The Economy - Bush, Obama, Trump

[DitkasSausage]

Which nobody is happy about...

When Trump is re-elected, he better start refusing to sign budget bills filled w/bullshit.

Honestly... that is the only thing that makes me hesitant to vote for him. People often forget how old-school liberal he actually is...
Modern Liberals think he is the anti-christ when the reality is that he is a 1990 liberal (which is apparently better than a 2012 conservative)...

[BuryRaven]

You can't talk about the Sub-prime mortgage crisis and not include Clinton. He started that and Bush picked up the ball and ran with it.

"Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits."

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/28/are-...-villains.html

I remember watching George Bush talk about the importance of home ownership. He was on the same bandwagon as Clinton. It was one of his core policy goals as president.

Somewhere in the push to get everyone credit for homes all common sense lending got trashed.

I'm glad someone else knew this. My dissertation was based on the great depression and the GFC (2007-2009). With Fannie, Freddie and Ginnie providing lending standards sub the traditional loan structure the entire idea of a CDO based on RBMS vehicles originated.

The fed created a problem by backing traditionally poor lenders.
Pushed GSEs like Fannie and Freddie to buy up mortgages of the now popularly know subprimes.
Market saturation occurs, prices drive up and private entities get involved knowing the FHA buyout on these loans are massive so no-one stops origination.
Market crashes.
Blame bush.
Repeat now with student loans.

[BuryRaven]

Please give this a fair read. Today, everything is about blaming people for why things are the way they are. Instead, as Americans, it should be about us building or improving upon what was done before. Our system isn't perfect. Lots of people have been left behind and things aren't working for some folks.

My quick simple takes.

Bush taxcuts and the sub-prime mortgage fiasco crashed the economy. Deficits were low

Obama blew up deficits trying to recover from crash. Slowly recovered. Markets, employment, trending up. Deficits trending down, mostly due to austerity (GOP Congress)

Trump ticked those economic, job numbers up to another higher level. Deficits up due to Trump tax cuts and military spending. Judgement still out on end effect of taxcuts.

Look at the trend lines.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/markets...9-9-1028833119




Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I have to also state, no economist worth his or her salt would claim tax cuts lead to recessions. Unless the fed couldn't pay functionally operation its a completely baseless economic argument. Overlays and receipts went up after the tax cuts.

[BuryRaven]

On the link listed. I can't stand how media sources utilize the wording "some economist claim/believe/x", this creates a false understanding of the issue where experts can be cited without any reference to how the greater field feels on the subject. This is seen in the wage growth section. I can agree wages tend to grow with full employment, however if wages are growing above inflationary corrective LOB SOP levels the market is at a gain and real wages are increasing. It's this slight of hand most don't see.

To put it in simple terms:

If inflation for a year is 2% and real wages are increasing by 3% the first 2 of the 3% are combating/nullifying inflation. The final 1% is a wage growth. Very simple stuff. To interject "some believe x should be more" is so disingenuous and it pushes a position that should not be held in economics. Thats politics. Econometrics can predict anything but to predict how much how much real median wages will be in a year is an exercise in futility, a rough estimate yes, but we can only examine the historical data.

syntax edit

[darb72]

Not gonna lie; every BuryRaven starts to post, I fangirl a little.

[BuryRaven]

Not gonna lie; every BuryRaven starts to post, I fangirl a little.

Thanks dude.

I studied under Sowell, I know krugman (he hates me irl lol) and I'm close with Shapiro, its a long story on that.
I think its criminal how people like, my favorite economist of all time, FA Hayek are barely known among college kids. Econ is almost a lost science due to politicization of the field, any concept of low taxes (right wing) any concept of increased taxes on x (left wing). I wish ideas were more open and less 100% one or the other.

If anyone has econ based ideas (not stocks for god sakes lmk)

[darb72]

Thanks dude.

I studied under Sowell, I know krugman (he hates me irl lol) and I'm close with Shapiro, its a long story on that.
I think its criminal how people like, my favorite economist of all time, FA Hayek are barely known among college kids. Econ is almost a lost science due to politicization of the field, any concept of low taxes (right wing) any concept of increased taxes on x (left wing). I wish ideas were more open and less 100% one or the other.

If anyone has econ based ideas (not stocks for god sakes lmk)

I'd introduce my classes to some of your ideas, but it's a stretch to go from Piers Plowman to Hayek.

[blah3]

Which nobody is happy about...

When Trump is re-elected, he better start refusing to sign budget bills filled w/bullshit.

Trump to request 6 percent domestic cuts in $4.8 trillion budget

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...n-budget%3famp

[ravenmaniac4life]

Trump to request 6 percent domestic cuts in $4.8 trillion budget

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...n-budget%3famp

Well would ya look at that!

Trump must read this board.

[blah3]

Well would ya look at that!

Trump must read this board.

And as much as people complain about the deficit, on both sides of the aisle, I’m sure he’s gonna get beat up on this by the media

[Ortizer]

I agree that the economy grew under Obama. People will draw their own conclusions but the truth is that Obama was president while we climbed out of a national disaster from the Housing Crisis. I saw another post about Bush's tax cuts, and I actually agree... he did a very stupid thing when he was just giving money back in the form of a return instead of lowering the marginal rates on a quarterly basis. It created shortages at years end because instead of increased ability to gain capital throughout the year, companies and individuals were holding on spending until they got their check and then made one BIG purchase rather than improvements all year long, and it kept the market flat. Cutting the actual rate has actually increased federal revenues current-state, so to say that the tax cut is creating deficit when it is actually eliminating it is absurd. Revenues rose after the last tax cut... it is just that spending grew faster. Our country has a spending problem... any obfuscation of that point is a lie.

Also, the writer doesn't take into account many factors such as what was going on at the time. Had Obama not had ANY growth, he would have been chased out of office with torches and pitchforks because that's all we could have afforded. The economy was in the TANK. People also forget that Obama was a sitting president over one of the largest technological inventions in history since the internet... smart phones. Think of that for a moment... remember what happened when the internet hit? The market EXPLODED. Small businesses popped up overnight and grew to revenues never imagined. Did we get that kind of growth in the economy? No... we did not. Why? Multiple reasons.. people weren't making enough money to buy them freely off the start which isn't Obama's fault. What WAS Obama's fault was the increased regulations that kept any real growth from happening. Regulations create strangleholds on innovation, and only solidifies monopolistic entities. Facebook went from being one of several social media sites... then came the regulations... how many new ones have there been to challenge FB and Twitter since? None really because the regulations are only afforded by these mega-companies now. If there was an innovation like that in the current market... the economy would absolutely explode.

Also... GDP growth having dips that late in the Obama presidency is a TERRIBLE indicator. Production was decreasing under him late in his presidency when he supposedly "fixed" the crash. Those are AWFUL indicators.

Now you look at Trump's numbers and they don't seem so impressive except that is false too. Unemployment for one. It doesn't look that impressive on a graph but we are talking about being, not only under 4%, but with a growing number of people returning to the labor market. That isn't just impressive... it is f'ing unbelievable, and never been done before.

The non-farm Payroll Job Growth is a VERY misleading graph. It is "Change in thousands from previous quarter"... not percentage growth??? Not Overall??? Why? Because that graph would look VERY different and show an accelerated increase since 2017 because adding thousands quarter over quarter in a saturated market is impressive.

Same with the wage growth... it is over previous quarter... nobody measures it like that... certainly not for a 20 year graph because it doesn't make sense to measure it that way.

Also, as for median incomes... they did rise under Obama... I certainly am not disputing that fact. But once again... try actually looking at the values of that graph... why not do THAT one quarterly? Their date points for data are really weird... was that annual? Bi-Annual? Why are so many data points so close to each other towards the end? Household median incomes in 2016 were $59,039... this graph is showing them to be ~$62,000??? Even adjusting for inflation this graph would be wildly inaccurate... here is the Census Bureau data if you don't believe me: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...s-fell-in-2016

I knew this last one looked REALLY off because I knew that they had grown substantially in 2017 and that they weren't over $60k until at least the latter half of 2017... this graph shows them two years early, and also gives Obama an extra datapoint... it is weird. That was an easy one to spot for me, and if I had time, I'd question the validity of a LOT of these graphs.

Social networks have more to it than regulation. They are very dependent on network effects, so they have to attract a sufficient amount of users before they run out of money.

Look at Google+? The only tech company better positioned than Google for regulatory costs is Apple, maybe even Microsoft, but Google+ still flopped.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

And as much as people complain about the deficit, on both sides of the aisle, I’m sure he’s gonna get beat up on this by the media