ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Berkshire (Warren buffet company) have around 100 billions dollars invest in t-bills, apple has over 160 billions in cash probably invest in t-bills , treasuries receiving 4-5% interest just sitting there ?
How is that in anyway trickle down to the poor and in the economy I wonder ….
Yes and those t bills are how the government is allowed to operate do you understand that? if the gvmnt sequester that money and spends it, then in order to sell it's t-bills it has to pay higher interest because there is less capital around to be lent, is that part clear to you?
Without that cash there available to go into tbills, tbills would cost more to the government (= to taxpayers), and interests are already over a trillion per year. Do you want that to become 1.5? 2? that requires huge cuts to government consumption, to get the money to pay higher interest. Or even more taxation, in a self-defeating loop that get's you again to the banana republic stage.
Yes and those t bills are how the government is allowed to operate do you understand that? if the gvmnt sequester that money and spends it, then in order to sell it's t-bills it has to pay higher interest because there is less capital around to be lent, is that part clear to you?
Without that cash there available to go into tbills, tbills would cost more to the government (= to taxpayers), and interests are already over a trillion per year.
I will tell u a secret , that money existed far longer than yesterday , when interest rates were at 0-1% …..
Mis allocation of capital is real phenomena .
Again how does it helps the poor ?
How it trickle down ?
who pays the bill at the end ?
proof? american gdp grew 5.9 in 2021, 1.9 in 2022, 3.4 in 2023.
There is a lot of room from that to 0 that isn't a recession, but which is less inflationary.
And btw if a recession is necessary to keep inflation at target (which imho it wasn't before), you get the recession not the inflation if leaders aren't populists.
Now the recession will be more necessary and nastier because of the accumulated inflation that has to go away is a lot highe
The annual deficit is around 6% of gdp , there is your gdp growth.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSG...
Fwiw I never understood why people never calculate deficit in real gdp growth but anyway that is for another day .
Point is , when government borrow money to spend in the economy it obviously help the economy to go higher .
And historically the US deficit to gdp is still pretty high.
No it can be just a couple of months when given as cash to consumers with high propensity to consume and otherwise low on cash.
Unclear why you think it would lag that much , if you give money to people who already spend their whole income (like most middle-low americans do), they spend it immediatly and price pressure comes in 3-6 months max, where supply is tight. See housing, restaurants and so on.
There is immediatly extra money chasing t
What u speak of is just a quick burst of inflation IF everyone spend all the money at the same time and it would just be very temporary AND if no sellers would have much surplus inventory in their stores for example.
But you will still have higher inflation on a longer period due to a natural economic cycle.
U give again tons of money to people, oil goes to 125$ for 6 months for example
What will happen?
High oil prices -> higher fertilizer prices -> higher cost base foods (cereals,grains etc) -> time to grow -> with that base food feed cow, pork, etc -> they grow -> etc.
that cost is transmitted on a much larger time frame then 3 months and will be felt , even after all the momentary spur of money consumer had been spend , a year or 2 later in many different field of consumption .
So yes inflation lag by a fair margin in the real economy .
And no , rich people spend that money but u see the inflation right away since they buy financial assets and that is immediate ( no production needed in buying shares) .
Yes rich spend and u see inflation in financial asset since its pretty hard to spend millions of dollars on goods and services when you already have everything u need from the real economy.
But that inflation isn’t felt in the real economy , doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist tho .
So what did we see in 2020 ?
Every financial assets went high quickly (2020) and high inflation started end 2021 through 2022 in goods and services (18-24 months) .
What a coincidence isnt ?
And yes as long us government creates deficit, inflation still will be there and sustain the economy .
Fwiw I’m not saying is a good thing now.
Too much of something is has bad as too little .
Which one? The one voted by every single democrat in the Senate?
Which precedent? That when the economy collapses you do deficit, and when it stops collapsing you stop doing deficit? You mean the precedent of 95% of macroeconomics since Keynes ?
The 2020 deficit as per any macro book, was necessary to avoid economic collapse becoming persistent.
From 2021 on it was excessive and caused inflation, because the economy didn't need massive help an
Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to help when there is stagnation due to lack of demand. It can't do anything when it's due to a lack of supply, which is what happened in 2020. I think even the first payment was unneeded and didn't do anything except cause inflation.
Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to help when there is stagnation due to lack of demand. It can't do anything when it's due to a lack of supply, which is what happened in 2020. I think even the first payment was unneeded and didn't do anything except cause inflation.
In 2020 there was lack of demand , massive lack of demand. Lack of demand in sectors to the point they went close to 0. The lack was partially artificial (legal mandates to close down) and partially panick.
Even with 0 lockdowns for example fewer people would have used planes, restaurants, all entertainment venues. And not going to the office (or reducing that) reduces demand for a lot of things from clothes to gasoline to many others.
With no CARES act how exactly do all the laid off people in the sectors collapsing cope? basic unemployment insurance isn't enough when the scale of the unemployed is that high and there is huge uncertainty about when things are going back to normal. that's keynesian intervention 101, increasing UI and saving the sectors from a collapse from which they can never recover without intervention, to avoid hysteresis (the lack of return to normal because your burnt productive capacity in the downturn).
So given we are in the Trump thread, an easy wrap up:
1) it's stupid in general to blame inflation (or lack thereof), and generic economic conditions to presidents, with specific exceptions linked to the actual powers of POTUS (oil regulation, international trade are some of those exceptions)
2) Inasmuch as some macroeconomic variable depends on politics, it depends mostly on what CONGRESS does.
Which potus can sometime try to influence, but that's a very different claim. Main source you should complain to if you dislike outcomes is CONGRESS.
Main source you should reward with compliments if you like economic outcomes, is CONGRESS. That's for the part that can be determined by politics (which is usually smaller than what most people think).
3) It's simply insane to keep doing deficits at close to record employment and with inflation over target, as per 95% of macroeconomics except some very fringe theories.
So even if you guys want to claim the inflation in 2022 depended on trump, being wrong on 1) and 2) (and also on macroeconomics), it's still the case that you can never justify democrats passing EVEN MORE SPENDING LATER ON when the only debate should be how much to drastically reduce expenses / increase taxes and that has been the case for a minimum of 24 months if not more.
How the hell do you justify the 2023 deficit?
Or we could just subscribe to dumbdumbmickey's theory that the lag between a president's decisions and the effect of those decisions on the economy depends on a). whether the effect is desirable or undesirable and b). whether the president in question is a democrat or a republican. In the small number of cases when a republican president's bad decisions are undeniable, we claim that the democrats made him do it.
Things being closed down is lack of supply, not lack of demand.
If people are afraid to go out to dinner or take a trip, the problem isn't that they don't have enough money.
Using less gas, etc because of working from home is a lack of demand, but also not something that can be changed by injecting cash into the economy. People aren't going to start buying gas they don't need just because they have more money.
I certainly realize that the president doesn't have a lot of power to change general economic conditions. The reason this gets brought up in the Trump thread is because Trump supporters keep saying that things were so much better under Trump, particularly lower inflation. Why aren't you correcting them?
Things being closed down is lack of supply, not lack of demand.
If people are afraid to go out to dinner or take a trip, the problem isn't that they don't have enough money.
Using less gas, etc because of working from home is a lack of demand, but also not something that can be changed by injecting cash into the economy. People aren't going to start buying gas they don't need just because they have more money.
if people want a lot of something and for whatever reason that something isn't available in large enough quantities, that's a supply problem.
if people want (economic want: are willing to spend money they have access to) less of a lot of stuff without making up for that elsewhere, that's a lack of demand. It can be because not enough money is in the hands of people wanting to consume, or it can be because people are scared to consume for whatever reason (pandemic, but only economic recession delaying big expenses and so on, even if you don't lose your job you often save more when the economy is bad because you get scared of losing your job or getting a pay cut, and viceversa).
THOSE PEOPLE, the "demanders" who got scared, don't need any money true.
But the people working in the sectors where demand collapses need it, otherwise they can demand less of everythign else and there is a generalized downturn . You fix / avoid THAT, with keynesian intervention.
I certainly realize that the president doesn't have a lot of power to change general economic conditions. The reason this gets brought up in the Trump thread is because Trump supporters keep saying that things were so much better under Trump, particularly lower inflation. Why aren't you correcting them?
they are right (for a good portion of the inflation of the last 24 months), it's just they should blame primarily democrats in congress for inflation, not biden.
I am correcting them, i am telling them they should never vote democrats for congress if they care a lot about inflation. Not that republicans are perfect for that but they are far better about that.
In fact i am "on record" claiming a very good outcome in 2024 would be Biden president with a solid republican majority in the senate.
If Trump loses he goes away from the scene (with some bangs sure), republican brand can move to normal rightwing people again, win and consolidate the center which the democrats can't win unless there is someone like Trump on the other side (because they have to cater to too many leftists among them), republicans in the senate can block almost everything they dislike about biden (including all judicial nominations of anyone too leftist, very important), the "not so smart" american public would blame Biden for the upcoming recession (which is simply inevitable for cycle reasons, it's just about when that will happen), and win massively in 2028 with trump out of the picture (probably in jail somewhere).
Trump's plans for a second term
would pursue a policy of kicking out 11 million people who came to the country illegally.
The former president said he would pursue building migrant
detention camps and use the U.S. military at the border and inland
when asked whether governments should monitor pregnancies to track whether a woman has an abortion.
“I think they might do that,” Trump said. “Again, you’ll have to speak to the individual states.”
"And if we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election,"
Trump told Time, not dismissing the possibility of further violence around the 2024 election.
Trump also doubled down on his promise to pardon the hundreds
of people sentenced for crimes committed stemming from January 6.
Trump has called these individuals “hostages,” though many
have pleaded guilty to violent crimes or have been convicted by juries.
During an exchange on the issue, Time asked: “Will you consider pardoning every one of them?”
Trump replied, “I would consider that, yes.”
Time: “You would?”
Trump: “Yes, absolutely.”
Feeble Trump shuffles away from mic, visibly disoriented.
Trump's pretrial remarks, the rantings of a madman.
So given we are in the Trump thread, an easy wrap up:
1) it's stupid in general to blame inflation (or lack thereof), and generic economic conditions to presidents, with specific exceptions linked to the actual powers of POTUS (oil regulation, international trade are some of those exceptions)
What isn't discussed much is that by closing the border during Covid Trump caused a massive shortage of agricultural workers. So while there are millions of tons of food not picked every year it went up drastically during Trump's term particularly in 2020 (but already rising from his border policy in the first 3 years).
As a result food prices skyrocketed more than they should have.
Biden's almost opposite plan (or at least the resurgence of migrants at the Mexican border) basically has allowed food prices to lower and make inflation in the US the lowest of any industrial country after Covid.
2) Inasmuch as some macroeconomic variable depends on politics, it depends mostly on what CONGRESS does.
Which potus can sometime try to influence, but that's a very different claim. Main source you should complain to if you dislike outcomes is CONGRESS.
Main source you should reward with compliments if you like economic outcomes, is CONGRESS. That's for the part that can be determined by politics (which is usually smaller than what most people think).
3) It's simply insane to keep doing deficits at close to record employment and with inflation over target, as per 95% of macroeconomics except some very fringe theories.
So even if you guys want to claim the inflation in 2022 depended on trump, being wrong on 1) and 2) (and also on macroeconomics), it's still the case that you can never justify democrats passing EVEN MORE SPENDING LATER ON when the only debate should be how much to drastically reduce expenses / increase taxes and that has been the case for a minimum of 24 months if not more.
How the hell do you justify the 2023 deficit?
In part the massive nature of it is a direct result of the Democrats with a thin majority in congress trying to pass an increase in taxes for the very rich only and Krysten Sinema killing it as well as zero Republicans supporting it. The other part of the tax increases which would have bumped up Corporate taxes (which had declined under Trump) was killed by Joe Manchin (I believe).
The Democrats incredibly thin margin in the Senate meant they couldn't pass Biden's attempted policy.
De Niro on Trump.
"He's not just a bully, he's a stupid bully."
Trump is the first person in my long life that I can’t find one redeeming feature.
This was President Trump yesterday after sitting in a courthouse for 8 long hours.
When this man gets hungry everyone better watch TF OUT!!!!!!
President Trump is so graceful and heroic PlayBig can't help but be impressed by the fat orange bastard carrying two boxes of pizza. #NotACult
Imagine. 8 whole hours. Crazy. What a trooper.
This was President Trump yesterday after sitting in a courthouse for 8 long hours.
When this man gets hungry everyone better watch TF OUT!!!!!!
Learning from the left wing media of distorting the truth. He brought Pizzas to a fire department .
Id like to see Joe Biden even carry two boxes of pizzas and walk at the same time.
