The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[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.

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

That's not what I said.

But from this thread it's pretty obvious that you know more than the people on the Fed.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

Characterizing Fed actions as “backing down” is troubling, at best. If you really think the Fed “backed down” because of anything Trump said and not because economic conditions warranted a little easing on the rate front then we have significantly larger problems in this country.

Remember, there was a LOT of talk in July/August about a looming recession. I believe the Fed acted appropriately and extended the expansion run by easing rates 3 times over the remainder of the year. if they’d “backed down” to Trump they’d have reduced rates significantly more....they did exactly what was needed, and not what Trump wanted.

[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.

Characterizing Fed actions as “backing down” is troubling, at best. If you really think the Fed “backed down” because of anything Trump said and not because economic conditions warranted a little easing on the rate front then we have significantly larger problems in this country.

Remember, there was a LOT of talk in July/August about a looming recession. I believe the Fed acted appropriately and extended the expansion run by easing rates 3 times over the remainder of the year. if they’d “backed down” to Trump they’d have reduced rates significantly more....they did exactly what was needed, and not what Trump wanted.

The warning signs were there but they continued to raise rates and the Fed was forecasting another 2 or 3 increases in 2019. They would've kept raising rates just like Greenspan did.

[UNI88]

They're different. Rolling a dice is not impacted by what was rolled before. The economy is impacted by what has already happened (conditions, rates, elections, perceptions, etc.).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Characterizing Fed actions as “backing down” is troubling, at best. If you really think the Fed “backed down” because of anything Trump said and not because economic conditions warranted a little easing on the rate front then we have significantly larger problems in this country.

Remember, there was a LOT of talk in July/August about a looming recession. I believe the Fed acted appropriately and extended the expansion run by easing rates 3 times over the remainder of the year. if they’d “backed down” to Trump they’d have reduced rates significantly more....they did exactly what was needed, and not what Trump wanted.

The warning signs were there but they continued to raise rates and the Fed was forecasting another 2 or 3 increases in 2019. They would've kept raising rates just like Greenspan did.

And you believe they changed course because of the president’s bitching?

[CAA Flagship]

Characterizing Fed actions as “backing down” is troubling, at best. If you really think the Fed “backed down” because of anything Trump said and not because economic conditions warranted a little easing on the rate front then we have significantly larger problems in this country.

Remember, there was a LOT of talk in July/August about a looming recession. I believe the Fed acted appropriately and extended the expansion run by easing rates 3 times over the remainder of the year. if they’d “backed down” to Trump they’d have reduced rates significantly more....they did exactly what was needed, and not what Trump wanted.

The warning signs were there but they continued to raise rates and the Fed was forecasting another 2 or 3 increases in 2019. They would've kept raising rates just like Greenspan did.

The last rate hike of 2018 was a problem, coupled with language by the Fed to be on auto-pilot. The market performance in the last quarter of 2018 was influenced by the smoke signals of the Fed. In addition, there were fears on the unknown impact of tariffs at that point in time. Obviously, the tariffs proved to be minor, at least in the short term. Powell struggled with his communication skills in 2018.

[AZGrizFan]

They're different. Rolling a dice is not impacted by what was rolled before. The economy is impacted by what has already happened (conditions, rates, elections, perceptions, etc.).

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Doesn't matter. In John's mind, they're the exact same.

[AZGrizFan]

The warning signs were there but they continued to raise rates and the Fed was forecasting another 2 or 3 increases in 2019. They would've kept raising rates just like Greenspan did.

The last rate hike of 2018 was a problem, coupled with language by the Fed to be on auto-pilot. The market performance in the last quarter of 2018 was influenced by the smoke signals of the Fed. In addition, there were fears on the unknown impact of tariffs at that point in time. Obviously, the tariffs proved to be minor, at least in the short term. Powell struggled with his communication skills in 2018.

Agreed. Neither Trump nor the market liked it. Fed's forward looking transparency WRT rate moves boxed them into a corner. Powell has done a much better job since then...

[JohnStOnge]

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

That's not what I said.

But from this thread it's pretty obvious that you know more than the people on the Fed.

This is what you wrote:

The Fed was on a path to screw it up. Trump called them out and the Fed backed down.

I think it's reasonable to interpret that as saying Trump knows better than the Fed does.

I would not attempt to try to "manage" the economy to keep it going as the Fed does. But I am indeed qualified to tell whether or not, for example, the data provide sufficient evidence that something happened in association with Trump taking office that resulted in a change in the trend associated with the unemployment rate.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is an interesting article on the question of whether economic expansions necessarily die of old age:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... on-due-end

Now that expansions don’t seem to be dying of old age anymore, gauging the health of the economy through these other measures is much more useful than simply expecting a recession to occur because we’re due for one.

Having said that there are two things in the article surprise me. One is that the "hazard function" for the pre-WWII period showed a very definite association such that the likelihood of recession increased with the length of the recovery. The other is that there is a slight increase in the probability over time in the post war period as well.

Still, the fact that the economy has been in recovery for a long time does not mean there is a high probability that it will go into recession in the near future.

[AZGrizFan]

Here is an interesting article on the question of whether economic expansions necessarily die of old age:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... on-due-end

Now that expansions don’t seem to be dying of old age anymore, gauging the health of the economy through these other measures is much more useful than simply expecting a recession to occur because we’re due for one.

Having said that there are two things in the article surprise me. One is that the "hazard function" for the pre-WWII period showed a very definite association such that the likelihood of recession increased with the length of the recovery. The other is that there is a slight increase in the probability over time in the post war period as well.

Still, the fact that the economy has been in recovery for a long time does not mean there is a high probability that it will go into recession in the near future.

It’s called “the business cycle”. something you obviously aren’t versed on.

[Gil Dobie]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

[89Hen]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

Triggered

And I didn't know Cheech Marin was on the 80 Olympic team.

[mainejeff]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

I think that it is safe to say that white males of a certain age/generation are going to support Trump in droves. I don't see why everyone is so triggered over it.

[mainejeff]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

Triggered

And I didn't know Cheech Marin was on the 80 Olympic team.

Everyone gets "leathery" and darker skin with age. I mean look at Trump in that same picture.....he used to be lily white!

[Ivytalk]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

Eruzione hasn’t aged very well, either.

[mainejeff]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

Eruzione hasn’t aged very well, either.

He looks like a Venezuelan dictator.

[UNI88]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

It looks like Trump is about to pull a Joe Biden grope on him.

[Ibanez]

1980 Hockey team seen with Keep America Great during the Trump rally. Didn't go over very well.

link

It looks like Trump is about to pull a Joe Biden grope on him.

His lips are pursed....

[JohnStOnge]

Here is an interesting article on the question of whether economic expansions necessarily die of old age:

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-econo ... on-due-end



Having said that there are two things in the article surprise me. One is that the "hazard function" for the pre-WWII period showed a very definite association such that the likelihood of recession increased with the length of the recovery. The other is that there is a slight increase in the probability over time in the post war period as well.

Still, the fact that the economy has been in recovery for a long time does not mean there is a high probability that it will go into recession in the near future.

It’s called “the business cycle”. something you obviously aren’t versed on.

If you read the article I linked through the first paragraph you will see that Janet Yellen shares my view. She is probably well versed on the business cycle. Also note that the author of the article wrote:

...expansions don’t seem to be dying of old age anymore...

I am surprised there is any effect at all. But when I'm saying "effect" I'm talking about their hazard function estimating that recession probability is 4% when the expansion is 10 years old. That does NOT suggest that we should have been expecting a recession about the time Donald Trump took office. Also, if the slope continues as it was for that analysis we'd say that, just based on the length of the recovery without looking at other factors, the recession chance would but about 5% right now.

So, no, the content of that article does not support the idea that we should have expected a recession shortly after 2016 or even by now just by virtue of the length of the recovery.

[AZGrizFan]

It’s called “the business cycle”. something you obviously aren’t versed on.

If you read the article I linked through the first paragraph you will see that Janet Yellen shares my view. She is probably well versed on the business cycle. Also note that the author of the article wrote:

...expansions don’t seem to be dying of old age anymore...

I am surprised there is any effect at all. But when I'm saying "effect" I'm talking about their hazard function estimating that recession probability is 4% when the expansion is 10 years old. That does NOT suggest that we should have been expecting a recession about the time Donald Trump took office. Also, if the slope continues as it was for that analysis we'd say that, just based on the length of the recovery without looking at other factors, the recession chance would but about 5% right now.

So, no, the content of that article does not support the idea that we should have expected a recession shortly after 2016 or even by now just by virtue of the length of the recovery.

And again, that is directly related to several actions by both Trump’s administration and the Fed. There’s a reason it’s the longest EVER, John. It’s not just fucking serendipity.

[Aho Old Guy]

It must be difficult living in your own Private Idaho.

And again, that is directly related to several actions by both Trump’s administration and the Fed. There’s a reason it’s the longest EVER, John. It’s not just fucking serendipity.

Not only is it "fucking serendipity" you guys are dumb as rocks.

Welcome to QE-4, Bubba. It's August of 2007, Part Deux. Thanks, Trumpers! Those P/Es are something else, huh?

Bring back 1980 Paul Volcker to normalize the Fed balance sheet and wring-out 50%+ of the excess liquidity. You are the poster child of the 3rd Coming of "Irrational Exuberance". Good luck with that.

[GannonFan]

It must be difficult living in your own Private Idaho.

And again, that is directly related to several actions by both Trump’s administration and the Fed. There’s a reason it’s the longest EVER, John. It’s not just fucking serendipity.

Not only is it "fucking serendipity" you guys are dumb as rocks.

Welcome to QE-4, Bubba. It's August of 2007, Part Deux. Thanks, Trumpers! Those P/Es are something else, huh?

Bring back 1980 Paul Volcker to normalize the Fed balance sheet and wring-out 50%+ of the excess liquidity. You are the poster child of the 3rd Coming of "Irrational Exuberance". Good luck with that.

So you're saying it's time to buy precious metals, load up on the ammunition, and start moving into the bunker?

[CAA Flagship]

It must be difficult living in your own Private Idaho.



Not only is it "fucking serendipity" you guys are dumb as rocks.

Welcome to QE-4, Bubba. It's August of 2007, Part Deux. Thanks, Trumpers! Those P/Es are something else, huh?

Bring back 1980 Paul Volcker to normalize the Fed balance sheet and wring-out 50%+ of the excess liquidity. You are the poster child of the 3rd Coming of "Irrational Exuberance". Good luck with that.

So you're saying it's time to buy precious metals, load up on the ammunition, and start moving into the bunker?

Don't forget beer.

[AZGrizFan]

It must be difficult living in your own Private Idaho.

And again, that is directly related to several actions by both Trump’s administration and the Fed. There’s a reason it’s the longest EVER, John. It’s not just fucking serendipity.

Not only is it "fucking serendipity" you guys are dumb as rocks.

Welcome to QE-4, Bubba. It's August of 2007, Part Deux. Thanks, Trumpers! Those P/Es are something else, huh?

Bring back 1980 Paul Volcker to normalize the Fed balance sheet and wring-out 50%+ of the excess liquidity. You are the poster child of the 3rd Coming of "Irrational Exuberance". Good luck with that.

You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of what QE means, the impact it has on the economy, and the impact it has on pricing when it's unwound. Go back to the kiddie pool, old guy. The adults are talking.