-
-
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.
-
Kirwan said:
Either way, Trump was supposed to be a disaster and he clearly hasn’t been.
I think if the trade war with China does turn out to be 'quick and easy to win', then this term will finish as one of the historic economic ones. If not, then it might end up more average.
I haven't seen much on here about the trade war, and not much in the main headlines - buried by the noise I suppose. China will take a much longer term view of what's going on so it won't be "quick", but beyond that there seem to be a lot of varying theories/guesses out there...
-
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
-
Snowy said:
Baron Silas Greenback said:
Snowy said:
The USA has had the highest GDP of all countries for my entire lifetime, and some before that I would think.Trump didn't do that, large numbers of smart people did for a long time.
I do agree that he is doing alright though and the doomsayers were wrong. Still find it hard to warm to him in any way.
Can you name other presidents that have had over 4% GDP growth?
Yep. Truman, Kennedy and Johnson (thanks Don).
So fuck all.... thanks me.
-
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.
Free trade is a meaningless words. China and the EU dont engage in free trade. They are massively protectionist or predatory.
Trump is fighting for free trade. China and the EU are fighting for the status quo, which is them ripping everyone else off by protectionist and predatory practices. -
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
US Politics