American Politics

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2747234]Has the USA gone through two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth? Are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth popularly considered to constitute a recession?

https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp#:~:text=A%20recession%20is%20a%20significant,%2C%20consumer%20demand%2C%20and%20employment.

What's the current USA fed funds rate? Answer: 3% to 3.25%

What is the most recent CPI YoY inflation rate? Answer: 8.3%

What is is the real interest rate based on the fed funds rate? Answer: In excess of NEGATIVE 5%

Why on God's green earth would someone criticize current Fed policy for being too tight and "artificially cooling down Biden's roaring job-creating, wage increasing economy into perhaps a mild recession or close to one"? Answer: Heck if I know. He probably hasn't lived or worked in a place like Argentina or Turkey, and doesn't remember the late 70's and early 80's too well.[/QUOTE]The answer is that Powell is not very good at his job. How could he be? He was originally appointed by a Repub, Trump no less. No way he could have or for that matter would have handled the challenge better if at all.

Biden had to keep him in place only because to have switched him out in the midst of Trump's Pandemic Crash would have driven brave Free Market "job creators" even further under their beds in abject terror.

[QUOTE=CaliGuy;2747185]Comparison of Trump disaster to Biden success.

1. Stock market up 60% in 4 years compared during Trump presidency.

Stock market down 3% in 20 months during Biden presidency.

2. Gas prices up almost 100% with Biden president compared to low price of gas with Trump.

3. Inflation at 1% during Trump presidency and 9. 1% inflation in Biden presidency. Highest in 40 years.

4. No wars during Trump presidency but now war in Ukraine with Biden failed leadership.

5. Crimes up over 50% under Biden compared to Trump after Biden and democrats started defunding police.

I could go on for another 20 comments on how bad and reckless the Biden presidency has been but everyone knows this. Everyone sees this. Everyone is suffering from the Biden failed policies and presidency. There will be some fools that disagree. But they will be the dumbest fools you know.[/QUOTE]Whenever we see a list like that we are only reminded what a fantastic great gift hand off Obama gave Trump vs the total shit hand off Trump gave Biden.

Yet Trump still managed to turn that gift hand off into total shit in just 4 years and Biden managed to turn that total shit hand off into a historically successful recovery in just 19 months.

Similar to the way George W. Bush managed to turn his gift hand off from Clinton into total shit and Obama turned the total shit hand off he got from George W. Bush into one of the longest and steadiest economic expansions and jobs creation runs ever.

That's quite a telling pattern. It's a pattern that has been repeating itself for about a century.

Thanks for the reminder.

Is this a preview of the protests "the likes of which blah blah blah" we'd see if Trump gets indicted for his crimes against America?

Sad.

[B]Tens Of People Showed Up For Pro-Trump Rally For Jan. 6 Defendants[/B]

[URL]https://crooksandliars.com/2022/09/tens-people-showed-pro-trump-truth-rally[/URL]

I'm not sure if anyone has calculated this exactly, but I suspect all of the attendees of all of the Trump rallies combined do not match the number of attendees at just that one anti Trump rally after his inauguration.

Just sayin'.

[QUOTE=ScatManDoo;2747168]Rudy is headed to jail to die.

Strictly because he was foolish enough to grant credit to TrumpShit.

Which has left him broke and defeated.

Deservingly.[/QUOTE]You claim all of Trump associates are going to Jail and none of them ever go.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2747239]I must be missing something. What is the Democratic alternative? We just saw the Dems keep the carried interest tax break for hedge fund managers. Yes, those in the financial industry pay much less in taxes than the rest of us. It was the typical Democratic bullshit. All the Dems really, really wanted to end this but one senator said no, and they had no choice. Glenn Greenwald called the Dems out on this crap but you and Eih still buy it.[/QUOTE]It was Kyrsten Sinema who demanded that carried interest stay in place. I think she was taking the heat for Chuck Schumer and other Democratic Senators who wanted to continue receiving the largesse of private equity fund managers but didn't have the balls to admit it publicly. See this,

[URL]https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-houdinis-of-carried-interest-schumer-sinema-manchin-private-equity-loophole-capital-gain-political-charade-11659895350[/URL]

That said, and while I agree with you about carried interest, I do like Sinema, a lot. Not only is she blonde and bisexual, but the woman has a head on her shoulders. We'd be stuck with at least another $2.5 trillion in pork laden spending and higher taxes if not for her and Joe Manchin.

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2747323] I hold Biden responsible for the mess he has made in the energy markets, but the other portions of inflation really are not on him. Outside of that, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.[/QUOTE]I agree 100% about energy markets Elvis. He and the Progressives have destroyed a good part of the incentive to invest in fossil fuels in the USA. And then they go and blame the oil companies and refiners for high gasoline prices.

However, I must quibble about "other portions of inflation are not on him." Look at what Larry Summers, the most influential Democratic Party economist of the last 30 years, was saying before and after Biden et al passed the American Rescue Plan. He said it would supercharge inflation. And it did. I posted this before and it bears repeating.

"Larry Summers, the top economic adviser to former President Obama, warned in an op-ed on Friday that President Biden's proposed COVID-19 relief package is too big and could overheat the economy. Summers, the Treasury secretary under former President Clinton, wrote in The Washington Post that the proposed $1. 9 trillion stimulus could ignite inflationary pressures "of a kind we have not seen in a generation." He said the risk of inflation could have "consequences for the dollar and financial stability." "Stimulus measures of the magnitude contemplated are steps into the unknown," Summers wrote."

[URL]https://thehill.com/policy/finance/5...us-is-too-big/[/URL]

It turns out Summer's earliest but strangely rarely cited observation that Trump's Fed Chair appointee Powell was "behind the curve" on inflation, in other words Not Very Good At His Job, was dead on correct. Few other highly regarded economists disagree.

But on Biden? Summers' strangely too often cited opinion gets slammed by other highly regarded economists:

[B]Is Larry Summers really right about inflation and Biden?
The Harvard economist is getting plaudits for the warnings he issued early last year, but some Administration officials and economists are questioning the basis of his arguments.[/B]

[URL]https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-larry-summers-really-right-about-inflation-and-biden[/URL]

[QUOTE]He certainly had those inflationary concerns very early, an economist said, of Summers. He also put out plenty of other scenariosenough that he almost couldnt be wrong.[/QUOTE]Cherry pick from the various and sundry Summers scenarios he flapped his yap about at every turn from very early on that you like and have fun with it. Oh, but be sure to include the global events that he didn't know were coming after he made those various and sundry predictions.

Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":

Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents[/URL]#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.

[URL]https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839[/URL]

[URL]https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/[/URL]

[URL]https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787[/URL]

[QUOTE=Elvis2008;2747323]Tiny, you are finally catching on. Eih and PVM will post links to support their POVs, but I never remember either saying a Democratic has ever made a mistake. The only people who make mistakes in government are Republicans.

Scatmandoo and Spidy seem to be in a contest to see who can call Trump more names per square inch than anyone. Unlike the first two, I do not recall them doing anything outside of calling Trump and Republicans names.

Eih put himself out as this financial genius, which is ridiculous, because he seems to think all stock market gains or losses accrue simply due to who is president. So of course, he has been long with Biden. I told him in April that it was finally right to go short the market, and I am up 45% since then and he is down at least 20% since then.

The problem with investing based on whom is president of course is you are ignoring market conditions and what the Fed is doing. I hold Biden responsible for the mess he has made in the energy markets, but the other portions of inflation really are not on him. Outside of that, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
[/QUOTE]Really? [B]"By every measure, the Dems did worse economically with the pandemic than Republicans did."[/B].

Tell me again that President Biden has lost more jobs than Donnie the Dumbass and provide a source that proves it. Unless, of course, you don't consider "jobs lost during the pandemic" to be either an economic factor or a pandemic factor.

I'll wait, gladly.

So says leading economist Jeremy Siegel.

I see Siegel agrees with Summers and me that the earliest cause of persistently high inflation in the wake of Trump's Pandemic's global economic destruction is that Trump's Fed Chairman appointment was just not good at his job.

[B]Wharton's Siegel says Jerome Powell owes 'the American people an apology'[/B]

[URL]https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/whartons-siegel-says-jerome-powell-owes-the-american-people-an-apology-for-poor-fed-policy.html?__source=androidappshare[/URL]

[QUOTE]"Honestly, I think Chairman Powell should offer the American people an apology for such poor monetary policy that he has pursued, and the Fed has pursued, over the past few years, Siegel said.
...
Siegel said on CNBCs Squawk Box that persistently high inflation in 2022 is due in large part to mistakes made by the Fed in the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic, which caused economic shutdowns around the world and big drops in global markets, and that the Feds pivot to fast rate hikes would cause more economic damage.[/QUOTE]Powell is certainly no Carter appointee, Paul Volker, who manipulated rates early and effectively enough beginning in late 1979 to establish a steady month-over-month decline in inflation starting in early 1980, almost a full year before Reagan took office.

And he barely triggered a recession in Carter's strong, job-creating economy at all. It was over just a few weeks after it began.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2747417]Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":

Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents[/URL]#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.

[URL]https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839[/URL]

[URL]https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/[/URL]

[URL]https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787[/URL][/QUOTE][URL]https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/24/23366464/italy-elections-meloni-sweden-europe-far-right[/URL]

[URL]https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/democrats-lose-midterms-referendum-biden-jen-psaki/[/URL]

[URL]https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/09/26/italys-move-to-the-right-shakes-europe-as-giorgia-meloni-looks-set-to-form-government/[/URL]

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2747417]Back to persistent reality where no amount of nit-picking, cherry picking or covering your ass with various and sundry scenarios to make sure you can be cited by everyone on all sides as their "go-to guru":

Here us just a few Google Search results for "Which Party is better for the economy"? Going back about 100 years, only imaginary historical data could produce the opposite conclusion by any reputable source.

[URL]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents[/URL]#text=USA %20 economic%20 performance%20 under%20 Democratic%20 and%20 Republican%20 presidents,-Article%20 Talk&text=Historically%2 see%20 the%20 United%20 States%20 economy, presidents%20 since%20 World%20 War%20 II.

[URL]https://www.thebalancemoney.com/democrats-vs-republicans-which-is-better-for-the-economy-4771839[/URL]

[URL]https://evonomics.com/economists-agree-democratic-presidents-better-making-us-rich-eight-reasons/[/URL]

[URL]https://newrepublic.com/article/166274/economy-record-republicans-vs-democrats[/URL]

[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/opinion/sunday/democrats-economy.html[/URL]

[URL]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787[/URL][/QUOTE]Your Wikipedia link includes a section on "Reasons for over-performance by Democratic presidents". I'll quote in its entirety.

Blinder and Watson studied the comparative economic performance from Truman's elected term through Obama's first term in 2012. They excluded certain causes, and identified some possible causes. Excluded as causes were age and experience of the president, which political party controlled Congress, and quality of economy inherited (as Democrats tended to take over when times were more difficult). Further, fiscal and monetary policy did not seem to be possible causes. Changes in tax policy had little impact; for example, Clinton raised taxes while Reagan cut them, but both had strong growth. Interest rates had typically risen under Democrats and fallen under Republicans, which theoretically should have favored Republicans. Democrats did benefit from lower oil prices, larger increases in productivity, and better global conditions.

Blinder and Watson concluded that: "Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. ".

In other words, it wasn't party's policies or governance that accounted for over or under performance, it was blind luck.

I refuse to do more than scan the "Balance" article. Looking over the sections on taxation and climate, it's partisan bullshit. The USA has had the most progressive tax system in the OECD for a long time, under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And why would Democrats' climate change policies affect economic performance?

As to Evonimics and New Republic, [URL]Mediabiasfactcheck.com[/URL] indicates they're about as far left as you can get. I've got better things to do than read those.

I can't read your New York Times OPINION piece unless I'm a subscriber.

The market watch article agrees at least in part with my earlier reply to one of your posts. The outperformance is because recessions have occurred predominately during Republican administrations. The writer attributes this to three possible causes.

Luck.

Factors a president has no control over, like a sudden increase in oil prices.

Deregulation implemented during Republican administrations.

He fails to list a pandemic.

Given that I believe deregulation is a bull shit explanation, at least from what I've observed in my lifetime, I continue to believe the relationship between the party of the president and measures like GDP growth, median household income, median weekly wages, and unemployment is mostly spurious. I do give the Republicans some credit however for higher median weekly wages, higher median household income, and lower unemployment pre-COVID, in 2019, because of the corporate tax cut and deregulation.

On that last point, I haven't forgotten about your earlier post that included a couple of links, including one that used IRS tax statistics to show that lower income Americans haven't seen much wage growth during the Trump years, pre-COVID. I actually don't disagree with that, but suspect the IRS data will show that from the 50th percentile on up, we did very well. I just haven't had the time to download the IRS's excel tables and look at the data. But I will. I'll be back!

[QUOTE=EihTooms;2747407]It turns out Summer's earliest but strangely rarely cited observation that Trump's Fed Chair appointee Powell was "behind the curve" on inflation, in other words Not Very Good At His Job, was dead on correct. Few other highly regarded economists disagree.

But on Biden? Summers' strangely too often cited opinion gets slammed by other highly regarded economists:

[B]Is Larry Summers really right about inflation and Biden?
The Harvard economist is getting plaudits for the warnings he issued early last year, but some Administration officials and economists are questioning the basis of his arguments.[/B]

[URL]https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/is-larry-summers-really-right-about-inflation-and-biden[/URL]

Cherry pick from the various and sundry Summers scenarios he flapped his yap about at every turn from very early on that you like and have fun with it. Oh, but be sure to include the global events that he didn't know were coming after he made those various and sundry predictions.[/QUOTE]I read the New Yorker article a long time ago. Here's a google news search on "Larry Summers Inflation" for 12/15/2020 to 3/10/2021, before the American Rescue Plan was passed. It's hilarious reading the criticism of Summers coming from administration officials and other pundits. Well, Summers turned out to be dead right.

[URL]https://www.google.com/search?q=larry[/URL]+summers+inflation&rlz=1 C1 CHBD_enUS898 US898&biw=1920&bih=969&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3 A1%2 Ccd_min%3 A12%2 F1%2 F2020%2 Ccd_max%3 A03%2 F10%2 F2021&tbm=nws.

Maybe this will make sense to you. I'm quoting from the Financial Times, which is behind a paywall, so no link. This is Summers, in his own words, in an interview with Martin Wolf.

If you look at the economy at the beginning of this year, prevailing forecasts were that Covid would reduce wages and salaries to American households by $20 bn-$30 bn a month, with that figure declining over the year. So, that would be a $250 bn-$300 bn hole in wages and salaries over the course of the year.

So, I look at this hole and then I see $900 bn of stimulus in the December package, $1. 9 tn of stimulus in the recently passed package and $2 tn in the savings overhang, which is also likely to be spent. I see the Fed with its foot on the accelerator as hard as any Fed has ever done.

That could manifest itself, as a much smaller period of excess did during the Vietnam war, in rising inflation and a ratcheting-up of inflation expectations. It could, as has often happened, manifest itself in the Federal Reserve feeling a need for a sharp and surprising increase in interest rates, and the subsequent deceleration of the economy into recession.

It could manifest itself in a period of euphoric boom and optimism that leads to unsustainable bubbles, or it could all work out well. But, it doesn't seem to me that the preponderant probability is that it will work out well. So I'm concerned that what is being done is substantially excessive.

So you've got a $2 trillion savings overhang, wages reduced by $250 to $300 billion per year, and Biden et al helicopter drop $1. 9 trillion into the economy! That's almost 10% of GDP! Crazy! Nuts! No wonder the labor force participation rate hasn't bounced back to where it should be, despite there being 2X more job openings than people looking for jobs.

As to cherry picking Summers' scenarios, he said probably one of two things would happen.

1. High inflation and / or stagflation, or.

2. The Fed slams on the breaks so hard to prevent high inflation so that we go into a deep recession.

Well, "1" has already happened. "2" may be next. For completeness sake, the third possibility he threw out was that the Fed might adroitly avoid high inflation or recession. Well, that didn't come to pass.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;2747584]Your Wikipedia link includes a section on "Reasons for over-performance by Democratic presidents". I'll quote in its entirety.

Blinder and Watson studied the comparative economic performance from Truman's elected term through Obama's first term in 2012. They excluded certain causes, and identified some possible causes. Excluded as causes were age and experience of the president, which political party controlled Congress, and quality of economy inherited (as Democrats tended to take over when times were more difficult). Further, fiscal and monetary policy did not seem to be possible causes. Changes in tax policy had little impact; for example, Clinton raised taxes while Reagan cut them, but both had strong growth. Interest rates had typically risen under Democrats and fallen under Republicans, which theoretically should have favored Republicans. Democrats did benefit from lower oil prices, larger increases in productivity, and better global conditions.
[/QUOTE]As far as "overperformance" LOL.

You are much more astute about these matters than everyone else around here.

Here's a question, aren't Barry Husseins numbers largely skewed by the fact that the economy imploded right before he took the "bestest" ghost payroll gig of all time in Jan 2009.

Largely in part at the behest of BUBBA repealing Glass Steagal, tanking GWs #s and propping up Barry Husseins after the market inevitably recovered.

[QUOTE=JustTK;2747150]A great discussion on change. What is needed. This is a video for ET, PVM, Spider, et al. All those that cannot recognise that they are part of the problem bcos they are so self-interested that do not even recognise that they are supporting the neo-lib status quo. FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQZrgnpHTM[/URL]

Vijay Prashad is particularly persuasive.[/QUOTE]

Is there a "bothsidesism" opinion in your post? Or just more America and BM bashing from the QAnon/Repub/Bothsidesist, JustTKKK?

Try looking at [i]"the man in the mirror",[/i] as the one who remains the real problem, for their politics, [b]stand for nothing and falls for everything.[/b]