-
Donsteppa said:
Baron Silas Greenback said:
Donsteppa said:
Plus Clinton, Regan, and Carter in individual years, without bothering to go further back too. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson are 4% plus annual averages across four years.
So over 20 years ago?
"“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country"
I reckon I can go back past 1998 on the basis of that, yes.
You don't need to. Obama managed four quarters of +4% GDP growth, two of them in 2014:
-
antipodean said:
What part did you find amazing? His economic illiteracy?
What I find amazing are nameless commentaries in the Herald, telling us (cue the scary music) that Trump using the word “gloablism” carries a scary-scary subtext connotation of “anti-semitism,” as sanctified by the ADL, which I guess is why Trump wants to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. It’s “amazing” how they missed months of Trump on a campaign stump two years ago proclaiming, “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo.” But hey, when Trump Derangement Syndrome mass hysteria has infected journalists everywhere, what’s more toxic bs accusations of “raccccisssmmmm” to add to the garbage dump?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12132201
-
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
Yes, I remember how the media was shitting themselves about the DOW tanking when the election was running in his direction and supposedly serious “experts” panicked like Chicken Little telling Americans to sell off their stock portfolios.
-
Baron Silas Greenback said:
Donsteppa said:
Baron Silas Greenback said:
Donsteppa said:
Plus Clinton, Regan, and Carter in individual years, without bothering to go further back too. Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson are 4% plus annual averages across four years.
So over 20 years ago?
"“In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country"
I reckon I can go back past 1998 on the basis of that, yes.
He probably thinks he has, I dont remember many doing much more in 2 years. Who do you think has?
His assertion is so sweeping and grand (and to be fair probably rhetoric) that I'll happily kick for touch until there's a full term to compare, let alone some distance of time. My personal view is that - so far - he's neither the disaster some claim, nor the legend that others claim either.
Stating that in less in two years that an administration "has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country" is a pretty big rhetorical call given some of the names that pop up in US Presidential history. Those who presumably 'made America great the first time'.
Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated Presidents among historians. The remaining places within the Top 10 are often rounded out by Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry S Truman, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, and John F. Kennedy.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States)
Some started pretty well ("James MacGregor Burns observed of Nixon: "How can one evaluate such an idiosyncratic president, so brilliant and so morally lacking?""), and others probably finished better than they started their first 18 months too.
(On those lists I'm not a fan of rankings of Presidents since... perhaps Reagan? Too close for historical perspective if we're trying to compare with those outside of living memory.)
Perhaps his statements shouldn't be taken so literally Fun times for public shouting at the moment from all sides...
-
@salacious-crumb I just ignore the hysteria on both sides. I will admit it amused me to watch the left carry on like children who had their toys taken from them, but it's tiresome now.
The most irritating aspect right now would be the disgraceful antics in using sexual assault allegations to delay confirmation hearing until after the midterms, when Democrats believe they'll be able to secure a majority.
-
The Dems have a good chance to take the House.
They almost certainly won't take the Senate, the toss-up seats are almost all in states Trump won. The Republicans should gain a few.
This means Trump will probably be able to safely nominate an avowed anti-abortion nominee like Amy Coney-Barrett and lose a few moderate Repubs while still getting 51. In other words, blocking Kavanaugh might backfire bigly on the Dems.They hope (and this is possible but a gamble) that successfully blocking Kavanaugh demoralizes Repub support and fires up Dems so they can take the Senate.
-
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
I'd ignore the economic punditry coming from MSNBC etc. The fact of the matter is free trade benefits all who participate. Applying tariffs and rampant protectionism will only cause harm in the long run as it punishes the productive areas of an economy to prop up the unproductive. I'm sure Americans don't actually want to find everything now costs 30% more at Walmart for example.
The problem is that it was never free trade. This was a complete illusion. In any case I don't see China wanting to have a protracted trade war. They're fucked too if Americans stop buying their shit
It was freer trade than now which is really the point. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks increasing tariffs is good for an economy.
Furthermore, China owns about a fifth of US debt owned by foreigners. Coincidentally the USA is just under a fifth of China's trade. To counteract a tariff of 10%, China as a net lender can simply purchase more treasury bonds, keeping the yuan low. This basically offsets the tariff.
If America doesn't sell debt to China, their consumer goods increase in price. If China sold some of this debt, US interest rates would have upward pressure, hurting the economy. It's a dangerous game to be playing.
Then you will concede it isn't fair trade i the slightest? I'm all for fair trade, but that certainly didn't exist between China and the US or the US and many other countries for that matter. Yes it can be a dangerous game, but it is in neither countries interest to have a long drawn-out trade war, least of all China's. Trump has every right and justification to question the apparent status quo.
-
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
I'd ignore the economic punditry coming from MSNBC etc. The fact of the matter is free trade benefits all who participate. Applying tariffs and rampant protectionism will only cause harm in the long run as it punishes the productive areas of an economy to prop up the unproductive. I'm sure Americans don't actually want to find everything now costs 30% more at Walmart for example.
The problem is that it was never free trade. This was a complete illusion. In any case I don't see China wanting to have a protracted trade war. They're fucked too if Americans stop buying their shit
It was freer trade than now which is really the point. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks increasing tariffs is good for an economy.
Furthermore, China owns about a fifth of US debt owned by foreigners. Coincidentally the USA is just under a fifth of China's trade. To counteract a tariff of 10%, China as a net lender can simply purchase more treasury bonds, keeping the yuan low. This basically offsets the tariff.
If America doesn't sell debt to China, their consumer goods increase in price. If China sold some of this debt, US interest rates would have upward pressure, hurting the economy. It's a dangerous game to be playing.
Then you will concede it isn't fair trade i the slightest?
I'm talking about free trade.
-
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
I'd ignore the economic punditry coming from MSNBC etc. The fact of the matter is free trade benefits all who participate. Applying tariffs and rampant protectionism will only cause harm in the long run as it punishes the productive areas of an economy to prop up the unproductive. I'm sure Americans don't actually want to find everything now costs 30% more at Walmart for example.
The problem is that it was never free trade. This was a complete illusion. In any case I don't see China wanting to have a protracted trade war. They're fucked too if Americans stop buying their shit
It was freer trade than now which is really the point. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks increasing tariffs is good for an economy.
Furthermore, China owns about a fifth of US debt owned by foreigners. Coincidentally the USA is just under a fifth of China's trade. To counteract a tariff of 10%, China as a net lender can simply purchase more treasury bonds, keeping the yuan low. This basically offsets the tariff.
If America doesn't sell debt to China, their consumer goods increase in price. If China sold some of this debt, US interest rates would have upward pressure, hurting the economy. It's a dangerous game to be playing.
Then you will concede it isn't fair trade i the slightest?
I'm talking about free trade.
Sorry, I meant free trade. How was what existed free trade?
In any case, I'll wait and see how this one goes. Since pretty much every prediction regarding Trump has proven to be bullshit, there's a strong chance this will be as well.
He's still a grotesque orange blow hard though.
-
I always suspected Donald Trump had a very, very large brain. I'm glad he's finally come out and said it.
-
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Rancid Schnitzel said:
antipodean said:
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
I'd ignore the economic punditry coming from MSNBC etc. The fact of the matter is free trade benefits all who participate. Applying tariffs and rampant protectionism will only cause harm in the long run as it punishes the productive areas of an economy to prop up the unproductive. I'm sure Americans don't actually want to find everything now costs 30% more at Walmart for example.
The problem is that it was never free trade. This was a complete illusion. In any case I don't see China wanting to have a protracted trade war. They're fucked too if Americans stop buying their shit
It was freer trade than now which is really the point. You'll be hard pressed to find an economist who thinks increasing tariffs is good for an economy.
Furthermore, China owns about a fifth of US debt owned by foreigners. Coincidentally the USA is just under a fifth of China's trade. To counteract a tariff of 10%, China as a net lender can simply purchase more treasury bonds, keeping the yuan low. This basically offsets the tariff.
If America doesn't sell debt to China, their consumer goods increase in price. If China sold some of this debt, US interest rates would have upward pressure, hurting the economy. It's a dangerous game to be playing.
Then you will concede it isn't fair trade i the slightest?
I'm talking about free trade.
Sorry, I meant free trade. How was what existed free trade?
Freer than now, i.e. less tariffs.
-
A lot of the anti-tariff stuff is Chamber of Commerce financed articles strategically placed in various outlets to try and persuade Americans tariffs are bad,bad,bad. All the "experts" with all their "studies".....just like all the credentialed experts told us all this bullshit about Trump. I just don't believe it anymore.
Multi-nationals don't want to lose access to cheaper labor and established manufacuturing plants in China. China and Europe have used tariffs for decades. They never had issues because it worked to their advantage. Now its an issue in the US because the US multinationals (who control large sections of the US media) don't like it. Trump is actually trying to help the working class (sorry now they are called the "less educated")
It even going so far as the Chinese or Chinese funded think tanks writing editorials in heartland newspapers telling us how wrong-headed Trump's economic plan is. I don't know who will win this trade war and of course there will be some losers in the US (jegga's Ford example) but it is either fight China or surrender manufacturing a willingly take it up the ass like Obama and his predecessors did. For now, I quite like a non-democratic no free speech state like China quietly and internally squealing like a stuck pig.
One more thing - Democrats have one sign. It's says "Everyone Is A Ra_ist." This way they can easily switch between a "c" and a "p" depending who they want to slander.
-
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
Predictions of Trump being a disaster as President misunderstood the Office of President, rather than Trump.
Outside of immediate and catastrophic military action or being constitutionally removed from the position it's hard to see how a President could judged a disaster (in the moment) after less than two years.
-
Frank said:
A lot of the anti-tariff stuff is Chamber of Commerce financed articles strategically placed in various outlets to try and persuade Americans tariffs are bad,bad,bad. All the "experts" with all their "studies".....just like all the credentialed experts told us all this bullshit about Trump. I just don't believe it anymore.
The problem with this level of ignorance is it's obvious no amount of information will change your mind.
-
Frank said:
They almost certainly won't take the Senate, the toss-up seats are almost all in states Trump won. The Republicans should gain a few.
Eerily similar comments were made prior to the Presidential Election when the same polling aggregators projected a 70%+ chance of winning and potentially flipping some red states for the first time in a long time.
-
-
We might soon find out even more about whether these "experts" are right with all their "studies" about tariffs. Canada may not be as well placed in the short term as China to ride anything out though...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12132808
-
Typical article casting Trump as the bad and Trudeau as reasonable. Totally omitting detailed analysis of what Canada does with dairy quotas.
You'd think a U.S paper would care about America interests. Yeah, nah.
(actually pretty typical of NZ Herald sourcing stories from the Trump hating Washington Post)Tariffs are being used as a stick to make these countries behave. Open up their barriers.
Canada will bend the knee or lose its auto industry.
They have virtually no leverage.
My theory on Trudeau is he is willing to let his workers suffer so he can be seen as the anti-Trump to appease his far left base.
Idiot.
US Politics