Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Growth Is Slower Than Obama’s Last 3 Years
Chuck JonesSenior Contributor

Over the 12 quarters Trump has been President only four of them have had GDP growth over 3% and six of the quarter’s growth was 2.3% or lower. And for the past three quarters GDP growth has been 2.0%, 2.1% and 2.1%, respectively. This is a far cry from Trump’s claim that the economy could growth 4%, 5% or maybe even 6%.

Under Trump business investment has turned negative the past three quarters and is negative or essentially flat when the impact of inventory changes are taken into account. Pretty much the only segment of business investment that has been positive the past three quarters is Intellectual Property Products.

Even consumer spending slowed substantially in the December quarter. It went from a 4.6% growth rate in the June quarter to 3.2% in September to 1.8% in the last three months

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones ... 1c3ddc4fed

The remarkable thing is there has been sustained growth when the pendulum night normally be swinging the other way. You could've elected a labrador retriever president in 2008 and the economy would've gone up. I guess you could say the same for 2016, too.

Pwns wrote:The remarkable thing is there has been sustained growth when the pendulum night normally be swinging the other way. You could've elected a labrador retriever president in 2008 and the economy would've gone up. I guess you could say the same for 2016, too.

Very true.

Comparing anything in Obama’s 8 years to now is like comparing apples and cumquats. The two situations couldn’t be more different. So JSO can suck it, even though he’s shown beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t understand those intricacies.

AZGrizFan wrote:Comparing anything in Obama’s 8 years to now is like comparing apples and cumquats. The two situations couldn’t be more different. So JSO can suck it, even though he’s shown beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t understand those intricacies.

It’s an imperfect comparison but which administration’s 7th year numbers would you like to compare it to? Trump can’t possibly be the only one who faced these type of headwinds?

I also find this point interesting:

There are two major segments (inventories and trade) that can swing widely in any quarter, which can either add or subtract substantially from the GDP calculation. A third, government’s contribution, doesn’t tend to have the same multiplier effect on the economy as consumer or business spending as military goods don’t increase productivity.

One metric to look at is the contribution from Personal Consumption Expenditures (or consumer spending) plus Gross Private Domestic Investment (or business investment) minus the Change in Private Inventories (since they can swing back and forth quarter to quarter), as I believe it gives a better indication of the underlying economy.

By making these changes it increases the growth rate in the June quarter, slightly hurts it for the September quarter and substantially decreases it for the December quarter

Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

JSO’s overall take wasn’t a denial of Trump’s initial performance it was a critique of the exuberance around it which is clearly based more on politics than economics. That performance at least right now is trending down.

kalm wrote:Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

Don't forget the slow growth is paired with a ballooning deficit and national debt.

A wise government hedges against the risks of debt accumulation, not necessarily by slashing deficits in the short run, but by sticking to a long-term fiscal trajectory that includes plenty of margin for error. We were not quite on such a path as of January 2017, though the annual deficit had fallen by about two-thirds under President Barack Obama. And then the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress took office. Now we’re seriously off track, due in large part to tax cuts skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy and businesses that were enacted under President Trump — for the sake of what has turned out to be only a modest short-term boost to economic growth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

Don't forget the slow growth is paired with a ballooning deficit and national debt.

A wise government hedges against the risks of debt accumulation, not necessarily by slashing deficits in the short run, but by sticking to a long-term fiscal trajectory that includes plenty of margin for error. We were not quite on such a path as of January 2017, though the annual deficit had fallen by about two-thirds under President Barack Obama. And then the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress took office. Now we’re seriously off track, due in large part to tax cuts skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy and businesses that were enacted under President Trump — for the sake of what has turned out to be only a modest short-term boost to economic growth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Ha! It's like I wrote it myself!

Suck it (again), supply siders!

(These guys never learn )

AZGrizFan wrote:Comparing anything in Obama’s 8 years to now is like comparing apples and cumquats. The two situations couldn’t be more different. So JSO can suck it, even though he’s shown beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t understand those intricacies.

*kumquat


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:Comparing anything in Obama’s 8 years to now is like comparing apples and cumquats. The two situations couldn’t be more different. So JSO can suck it, even though he’s shown beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t understand those intricacies.

One can talk about "intricacies" for sure. Like I could argue that a comparison should not involve trying to compare the 8 years of the Obama administration to the first three years of Trump because there was a big transition from recession to growth cycle during Obama's first term. It would be better to do something like the author of the piece did: Compare the first three years of Trump to the last three years of Obama.

BTW when Obama got elected, before he took office, I posted that he was in good shape because he took over when things were really bad and they would almost certainly turn during the next Presidential term no matter who was President.

But the bottom line is that there has not been a substantial change in the economy since Trump got elected and/or took office. It's been in what a number of economists have called a slow growth recovery for about 10 1/2 years now. Annual GDP has been jiggling along within a certain range of variation but has not reached 3%. The rate of job growth has been about the same since mid 2010. People can say "well things WOULD have gotten WORSE if Trump hadn't been elected" based in part on the fact that it's the longest recovery ever. I can't say that's wrong. But the people who say it can't really say it's right either.

The graphs below show annual GDP 1990 through 2019 and monthly job creation 2009 through 2013. The GDP graph shows 1) there is no clearly identifiable change associated with Trump taking office and 2) we obviously haven't been having the strongest growth ever as Trump likes to imply. The job growth chart shows that we've been at the same basic level in terms of job creation since mid 2010. Again: One can argue that it WOULD have changed for the worse without Trump. Fine. But the fact is the claims that things have gotten markedly better and we're in the best economy ever are total bullshit.

GDP Growth


Monthly Job Growth

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Comparing anything in Obama’s 8 years to now is like comparing apples and cumquats. The two situations couldn’t be more different. So JSO can suck it, even though he’s shown beyond a shadow of a doubt he doesn’t understand those intricacies.

It’s an imperfect comparison but which administration’s 7th year numbers would you like to compare it to? Trump can’t possibly be the only one who faced these type of headwinds?

I also find this point interesting:

There are two major segments (inventories and trade) that can swing widely in any quarter, which can either add or subtract substantially from the GDP calculation. A third, government’s contribution, doesn’t tend to have the same multiplier effect on the economy as consumer or business spending as military goods don’t increase productivity.

One metric to look at is the contribution from Personal Consumption Expenditures (or consumer spending) plus Gross Private Domestic Investment (or business investment) minus the Change in Private Inventories (since they can swing back and forth quarter to quarter), as I believe it gives a better indication of the underlying economy.

By making these changes it increases the growth rate in the June quarter, slightly hurts it for the September quarter and substantially decreases it for the December quarter

Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

JSO’s overall take wasn’t a denial of Trump’s initial performance it was a critique of the exuberance around it which is clearly based more on politics than economics. That performance at least right now is trending down.

Nope. Guess again, Nostradumbass.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
It’s an imperfect comparison but which administration’s 7th year numbers would you like to compare it to? Trump can’t possibly be the only one who faced these type of headwinds?

I also find this point interesting:



Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

JSO’s overall take wasn’t a denial of Trump’s initial performance it was a critique of the exuberance around it which is clearly based more on politics than economics. That performance at least right now is trending down.

Nope. Guess again, Nostradumbass.

Oooooh....truth hurts, eh?

The 49'ers did not score a touchdown against the Redskins this year. They scored a mere 9 points against the team that has the #2 pick in the upcoming NFL Draft.

CAA Flagship wrote:The 49'ers did not score a touchdown against the Redskins this year. They scored a mere 9 points against the team that has the #2 pick in the upcoming NFL Draft.

Sorry...that’s a little too nuanced.

∞∞∞ wrote:

kalm wrote:Tax cuts and military spending are short term boosts compared to other forms of government inputs like subsidized education and infrastructure.

Don't forget the slow growth is paired with a ballooning deficit and national debt.

A wise government hedges against the risks of debt accumulation, not necessarily by slashing deficits in the short run, but by sticking to a long-term fiscal trajectory that includes plenty of margin for error. We were not quite on such a path as of January 2017, though the annual deficit had fallen by about two-thirds under President Barack Obama. And then the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress took office. Now we’re seriously off track, due in large part to tax cuts skewed heavily in favor of the wealthy and businesses that were enacted under President Trump — for the sake of what has turned out to be only a modest short-term boost to economic growth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

It's so cute when you act like you care about the deficit and national debt.

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:The 49'ers did not score a touchdown against the Redskins this year. They scored a mere 9 points against the team that has the #2 pick in the upcoming NFL Draft.

Sorry...that’s a little too nuanced.

HI54UNI wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote: Don't forget the slow growth is paired with a ballooning deficit and national debt.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

It's so cute when you act like you care about the deficit and national debt.

As cute as when conks used to say ‘government shoukd be run like a business’?

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nope. Guess again, Nostradumbass.

Oooooh....truth hurts, eh?

Not a shred of truth there. The “exuberance” isn’t due to politics. It’s due to the fact that what Trump has accomplished makes Obama’s accomplishments pale in comparison because of the underlying economic factors at play. Something JSO either refuses to acknowledge or fails to understand.

Which of those camps do you fall in?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oooooh....truth hurts, eh?

Not a shred of truth there. The “exuberance” isn’t due to politics. It’s due to the fact that what Trump has accomplished makes Obama’s accomplishments pale in comparison because of the underlying economic factors at play. Something JSO either refuses to acknowledge or fails to understand.

Which of those camps do you fall in?

You were replying to my quote, there Slappy. Why don’t you take a true crack at the rest of what I wrote first and then I’ll answer your question.

But here’s a hint. The numbers aren’t supporting your argument.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Not a shred of truth there. The “exuberance” isn’t due to politics. It’s due to the fact that what Trump has accomplished makes Obama’s accomplishments pale in comparison because of the underlying economic factors at play. Something JSO either refuses to acknowledge or fails to understand.

Which of those camps do you fall in?

You were replying to my quote, there Slappy. Why don’t you take a true crack at the rest of what I wrote first and then I’ll answer your question.

But here’s a hint. The numbers aren’t supporting your argument.

Which part, specifically? Because I believe the numbers DO support my argument.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
It's so cute when you act like you care about the deficit and national debt.

As cute as when conks used to say ‘government shoukd be run like a business’?

Trump's proving that to be true.

kalm wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
It's so cute when you act like you care about the deficit and national debt.

As cute as when conks used to say ‘government shoukd be run like a business’?

ba-ZINGA

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:
As cute as when conks used to say ‘government shoukd be run like a business’?

Trump's proving that to be true.

Do successful businesses routinely run huge deficits and never stay within their budgets?

Ibanez wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Trump's proving that to be true.

Do successful businesses routinely run huge deficits and never pass budgets?

Accuracy.

Ivytalk wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Do successful businesses routinely run huge deficits and never pass budgets?

Accuracy.

Ah. Thanks for the assist, Ivy.

houndawg wrote:

kalm wrote:
As cute as when conks used to say ‘government shoukd be run like a business’?

ba-ZINGA

Well one thing has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Attorneys don't know WTF they're doing when running the country.