

But where is the data?

No, I have the facts that I keep putting out and you keep ignoring offering nothing but political talking points you see on right-wing media.

I have actual data that I grab from the source.


As do I…But, supporting my country, as I’m sure you’re aware doesn’t mean you always agree with it’s elected leaders.

That’s not really supporting a President thouh, is it? You supported decisions he’s made, but you’re not really supporting the President.

For my part, I support the decision to use the fiscal deficit to achieve policy goals, even if I disagree with those goals, Trump is proving that deficits don’t cause economic ruin any more than gravity causes plane crashes.

I look forward to Dems using the same deficits to achieve some of their policy agenda’s and shaking my head in disbelief as people like you wait till Dems run up the debt to begin running around like chicken little telling us all how the children of the future will pay for the irresponsible deficit spending.

It was slow and steady… As if that’s a bad thing. Economic bubbles happen when the economy heats up to quickly and the foundation of the economy becomes unstable.

See that’s not what the ultra-wealthy want, they want the sharp rise and dramatic fall. They make money on both sides, they don’t care, so they have people like you convinced that 8 years of slow and steady growth is bad. Only a partisan could say that growth is bad when the other party is in power.

Is this economy bad?

I’m happy it’s doing as well as it is. I’ve pointed out in other threads that I believe that there is some underlying weakness pointing to real economic indicators, not left-wing talking-points.

LOL, no not a fascist, but if it makes you feel better to label me as a fascist, help yourself.

Did Italy or Germany under Mussolini or Hitler operate within a government with 3 co-equal branches?

No? Then no, not a fascist.

Government of, by and for the people. Is that what fascism is?

Then no, not a fascist.

Not entirely certain of what you mean here.

Do I believe in private property? Sure, do I think private property is an absolute? No of course not.

Do I think the government should control the means of production, in very limited instances, sure, but in very limited instances where profit motives collide and leverage human suffering as a method to drive profit or in other areas where private distribution is much less efficient than a government system. Take, for example, privatizing the road system or weighing in on things like weights and measures.

Please do, I’d enjoy reading them.

I wouldn’t know

First, things have been getting better for everyone since 2010 at a similar pace.

Second, there’s a lot more to “better” than just a job…

I would agree that victim culture is a real thing, but I’d also say that racism and bigotry is a real thing. The trick is figuring out how to recognize it without fostering victim culture.

That’s true, but not everyone gets the same opportunity to live up to their potential.

Every time I blow up one of your charts that in no way conclude what you claim they conclude, you leave and start another thread based on another chart or graph that does not conclude what you claim it concludes.

You are here to see if any of the propaganda that your side is selling can stick, you know it is not true because you bail the moment it is exposed and start another.

The Obama economy was great for millionaires, welfare rats and government tax eaters; it destroyed the poor and almost destroyed the middle class with a worker participation rate not seen since the Great Depression.

Trump has been working without any help from Congress and reached full employement including a complete reversal in the worker participation rate, the greatest wage increases now reside in the low to middle class work force and quite literally ANYONE who wants a job can choose from multiple options.

Tax cuts, regulation reduction, hard ball with countries who have locked out American producers from their Markets and consumer confidence based on FINALLY having a president who gives a damn about keeping his promises and doing what’s best for his country has born much fruit.

Once your terrorist loving, baby killing, America hating, government worshipping, Racist Fascist Party is crushed next November Trump will have a Congress that will really enable the lid to be nailed shut on your Parties philosophy.

I will be enjoying every moment until then since I am convinced that your side will remain insane and keep taking the bait from now until then, this will be a massacre the likes of which has never before occurred in the United States Electoral history :rofl:

1 Like

Just curious, RET, is RET some sort of shorthand for rhetoric? Because I see nothing to back up your assertions…No facts, no sources just assertions based on…?

Blown up? I think not.

That said, I’m not really defending the Obama economy, I’m merely pointing out that the Trump economy is the more the same than it is different with a few twists, like more deficit spending just to name one…

And you won’t, if you had interest you would have been following these numbers for the last 3 years instead of looking for charts that intentionally do NOT support the claims you make based on them.

I once thought it was ignorance but now that you have bolted from 3 threads after you were exposed only to start new ones with non sequitur data I now know it is intentional.

Just like the media in fact, they have squandered their credibility in the same way :slight_smile:

Look at your own “chart”. The stock market improved roughly 8,000 points in Obama’s 8 years and has improved 10,000 points (nearly 11,000) in just 3 full years under Trump’s policies.

1 Like

Only so long as what you’re spending your money on, isn’t crowding out signals in the private economy.

When Obama rose the deficit to pay for TARP and the Recovery Act, they caused micro recessions.

Equally; Japan has been going into debt to “stimulate” its economy for 30 years. The effect is a no-growth economy, for 30 years, in serious debt, teetering on the edge of collapse.

It’s important where money goes, and Government planners don’t know where money in the actual economy should go.

Also, CS? I’m also horribly bad at this, so I’m not trying to preach; but if you want to leave a lasting point, omni-slashing posts like this is more likely to get your words ignored. Try to coalesce.

1 Like

Just so you’re speaking for yourself.

1 Like

Totally agree. However, to be clear, the crowding out that occurs isn’t fiscal, it’s real.

I Googled “Micro-Recession” and I didn’t see much. There is an NYT story about “localized recession” which I suspect is what you’re alluding to. I refer to this more broadly as “market disruption”. Some disruption can be constructive or destructive. That said, I think we’re referring to the same thing or at least something similar.

Let’s address Japan.

From an MMT perspective, which you know I embrace, at least in part, Japan’s experience seems to lend some evidence to claims made by MMT"academics".

Do big deficits cause inflation? No. Japan’s inflation runs just above zero.

Do big debts cause high interest rates? No. Japan’s policy rate is about -0.10 (negative rates).

Do big debts cause bond vigilante strikes? No. Japan’s government debt is hoovered up as fast as it can be issued. (All the more true with the BOJ running QE and creating a “scarcity” in spite of the quadrillions of yen debt available.)

Moving on…

Critics of MMT counter that Japan is “proof” that big deficits kill investment and growth.

Well, it is true that Japan has been growing at just 1% per year—certainly nothing to write home about. However, investment grows at about a 2% pace but is pulled down by lack of consumption growth—which has averaged just about zero over the past few years.

From the MMT perspective, what Japan needs is a good fiscal stimulus, albeit one that is targeted. Japan has three “injections” into the economy: the fiscal deficit (which has fallen from 7% of GDP to about 5% over the past few years—still a substantial injection), the current account surplus, and private investment. But what it needs is stronger growth of domestic consumer demand—which would also stimulate investment directed to home consumption. So fiscal policy ought to be targeted to spending that would increase the economic security of Japanese households to the point that they’d increase consumer spending.

So what is Prime Minister Abe’s announced plan? To raise the sales tax to squelch consumption and reduce economic growth.

You cannot make this up.

This has been Japan’s policy for a whole generation. Any time it looks like the economy might break out of its long-term stagnation, policy makers impose austerity in an attempt to reduce the fiscal deficit and thereby throw the economy back into its permanent recession.

Clearly, this is the precise opposite to the MMT recommendation. And yet pundits proclaim Japan has been following MMT policy all these years.

The result?

Permanent stagflation.

I agree, but to suggest that capitalists know this is equally false. Furthermore, should the money go to improving the lives of citizens or generating higher profits? The two aren’t mutually inclusive.

Should decisions be made only by investors or as a process within our democracy?

I don’t claim to have the answers to these questions and I realize there are problems on both sides as I’ve defined (though I recognize there may be more choices).

I know we don’t always agree, but I appreciate your input. That said, not sure what you mean by “omni-slashing”…


[Emphisis mine]

And yet to hear Republicans and right-wing media, you’d have thought the stock market was going the other direction, that things in the US were getting worse.

Of course, we can point to anecdotes that prove that things got worse under Obama and better under Trump and vice-versa.

The problem is two-fold.

  1. There are lots of ways to evaluate something as complex as the economy and the temptation is for each side to look only at favorable data and ignore the unfavorable.

  2. There is little if any agreement on a wide array of metrics under which each side would agree to evaluate, as a standard, to judge the success or failure of an administration’s economic policy.

Is the stock market a good indicator? 84 percent of all stocks owned by Americans belong to the wealthiest 10 percent of household, thus the success of stocks would seem to affect those at the top the most and therefore is not a good overall economic indicator.

Conversely…When looking at the bottom, 14% (corrected) of Americans make less than $18k a year. If that number decreased significantly, do you think that would be a good indicator of the health of the overall economy?

In a vacuum? Probably not. But it makes no sense, outside of any context to argue that an improvement in ether measure is bad, that said, it matters how these improvements occurred in the context of lots of other variables.

kids…ya can’t shoot em.

Boomers, ya can’t shoot them either… :crazy_face:

But your side has plans.


Christina Romer herself, the head of Obama’s Economic council who proposed this plan, estimated that the Stimulus only created 0.7 to 1.2 dollars for every dollar spent, instead of the 2 dollars it needed to be effective.

Her excuse was that it wasn’t big enough; but looking closely at how the money was spent tells a very different story.

It’s one of the Government creating make work, and allocating money according to political incentives. Not need, not merit, not wealth creation.

It contributed to their declining savings rate, and real wages being lower than they were 30 years ago.

The Japanese today work longer hours than their parents. For the same or less money.

Only so long as they don’t need foreign investors to buy their debt.

Once core revenue can no longer pay their interest expense… yes it will. There’s no avoiding that.
They’ll need to attract investors, who will want more than just 1 or 2 %

As it stands, Japan has lost savings, innovation, and had a declining real estate market for more than 20 years.

And they’re now in a debt trap:

Austerity is cutting spending. Japan never did this; they’ve been above 100% debt to gdp since 1996, and it never truly fell, only stabilizing at around 240%, as anymore would threaten a crisis.

A crisis where they can’t pay the interest expense.

They know better than politicians who allocate things according to political incentives.

Neither helping them, and nor hurting them, produces the best result.

In competitive markets, higher profits increases the citizens well being. So long as what we’re talking about is profits generated by market actions. Not government assistance.

High profits means more suppliers will get into the market, and seek to undercut whomever is making them.

Profits are signals in the economy. You should examine them from that standpoint.

This is an example of what @Pappadave complained about to me when I cite statistics. The Examiner points out:

4.2 percent [nominal] growth in the second quarter of 2018.

Which is 100% true. But it lacks some crucial context that makes the information more useful and puts the information in a proper context. The Examiner is being intentionally misleading or they aren’t knowledgeable enough to understand the data they are reporting.

So what is it that makes this reporting misleading??

Real growth for that quarter was 3.2% Real growth is how we measure growth in any meaningful way. 4.2% looks great, but when put in context (real vs nominal), the highest rate of growth was right before Trump took office (Q1 2015 - 3.9% - real growth) and prior to that it was in 2010 (3.1% Q3 real growth)

Using nominal statistics is like citing the population by only measuring births and ignoring deaths and immigration/ emigration. The gross increase in population would be measured in births, the net would be births immigration minus anything that causes the population to decrease which would give you a much closer actual number.

Another example:

For the first time in more than a decade, growth is projected to exceed 3 percent over the calendar year.

Real growth is what matters and how best to make comparisons. Real growth has been declining for almost a year.


Here are the jobs number sliced and diced every possible way you can think, most if not all significant statistics are trending downward.

Now in fairness to Trump, there are a few things happening, unemployment is falling and labor slack is being reduced. What we need now is not just jobs but better jobs. Automation will be key in freeing people from the lowest paying lowest skilled jobs, jobs that can easily be automated (cashier at McDonald’s). Of course, in order to get people out of low skilled work, we’ll need higher levels of education and opportunity.

That said, pointing the finger at Trump I’d point out that, undoubtedly, the trade war, which coincides perfectly with the most recent down turn (Q2 2018), correlates perfectly, has contributed to the real slowdown and is part of the self-inflicted issue Trump faces.

Do you know of any specific initiatives Trump or his administration have supported or enacted to get lower wage, lower-income people greater opportunity for education, be it college or any sort of training in trades or vocational skills?

As far as the stats, I know that media in general, not just the right-leaning media uses statistics the way that the Examiner has done in the example I gave.

Most people don’t know what the terms “real” and “nominal” mean in an economic context (one reason a good education is so important and why economics should be taught as a class just like math and English).

That said, not everything Trump has done has been bad. He lowered taxes and increased spending. This nets more money into the private sector and in my opinion is the single biggest factor in the growth we’ve seen.

That said, most of the benefits have gone to people that do very little in terms of driving demand. Much of it has been captured by the investor class and corporations that are sitting on trillions of dollars because the economy lacks the requisite demand to drive greater levels of investment.

This is what some might call the failure of supply-side econ. The idea that if you give the investor class more money that money will work it’s way down into the broader economy. Insted what we’re seeing is the wealthy are using money to capture more money.

See, Capitalism was a story about creating a product, selling it and using that money to buy other things that people needed/ wanted…

So, Product—>Capital---->Product.

In the financial economy that’s grown over the last 30 years what we’re seeing today is capital used to create a product to capture even more capital.

So, Capital---->Product---->Capital.

This isn’t an optimal way for Capitalism to work. Adam Smith and Marx both understood this, it’s amazing to me that so few people understand it today.

Efficient capitalism, a system that operates entirely in the best interest of individuals, will fail to see that individuals that adhere to a Randian Esque variety of capitalism will end up destroying the very markets they need for their own survival.