The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[AZGrizFan]

So you can’t refute the data, so you can only attack the verbiage?

Surely even YOU can see the trend change AFTER 2011. And once again, you want to anoint him for success during a time when literally ANYONE could have had that kind of success. Tell you what: I’ll give him full credit for 10 and 11 if YOU acknowledge there was a definite downward trend AFTER that point. And a positive trend change once Trump took office.

First of all, I don't agree with your premise that the President controls the situation to the extent of saying "that kind of success." Secondly I don't agree with your apparent premise that it's easier to take over when a crisis is going on than it is to take over when the economy has been in recovery for years and everything is humming along.

I can disagree with your approach because it does not consider all the post-Trump data. It ignores the first half of 2019; which is characterized by below average numbers. And in those data two quarters is 20% of the post-Trump data.

Now, I will tell you that I did a preliminary trend analysis using the quarterly data 2012 through 2 quarters of 2019. So far it looks like a downward trend throughout the period that slows down during 2017 through the first half of 2019. Since I did initially find a trend I have to do some other stuff to make sure it holds up. I'd have to get some notes i use to do that out and I don't feel like doing that right now.

If it does hold up it still leaves the question of how important it is at this point that the downward trend slowed if the mean 2012-2016 is not significantly different than that for 2017 through half of 2019. There hasn't been any dramatic surge in creation of manufacturing jobs. In fact if you've been paying attention to reports you know that's been slowing recently. Example at https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1028577666.

Obama took over when there was nowhere to go but up. Worst recession in 75 years. QE1, 2 & 3 surely helped his cause.

Trump took over near (what appeared for all intents and purposes) the tail end of the 7 year expansion....yet, despite NO QE, several rate hikes, and his own stupidity (tariffs, etc) he’s managed to keep and even expand on Obama’s manufacturing numbers. And I can look at the graph YOU posted and see a trend shift. Looking at the quarterly data/annual averages just reinforces that trend change. 2019 isn’t done (or at least the data isn’t out). If it comes out that 3rd & 4th quarters look like 1st and 2nd, then there’s been another trend change. But it doesn’t change the fact that Trump reversed Obama’s downward spiral from 2012-2016. And you can call it what you want, but to ME, 100,000-140,000 MORE manufacturing jobs IS a surge.

[UNI88]

Obama's slow-play doesn't get any clearer than this:





https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/c ... on-economy

Those look pretty consistent with the belief that what's going on under Trump is a continuation of something that started back in 2009 or 2010.

Why is the red line longer than the other lines? Is that relevant in any way?

[CAA Flagship]

Why is the red line longer than the other lines? Is that relevant in any way?

It's the length of economic expansion (growth without recession).

[UNI88]

Why is the red line longer than the other lines? Is that relevant in any way?

It's the length of economic expansion (growth without recession).

I know that Flaggy. The point that John has pointedly ignored is that the current expansion has been longer than others which is significant.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

At some point, JSO’s boss will confront him for wasting so much time Googling non-work-related stuff and can his ass.

[SDHornet]

At some point, JSO’s boss will confront him for wasting so much time Googling non-work-related stuff and can his ass.

Naw, I think he works for the gubmint so he is good. You have to practically kill someone to lose a gubmint job.

[AZGrizFan]

It's the length of economic expansion (growth without recession).

I know that Flaggy. One of The many points that John has pointedly ignored is that the current expansion has been longer than others which is significant.

FIFY

[UNI88]

I know that Flaggy. One of The many points that John has pointedly ignored is that the current expansion has been longer than others which is significant.

FIFY

[Aho Old Guy]

You don't get it? You don't understand averages?

Apparently, you don't ...
Last 36 months: President Obummer = 194,306 jobs per month
First 36 months: President Grifter = 182,916 jobs per month

Would you not expect that if the economy has been adding around 200,000 jobs per month during that period that you would see the total number increase over time?

Of course ... in the last 72 months, Grifter/Obummer has averaged 188,611 jobs per month. Sadly, AZ is pulling #'s out of his butt, making 'generous' assumptions and polishing Neander-Con Knobs.

Since the end of the Bush Recession, jobs (and GDP) have grown consistently for most folks and the labor participation rate has slightly increased. Yippee (rolling eyes).

[AZGrizFan]

You don't get it? You don't understand averages?

Apparently, you don't ...
Last 36 months: President Obummer = 194,306 jobs per month
First 36 months: President Grifter = 182,916 jobs per month

Would you not expect that if the economy has been adding around 200,000 jobs per month during that period that you would see the total number increase over time?

Of course ... in the last 72 months, Grifter/Obummer has averaged 188,611 jobs per month. Sadly, AZ is pulling #'s out of his butt, making 'generous' assumptions and polishing Neander-Con Knobs.

Since the end of the Bush Recession, jobs (and GDP) have grown consistently for most folks and the labor participation rate has slightly increased. Yippee (rolling eyes).

Try and keep up, “Old Guy”. The discussion was specifically about manufacturing jobs. And the numbers I “pulled out of” my butt were from the government website linked by JSO.

So, gigantic swing and a miss....not unexpected from you.

[Ivytalk]

Apparently, you don't ...
Last 36 months: President Obummer = 194,306 jobs per month
First 36 months: President Grifter = 182,916 jobs per month


Of course ... in the last 72 months, Grifter/Obummer has averaged 188,611 jobs per month. Sadly, AZ is pulling #'s out of his butt, making 'generous' assumptions and polishing Neander-Con Knobs.

Since the end of the Bush Recession, jobs (and GDP) have grown consistently for most folks and the labor participation rate has slightly increased. Yippee (rolling eyes).

Try and keep up, “Old Guy”. The discussion was specifically about manufacturing jobs. And the numbers I “pulled out of” my butt were from the government website linked by JSO.

So, gigantic swing and a miss....always to be expected from you.

FIFY

[JohnStOnge]

First of all, I don't agree with your premise that the President controls the situation to the extent of saying "that kind of success." Secondly I don't agree with your apparent premise that it's easier to take over when a crisis is going on than it is to take over when the economy has been in recovery for years and everything is humming along.

I can disagree with your approach because it does not consider all the post-Trump data. It ignores the first half of 2019; which is characterized by below average numbers. And in those data two quarters is 20% of the post-Trump data.

Now, I will tell you that I did a preliminary trend analysis using the quarterly data 2012 through 2 quarters of 2019. So far it looks like a downward trend throughout the period that slows down during 2017 through the first half of 2019. Since I did initially find a trend I have to do some other stuff to make sure it holds up. I'd have to get some notes i use to do that out and I don't feel like doing that right now.

If it does hold up it still leaves the question of how important it is at this point that the downward trend slowed if the mean 2012-2016 is not significantly different than that for 2017 through half of 2019. There hasn't been any dramatic surge in creation of manufacturing jobs. In fact if you've been paying attention to reports you know that's been slowing recently. Example at https://markets.businessinsider.com/new ... 1028577666.

Obama took over when there was nowhere to go but up. Worst recession in 75 years. QE1, 2 & 3 surely helped his cause.

Trump took over near (what appeared for all intents and purposes) the tail end of the 7 year expansion....yet, despite NO QE, several rate hikes, and his own stupidity (tariffs, etc) he’s managed to keep and even expand on Obama’s manufacturing numbers. And I can look at the graph YOU posted and see a trend shift. Looking at the quarterly data/annual averages just reinforces that trend change. 2019 isn’t done (or at least the data isn’t out). If it comes out that 3rd & 4th quarters look like 1st and 2nd, then there’s been another trend change. But it doesn’t change the fact that Trump reversed Obama’s downward spiral from 2012-2016. And you can call it what you want, but to ME, 100,000-140,000 MORE manufacturing jobs IS a surge.

You did not get to see what would happen if Trump would have to have taken over during an actual economic crisis as Obama did. I think the idea that taking over in the midst of a long, slow, economic expansion is more difficult than taking over in the midst of a crisis where people are panicking is ridiculous.

I finished my analysis and, yes, there was a "significant" change in the trend with respect to manufacturing jobs associated with the period beginning with the first full quarter in which Trump was in charge. But then the downward trend resumed. Notably, it continued after the tax cut that was supposed to ramp things up.

[JohnStOnge]

It's the length of economic expansion (growth without recession).

I know that Flaggy. The point that John has pointedly ignored is that the current expansion has been longer than others which is significant.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I haven't ignored that at all. What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

I'm going to refer to a principle in probability/statistics. It's the idea that the fact that something has continued for a long time means what happens from here on out is affected.

Let's say you flipped a coin and got tails five times in a row. The chance that that would happen if you assess it before the fact is only 3%. So now you're going to flip the coin again. The chance before the first flip that you will get 6 tails in a row is 1.5%. But now that you've gotten five in a row, does that mean there's little chance of getting another tails?

The answer is no. The chance that you will get a tails on your next flip is 50% regardless of the fact that you previously got 5 tails in a row.

[JohnStOnge]

Those look pretty consistent with the belief that what's going on under Trump is a continuation of something that started back in 2009 or 2010.

Why is the red line longer than the other lines? Is that relevant in any way?

It is associated with the fact that we are in the longest recovery. That does not mean Trump is the reason for the fact that we are in the longest recovery. Nor does it mean the economy "turned around" during Trump. It did not.

[AZGrizFan]

I know that Flaggy. The point that John has pointedly ignored is that the current expansion has been longer than others which is significant.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I haven't ignored that at all. What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

I'm going to refer to a principle in probability/statistics. It's the idea that the fact that something has continued for a long time means what happens from here on out is affected.

Let's say you flipped a coin and got tails five times in a row. The chance that that would happen if you assess it before the fact is only 3%. So now you're going to flip the coin again. The chance before the first flip that you will get 6 tails in a row is 1.5%. But now that you've gotten five in a row, does that mean there's little chance of getting another tails?

The answer is no. The chance that you will get a tails on your next flip is 50% regardless of the fact that you previously got 5 tails in a row.

You are a weird motherfucker.

[AZGrizFan]

Why is the red line longer than the other lines? Is that relevant in any way?

It is associated with the fact that we are in the longest recovery. That does not mean Trump is the reason for the fact that we are in the longest recovery. Nor does it mean the economy "turned around" during Trump. It did not.

John. NOBODY has said the economy “turned around” during Trump’s presidency. Literally nobody—well, except maybe the president himself. My point (and Flaggy, and HI and anybody else with a brainstem) has been that he’s managed to keep the economy going in spite of factors Obama never had to face. And the economy has set a number of 30, 40, 50 and 60 year records in the process.

You keep arguing against statements that haven’t been made...you’re like Don Quixote battling the imaginary argument.

[CAA Flagship]

I think the idea that taking over in the midst of a long, slow, economic expansion is more difficult than taking over in the midst of a crisis where people are panicking is ridiculous.

[CAA Flagship]

What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

W T F ?

So if Trump is not responsible for it's length, who is?

If you think Obama's economic policy history would have also produced this length of economic expansion, you are sadly mistaken. If you tell me that Obama would have made the proper moves given the change in direction of outside influences that occurred after he left office, I will say that he had 8 years to prove he would but didn't. To get to this point, it took a combination of policy moves and Trump came up with one that worked. All the while, he had one foot on the brake pedal with trade wars.

[AZGrizFan]

What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

W T F ?

So if Trump is not responsible for it's length, who is?

If you think Obama's economic policy history would have also produced this length of economic expansion, you are sadly mistaken. If you tell me that Obama would have made the proper moves given the change in direction of outside influences that occurred after he left office, I will say that he had 8 years to prove he would but didn't. To get to this point, it took a combination of policy moves and Trump came up with one that worked. All the while, he had one foot on the brake pedal with trade wars.

That’s the hilarious part. If he hadn’t worked so hard shooting his own economic growth in the foot he would have gotten his 3% GDP that he bragged about during the election.

[JohnStOnge]

What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

W T F ?

So if Trump is not responsible for it's length, who is?

If you think Obama's economic policy history would have also produced this length of economic expansion, you are sadly mistaken. If you tell me that Obama would have made the proper moves given the change in direction of outside influences that occurred after he left office, I will say that he had 8 years to prove he would but didn't. To get to this point, it took a combination of policy moves and Trump came up with one that worked. All the while, he had one foot on the brake pedal with trade wars.

You guys have no evidence at all that we were at the "tail end" of an economic recovery. Neither you nor I know what would've happened if Obama would've had another four years or if Hillary had gotten elected. What we do know is that we were in an economic recovery.

Also, we were not in a downward spiral. Like the thing with the manufacturing jobs. Yes, if you zoom in you can see a spike in quarterly manufacturing jobs halfway through 2009 through mid 2010 followed by a declining trend then an uptick in 2017 followed by another declining trend. And if you use a bar graph where the bottom is 385 thousand like the first one below (add 385 to the x axis number to get the total number represented) you can readily see it.

But if you zoom out to see the forest with the scale set to include the entire number each quarter there is no dramatic change evident. It just looks like a pretty steady situation with consistent production of manufacturing jobs somewhere around the 400 thousand level. There were no big changes, in terms of practical significance, during the period. Not to any reasonable person viewing the data anyway.

Obama quarters indicated by "O" and Trump quarters indicated by "T." "X" is January 2017.

Zooming in on the tops of the bars:


The broad perspective (looking at the forest):

[JohnStOnge]

I haven't ignored that at all. What I've said is that there is no basis for concluding that Trump is responsible for it's length.

I'm going to refer to a principle in probability/statistics. It's the idea that the fact that something has continued for a long time means what happens from here on out is affected.

Let's say you flipped a coin and got tails five times in a row. The chance that that would happen if you assess it before the fact is only 3%. So now you're going to flip the coin again. The chance before the first flip that you will get 6 tails in a row is 1.5%. But now that you've gotten five in a row, does that mean there's little chance of getting another tails?

The answer is no. The chance that you will get a tails on your next flip is 50% regardless of the fact that you previously got 5 tails in a row.

You are a weird motherfucker.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that it's not valid to day that an "run" is "due" to end based simply on the fact that the current "run" is long by historical standards. You have absolutely no basis for thinking we were at the tail end of an expansion when Trump took office and that Trump caused it to continue.

[Pwns]

You are a weird motherfucker.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that it's not valid to day that an "run" is "due" to end based simply on the fact that the current "run" is long by historical standards. You have absolutely no basis for thinking we were at the tail end of an expansion when Trump took office and that Trump caused it to continue.

Longest period of sustained growth in US history, John. It was expected because it was typical.

I'm fine with not giving Trump credit for it because I think the notion that the president is completely in the driver's seat of the economy is childish, but if you could go back to 2016 and show the quarterly growth numbers through the end of 2019 there's no way you and other like-minded people would predict that Trump had won.

[HI54UNI]

I think Trump does deserve credit for sustaining the growth. The Fed was on a path to screw it up. Trump called them out and the Fed backed down.

[JohnStOnge]

I think Trump does deserve credit for sustaining the growth. The Fed was on a path to screw it up. Trump called them out and the Fed backed down.

You seriously think that Trump knows more about managing the macro-economy than the people on the Federal Reserve Board do?

[JohnStOnge]

What I'm trying to get across to you is that it's not valid to day that an "run" is "due" to end based simply on the fact that the current "run" is long by historical standards. You have absolutely no basis for thinking we were at the tail end of an expansion when Trump took office and that Trump caused it to continue.

Longest period of sustained growth in US history, John. It was expected because it was typical.

I'm fine with not giving Trump credit for it because I think the notion that the president is completely in the driver's seat of the economy is childish, but if you could go back to 2016 and show the quarterly growth numbers through the end of 2019 there's no way you and other like-minded people would predict that Trump had won.

I don't know exactly what you're saying but I think I've seen you express enough knowledge of probability and statistics to know what I am talking about. What I think I am seeing is people thinking the recovery should have ended just because it was a long recovery.

Say you are a gambler. You look at the probability of rolling a die 100 times and never having it land on 1. Before the first roll it's 1 chance in 83 million. So let's say someone has rolled the die 99 times and never gotten a 1. Do you think it's pretty much a lock that it's going to be 1 on the 100th roll because, before things started, there was an 83 million to one chance of getting at least one 1 in 100 rolls? No, you don't. Because you know that regardless of what happened in the first 99 rolls there is 1 chance in 6 that the next roll will be a 1.

And I think the idea of thinking that just because a recovery has gone on for 7 years means the chances are high that it's going to end during the next 1 or 2 years is a similar scenario. I don't know of any reason to suggest that a recession is more likely to occur next year by virtue of the duration of the recovery. Sure, we can say beforehand based on history that it's not likely that we will have a recovery lasting more than X months or X years. But once we get to X months or X years that does not mean the likelihood of recession in the next X +1 or X+ 2 years is now high.