[Agent Steel]

Ok I'm inclined to believe that despite Trump's many flaws, it's hard to argue the fact that he has improved the economy a lot.

Due to my own laziness I don't feel like pulling up the stats and figures which relate to this but I ask someone else to do it for me

Does anyone disagree or dispute this? If so I'm interested to hear why. And if you do agree please share the reasons for others to read, thanks

[Truth To Power]

Ok I'm inclined to believe that despite Trump's many flaws, it's hard to argue the fact that he has improved the economy a lot.

Does anyone disagree or dispute this? If so I'm interested to hear why. And if you do agree please share the reasons for others to read, thanks

There is an obvious reason to disagree: it is a blatant post hoc fallacy. History shows that the economy improves when the money supply increases, which happens when debt increases, especially private debt. Both public and private debt have increased rapidly under Trump. It's no great trick to have a good time when you are running up your credit card balance.

[Rancid]

Better now than before Trump? I would say probably yes.

However, how do you define better economy? Corporate profits are certainly better. Personal wages are still flat (though, this has been true for 40 years). Unemployment is very low, so that's good.

That said, I think we'd largely be in the same place economically if Trump weren't president.

[One Degree]

Presidents improve the economy by renewing people’s confidence. That is the entire purpose for MAGA. I agree with @Rancid ‘s assessment but not many presidents have been capable of this. Trump deserves credit for any improvement. It would be worse without him.

[Baff]

I think we'd largely be in the same place economically if Trump weren't president.

I think you wouldn't.
Trump offers something Obama never did.

Confidence.

He talks of MAGA and winning.
He has made billions.

Obama talks of managed decline and never ever growing more than 2%.

It's is optimist vs pessimist, one is selling a future in which I win and the other is selling a future in which I lose.

I can invest in one and not the other.

So jobs are up.
Minority jobs are wildly up.
Pay is up a smidge.
Taxes are down.
Tax take is up.
Investment is up.
Consumer confidence is up.
Stock market is up.
GDP is up.

Just about every possible economic indicator is up.

Only the deficit is doing badly.

[Rancid]

I think you wouldn't.
Trump offers something Obama never did.

Confidence.

He talks of MAGA and winning.
He has made billions.

Obama talks of managed decline and never ever growing more than 2%.

It's is optimist vs pessimist, one is selling a future in which I win and the other is selling a future in which I lose.

I can invest in one and not the other.

So jobs are up.
Minority jobs are wildly up.
Pay is up a smidge.
Taxes are down.
Tax take is up.
Investment is up.
Consumer confidence is up.
Stock market is up.
GDP is up.

Just about every possible economic indicator is up.

Only the deficit is doing badly.

I don't buy it entirely. Trump is basically talking of doing much the same stuff Obama was doing (Updated NAFTA by calling it USMCA, and wants to do more trade deals in Asia (basically TPP)). Let's not forget that we were pulled out of the great recession during Obama's terms. To say Obama was horrible at managing the economy is silly.

So yes, if you talk about who was better at putting up a big dog and pony show. It's Trump. Ultimately, I think things would be much the same even if he weren't president.

The one good thing Trump has done is pull in his supporters into agreeing that NAFTA is a good thing. All it took was Trump basically renaming it to USMCA. This for sure, is something no democrat could have done, just on virtue that they are democrats.

[Baff]

And much of what a president does has no effect at all. They don't make anything in the White House.
And most of Trumps policies that will do good stuff, in my opinion, won't do so in the immediate terms. (Bringing back industry, tariff wars etc).

So that just leaves one explanation that fits the boom.
Confidence.

Obama's term came after a massive downturn.
All the supply remained in the economy.
All the demand remained in the economy.

Bounce back should have been very fast.
Mine was.


I put it to you that it stagnated under Obama and Trump has got that bounce back.
And it's all just confidence. Trump is saying and doing the right things for a healthy economic future. Obama didn't say them and didn't do them.

This is my supposition.

Will the plays Trump has made come off, the market seems to think so.
I think this is the most credible president America has ever had economically. He's very, very strong in this regard. Consider his campaign budget vs the losers.

[jimjam]

According to a 2016 poll conducted by the Harvard Institute of Politics, only 42 percent of Americans between the age of 18 and 29 said they support capitalism (the gender breakdown: 49 percent of men and 35 percent of women). Fifty-one percent said they opposed it, and when asked if they thought of themselves as capitalists, 67 percent of men and 83 percent of women said no.

[One Degree]

I would consider that amazing support for pure capitalism. This is suppose to be respected polling? I can’t imagine seeing that poll on Pofo without ‘regulated capitalism’ being an option.

[pugsville]

The Effect of presidential/Congressional decisions on the economy is generally far far from instant. You want to look back after a decade.

Trump is 2 years in, most of what is happening was shaped by Obama. (and congress at the time)

And Most of what happening is not the direct result of Government decisions any way.

Why do people want simple instant answers almost all the time?

[Rancid]

Why do people want simple instant answers almost all the time?

Most people don't understand this. They are dumb. Also, some people use this ignorance from the general public and promote it for personal gain.

[Heisenberg]

When you apply the largest fiscal stimulus since World War Two to an already growing economy, it isn't rocket science that it will grow more in the short term. That's kind of the point of huge levels of deficit spending.

The question is whether this is sensible long-term policy. I would suggest that it isn't.

I must also confess that I am amused that the noisy spending hawks of the last decade are nowhere to be found now that the Federal budget deficit is on its way to $1trn.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You can't cut taxes without cutting spending and the Republicans are deathly afraid of cutting spending prior to the midterms because it would entail cutting benefits. They are already likely to be crucified over the very suggestion of reforming social security. Fact is, an elected body cannot help but act in a fiscally irresponsible manner because austerity isn't popular on the campaign trail, even if its needed.

And to be fair, the tea party types in the Republican party were split apart by Trump's nomination and represent a radical and therefore ineffective wing of the Republican majority in Congress. So its not like they could do anything about the deficit anyway.

Trump stated from the time that he campaigned that he would not touch social security, or medicare, etc. So he has basically planted his flag on the hill of "not cutting spending on popular welfare-state programs" while "cutting taxes for the middle and upper classes" which amounts to the government; "earning less from taxes" while also "spending the same on programs."

BUT, that is exactly the kind of bad math that sells to the "bread and circus" american populace since the Democrat platform of "raising taxes" isn't popular to anyone even if it makes more sense with a welfare state than the Republican plan.

Ultimately, if you want to drop taxes you have to cut welfare; otherwise, the deficit will rise, but no one has the balls to do that so we are stuck with a deficit. Likewise, lets not kid ourselves, even if the Democrats were in control, they still would never raise taxes "so much" as to meaningfully reduce or eliminate the deficit. Why? Because if they did what they needed to do tax-wise without cutting current spending they would be given the guillotine if they didn't sink the economy first. Thus, they may stop the bleeding with raising taxes, but balancing the budget without a cut to spending would destroy manufacturing and stock numbers (as corporations and businesses would be hit hardest by progressive taxes); and the middle-class with less jobs and less income would likely get hit with some taxes as well just to add salt to the wounds of their suffering.

Fact is, representative government and fiscal responsibility mix about as well as oil and water. After all, if you are not personally liable for your spending as you only "represent" the public, then you have no vested interest in balancing the budget when doing so would cause you to lose your job by being elected out of office.

Indeed, this is all very predictable. Its almost a natural law.

[One Degree]

Politicians and the deficit remind me of gambling for ious as a 12 year old. It is scary if you are down $12, so you raise the stakes to thousands. If your losses are big enough, no one really takes them seriously.
I think that is what happened with our politicians.

[pugsville]

Fact is, representative government and fiscal responsibility mix about as well as oil and water. After all, if you are not personally liable for your spending as you only "represent" the public, then you have no vested interest in balancing the budget when doing so would cause you to lose your job by being elected out of office.

The History of authoritarian Governments and Monarchies seems no different.

I don't see them as being particularly more responsible. And indeed perhaps less so.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The History of authoritarian Governments and Monarchies seems no different.

There is no comparison between pre WWI monarchies and post WWI representative governments regarding deficit spending and national debt. I don't know where you get this idea of yours. We have not seen such deficits and national debts in the history of the world as we have seen in our lifetimes in primarily representative governments.

Praxeological considerations more or less seal the matter in any event anyway; human beings act in regards to incentive and disincentive. A person who is personally liable for their own capital value is less likely to deliberately act to damage that capital value, nor are they likely to unequivocally seek to raise incomes at the expense of capital value.

Thus, we could predict, given human nature, that people that don't "own" something are less likely to seek an increase of that thing's value if there is no other incentive to do so.

Thus, without any historical analysis whatsoever, we could predict that a representative government is likely to increase deficit spending, currency debasement, debt, and other fiscally irresponsible practices as the representatives are not personally at risk financially, in fact, they are incentivized to do these sorts of things in order to "buy" voters.

Lets think of this by way of analogy.

Is a person more likely to care for their own home that they intend to resell at a profit, or an apartment with no security deposit that they are staying in only temporarily?

You already know the answer to this.

Thus, we can see why a temporary representative with no liability is less likely to invest in the capital value of the nation than someone who was the private retainer of such like a monarch.

Similarly, if each representative in Congress had to leverage their own personal property and credit rating every time they voted on government spending, do you really think they would vote the way they do currently?

Don't be silly.



NOTE: I am not necessarily defending monarchies per se, and I am definitely not defending totalitarian dictatorships, but I am critiquing the social contract and especially the public ownership of government/nation via temporarily elected representatives whose entire purpose is to bribe people with money that doesn't belong to them in exchange for terms of power. The very concept lends itself to bad fiscal policy.

[pugsville]

There is no comparison between pre WWI monarchies and post WWI representative governments regarding deficit spending and national debt. I don't know where you get this idea of yours. We have not seen such deficits and national debts in the history of the world as we have seen in our lifetimes in primarily representative governments.

Praxeological considerations more or less seal the matter in any event anyway; human beings act in regards to incentive and disincentive. A person who is personally liable for their own capital value is less likely to deliberately act to damage that capital value, nor are they likely to unequivocally seek to raise incomes at the expense of capital value.

Thus, we could predict, given human nature, that people that don't "own" something are less likely to seek an increase of that thing's value if there is no other incentive to do so.

Thus, without any historical analysis whatsoever, we could predict that a representative government is likely to increase deficit spending, currency debasement, debt, and other fiscally irresponsible practices as the representatives are not personally at risk financially, in fact, they are incentivized to do these sorts of things in order to "buy" voters.

Lets think of this by way of analogy.

Is a person more likely to care for their own home that they intend to resell at a profit, or an apartment with no security deposit that they are staying in only temporarily?

You already know the answer to this.

Thus, we can see why a temporary representative with no liability is less likely to invest in the capital value of the nation than someone who was the private retainer of such like a monarch.

Similarly, if each representative in Congress had to leverage their own personal property and credit rating every time they voted on government spending, do you really think they would vote the way they do currently?

Don't be silly.



NOTE: I am not necessarily defending monarchies per se, and I am definitely not defending totalitarian dictatorships, but I am critiquing the social contract and especially the public ownership of government/nation via temporarily elected representatives whose entire purpose is to bribe people with money that doesn't belong to them in exchange for terms of power. The very concept lends itself to bad fiscal policy.

You are assuming your conclusion and avioding any actual examination of the evidence.

I could construct starwmen to counter your strawmen.

owners intended to sell have little interest in fixing long term problems.

[Victoribus Spolia]

owners intended to sell have little interest in fixing long term problems.

But permanent owners do......like Monarchs.

Likewise, you made the claim that monarchies were just as fiscally irresponsible as modern day democratic republics.....

Its up to you now to back that claim.

I know you can't, but it would be fun to watch you try.

[pugsville]

But permanent owners do......like Monarchs.

Likewise, you made the claim that monarchies were just as fiscally irresponsible as modern day democratic republics.....

Its up to you now to back that claim.

I know you can't, but it would be fun to watch you try.

How about comparing apples with apples. Like Monarchistic Regeimes versus Countries with parliamentary Regimes 16th to 19th centuries.

Comparing different eras is problematic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How about comparing apples with apples. Like Monarchistic Regeimes versus Countries with parliamentary Regimes 16th to 19th centuries.

Comparing different eras is problematic.

Why? They are only dates.

Part of this discussion is whether parliamentary democracy as an alleged "advancement" in human governance was a fiscal "advancement" in equal measure.

the theoretical framework for this global system we have was laid down in the enlightenment and was first implemented in its modern form in the American Revolution, was propogated through the Napoleonic wars, and celebrated in its global triumph at the close of WWI.

You have an unfair advantage in reality in this discussion which is why this should be easy for you as a burden of proof.

You have well over a thousand years of European monarchies to compare to not even 250 years of modern constitutional republics.

Fact is, the era of parliamentary supremacy has yielded mass fiscal irresponsibility on a global scale at an exponential rate.

This historical reality, had we not investigated it specifically, would have been predictable given human nature and praxeological consideration anyway, as I explained already.