Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52
Thanks Tree35Thanks

Thread: Trump's birthday gift to America - A booming economy

  1. #41
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    864
    Thanks
    202

    From
    Ford, Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by steezer View Post
    You lap up trump’s lies every day. Get back when you can start to distinguish between a lie and the truth.
    Squawk, squawk....Trump lies...squawk, squawk. Wow, you're smart.

  2. #42
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,631
    Thanks
    27684

    From
    Ohio

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Yes, as you can see, even investors.com is confirming the 2.3% figure for 2017, consistent with what I said. And, of course, that's far, far below the 4% he promised or the 5-6% growth he said he thought he could achieve:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-growth-5-or-6
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-debate-230063

    His 2017 number was less than half the low end of that 5-6% range, and first quarter 2018 was even worse, at just 2.0%, making it highly unlikely we'll even get to 4% for the year.
    Thanks from BigLeRoy

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    [QUOTE=Arkady;5964769][QUOTE=Libertine;5962757]It must be tough to be an Obama apologist these days.

    I wouldn't know. I defend or attack Obama as the facts require.
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I don't know anyone who said that. We broke over 2% growth in half of Obama's years.... and that was despite the drag of the most rapid deficit decrease since WWII demobilization. Granted, if you count 2009, when the nation was still in the midst of the second of Bush's two recessions, overall GDP growth on Obama's watch was poor. But we averaged over 2% for his last seven years.
    Obama's average annual GDP growth was less than 2% and finished his term at 1.5% in 2016.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    How so? We're using massive deficit increases to stimulate the economy and yet mostly just continuing the trend lines left by Obama.
    GDP growth rate decreased over 40% from 2015 to 2016, that was the trajectory of the Obamaconomy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    If you think I'm lying, cite something I said, and then provide the information showing it's a lie. A "lie" isn't merely a fact that makes you sad.
    Paul Krugman was lying in your cite.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    I provided five links, in order to show Krugman's influence using different measures. That included a ranking of media mentions, yes, but also a ranking of citations, Klout score (measuring social media influence), and a survey of 2999 US economics professors.

    Look, I get it: you're embarrassed. Having obtained your view of the world through a strict conservative-media filter, you were under the false impression that Krugman had lost all credibility. And so you were deeply humiliated when confronted with such broad evidence of his enduring influence, both with the general public and with professional economists. But here's the thing to remember: your failure does not constitute a lie on my part. It's up to you to conform your views to the real world, not up to me to shelter you from the parts of the real world that reveal your ignorance.
    Your first cite on Krugman was absolute garbage, why waste time going further. During GWB's two terms Krugman was screaming about deficit spending and claimed that it would destroy the economy with inflation. Obama gets in and all of a sudden deficit spending is great was Obama piled on debt at twice the rate that GWB did. Now debt is bad again since Trump took office. Krugman is a partisan hack.



    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    How could you imagine that titling his blog that way suggests his economics aren't mainstream?
    What economics he is liberal blogger and novelist these days, he isn't a serious economist, just a partisan hack.


    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes, we've been over your misunderstanding of federal accounting a few times now. Let me know if you really need a refresher or whether you're just trolling.
    At the end of the day, the change in the national debt is what really matters. The debt is a drag on the economy and requires costly maintenance, the deficit doesn't really much comparatively. The deficit isn't the number that has to be paid back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    You're using quarterly growth there. Go back to the Fred site, modify the frequency to annual, and then calculate again. You'll see that the increase was from 16716164 to 17096179, which is about 2.27%. That's consistent with the usual way annual GDP growth rates are calculated. For example, see the Bureau of Economic Analysis site:

    https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx

    As you can see, they list 2017's GDP growth as 2.3% (2.27% rounded to the nearest tenth of a percentage point). You'll also see that is the number widely quoted in the financial and mainstream press:

    Trump didn't get his 3%-plus economic growth for 2017, after all
    Jan 26, 2018

    GDP growth below expectations in fourth quarter of 2017 | TheHill


    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/b...p-economy.html

    So, before accusing someone else of being "totally dishonest," wouldn't it be a good idea for you to check whether maybe you're just doing a calculation in a non-standard way?

    From your BEA cite:

    2017Q1 3.3 1.2
    2017Q2 4.1 3.1
    2017Q3 5.3 3.2
    2017Q4 5.3 2.9
    Average 2.6

    Of course you went back to January for the first estimate for your other cites instead of the current GDP estimates released in March.

    Both your FRED and BEA cites show it s 2.6%, you know it is, but yet still try to mis-lead, that says a lot about your integrity and honestly.
    Thanks from Conservatarian

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes, as you can see, even investors.com is confirming the 2.3% figure for 2017, consistent with what I said. And, of course, that's far, far below the 4% he promised or the 5-6% growth he said he thought he could achieve:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-growth-5-or-6
    https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...-debate-230063

    His 2017 number was less than half the low end of that 5-6% range, and first quarter 2018 was even worse, at just 2.0%, making it highly unlikely we'll even get to 4% for the year.
    Obama promised 4.5% growth, I didn't believe that either.

  6. #46
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Obama's average annual GDP growth was less than 2% and finished his term at 1.5% in 2016.
    Yes. And, as I said, his second term average was over 2%.

    GDP growth rate decreased over 40% from 2015 to 2016, that was the trajectory of the Obamaconomy.
    That's not so much a trajectory as it is a snapshot. I could as easily say that the annualized growth rate for the second half of 2016 was 61% higher than the annualized growth rate for the first half of 2016, and I could claim that was the trajectory for the Obamaconomy. But such cherry-picking doesn't have any value. Over short terms, GDP growth bounces up and down. For example, the growth rate was 53% better in 2014 than in 2013, and 12% better in 2015 than 2014, but then worse in 2016. When viewed that close, you're just reading the noise.

    Paul Krugman was lying in your cite.
    Again, the definition of "lie" isn't a fact that makes you sad.

    Your first cite on Krugman was absolute garbage
    If by "garbage" you mean "information that makes Libertine feel like an idiot," then yes, it was. But, the point is I provided multiple links, each coming at it from different angles. I take it they all made you feel like an idiot. That should tell you something.

    why waste time going further. During GWB's two terms Krugman was screaming about deficit spending and claimed that it would destroy the economy with inflation
    Could you give an example of Krugman "screaming" something to that effect? His writings from the era are still widely available. I think his position has been remarkably consistent --and consistent with mainstream economic thinking. Basically, he wants us to run deficits during economic contractions and for the period following them when the economy is still getting its legs, then get rid of the deficits when the economy doesn't need them. That is his consistent message regardless of who is in the White House. Here's a column from the Bush era:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/o...01krugman.html

    As you can see, he's not screaming about inflation. Instead, he's arguing that the deficit worriers have it wrong:

    "But the deficit worriers have it all wrong. Under current conditions, there’s no trade-off between what’s good in the short run and what’s good for the long run; strong fiscal expansion would actually enhance the economy’s long-run prospects."

    Krugman is a partisan hack.
    No. What upsets you is that he ISN'T a partisan hack: he holds real economic convictions and applies them consistently, based on the state of the economy. You wish he'd be the kind of hack who'd agree that tax cuts are always good, regardless of the state of the economy.

    What economics
    The economics that won him the Nobel Prize for economics and made him one of the most respected living economists in polls of economic professionals. What you'll need to do, to get a better understanding, is to actually step outside your conservative media bubble (where the only thing that matters about Krugman is that he refuses to toe the conservative line), and instead read serious economic writing. Then you'll have a less skewed view of the world.

    At the end of the day, the change in the national debt is what really matters. The debt is a drag on the economy and requires costly maintenance, the deficit doesn't really much comparatively. The deficit isn't the number that has to be paid back.
    Yet much of the debt is a number that we just owe to ourselves -- one column of accounting owing another column of accounting some money.

    From your BEA cite:

    2017Q1 3.3 1.2
    2017Q2 4.1 3.1
    2017Q3 5.3 3.2
    2017Q4 5.3 2.9
    Average 2.6
    That's not how math works. You can't take four quarters of annualized growth and do an arithmetic average of those numbers to get one year of growth.

    Of course you went back to January for the first estimate for your other cites instead of the current GDP estimates released in March.
    What I did is quoted the annual growth rate -- the same annual growth rate quoted by the BEA, FRED, the financial press, and the general press. You'd prefer that we do the calculation in a non-standard way to come up with a non-standard answer, for political reasons. I decline to do so.

    Both your FRED and BEA cites show it s 2.6%
    No. As you're aware, neither of them shows that. In order to get the 2.6%, you had to do the calculation yourself, using a non-standard method. Click on the actual BEA link. Look at Cell c96. That's the growth rate for 2017: 2.3%. Now click on FRED:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

    Click "edit" and set the chart to "percent change" and "annual." You'll see the annual percent change for 2017 was 2.27334%. This is not an area of controversy. It's been widely reported that 2017's real GDP growth rate was 2.3%. You'd like us to, instead, go with an arithmetic average of annualized quarterly growth -- a method that is mathematical nonsense, and inconsistent with how other years' growth is calculated, resulting in an apples-to-oranges comparison. Again, I decline to go along with that.

    you know it is, but yet still try to mis-lead, that says a lot about your integrity and honestly.
    My integrity and honesty is clear. I quoted a number that is backed up by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Reserve, and every respectable journalistic outlet. You, by comparison, came up with your own home-brew calculation based on an arithmetic average of annualized quarterly growth. By this point, you surely realize your error. Why not just admit it and move on?
    Last edited by Arkady; 5th July 2018 at 10:39 AM.

  7. #47
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,631
    Thanks
    7654

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    Obama added $1.4 trillion to the national debt in 2016, Trump added $0.666 trillion in 2017 and will add $1 trillion this year, that is an improvement.

    Prosperity increases the trade deficit.

    Americans are confident in the Trumpconomy and are out spending.

    Corporations have more cash on hand than ever in the history of the United States of America.


    Consumer Confidence is higher than at any point until Donald J Trump was elected and BO was rejected at the polls in November 2016.

    Anything else?

    Good Times Are Here Again!
    For someone who tries to talk as if she knows something.. how about you accept that BO was not even running in 2016, therefore could not be rejected ?

    Which was the best luck Trump could have had, and the reason why he didn't run 4 years earlier.. he knew he would not stand a chance were he to run against Obama, and that he could not put on any circus show that would survive.

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    Yes. And, as I said, his second term average was over 2%.



    That's not so much a trajectory as it is a snapshot. I could as easily say that the annualized growth rate for the second half of 2016 was 61% higher than the annualized growth rate for the first half of 2016, and I could claim that was the trajectory for the Obamaconomy. But such cherry-picking doesn't have any value. Over short terms, GDP growth bounces up and down. For example, the growth rate was 53% better in 2014 than in 2013, and 12% better in 2015 than 2014, but then worse in 2016. When viewed that close, you're just reading the noise.



    Again, the definition of "lie" isn't a fact that makes you sad.



    If by "garbage" you mean "information that makes Libertine feel like an idiot," then yes, it was. But, the point is I provided multiple links, each coming at it from different angles. I take it they all made you feel like an idiot. That should tell you something.



    Could you give an example of Krugman "screaming" something to that effect? His writings from the era are still widely available. I think his position has been remarkably consistent --and consistent with mainstream economic thinking. Basically, he wants us to run deficits during economic contractions and for the period following them when the economy is still getting its legs, then get rid of the deficits when the economy doesn't need them. That is his consistent message regardless of who is in the White House. Here's a column from the Bush era:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/o...01krugman.html

    As you can see, he's not screaming about inflation. Instead, he's arguing that the deficit worriers have it wrong:

    "But the deficit worriers have it all wrong. Under current conditions, there’s no trade-off between what’s good in the short run and what’s good for the long run; strong fiscal expansion would actually enhance the economy’s long-run prospects."



    No. What upsets you is that he ISN'T a partisan hack: he holds real economic convictions and applies them consistently, based on the state of the economy. You wish he'd be the kind of hack who'd agree that tax cuts are always good, regardless of the state of the economy.



    The economics that won him the Nobel Prize for economics and made him one of the most respected living economists in polls of economic professionals. What you'll need to do, to get a better understanding, is to actually step outside your conservative media bubble (where the only thing that matters about Krugman is that he refuses to toe the conservative line), and instead read serious economic writing. Then you'll have a less skewed view of the world.



    Yet much of the debt is a number that we just owe to ourselves -- one column of accounting owing another column of accounting some money.



    That's not how math works. You can't take four quarters of annualized growth and do an arithmetic average of those numbers to get one year of growth.



    What I did is quoted the annual growth rate -- the same annual growth rate quoted by the BEA, FRED, the financial press, and the general press. You'd prefer that we do the calculation in a non-standard way to come up with a non-standard answer, for political reasons. I decline to do so.



    No. As you're aware, neither of them shows that. In order to get the 2.6%, you had to do the calculation yourself, using a non-standard method. Click on the actual BEA link. Look at Cell c96. That's the growth rate for 2017: 2.3%. Now click on FRED:

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1

    Click "edit" and set the chart to "percent change" and "annual." You'll see the annual percent change for 2017 was 2.27334%. This is not an area of controversy. It's been widely reported that 2017's real GDP growth rate was 2.3%. You'd like us to, instead, go with an arithmetic average of annualized quarterly growth -- a method that is mathematical nonsense, and inconsistent with how other years' growth is calculated, resulting in an apples-to-oranges comparison. Again, I decline to go along with that.



    My integrity and honesty is clear. I quoted a number that is backed up by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Federal Reserve, and every respectable journalistic outlet. You, by comparison, came up with your own home-brew calculation based on an arithmetic average of annualized quarterly growth. By this point, you surely realize your error. Why not just admit it and move on?
    https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xlsx

    You post a source that proves my point, then you go looking for something different.

    I just went to the BEA, at the link it shows Real GDP at the end of 2016 at 16,851,400,000 and Real GDP at the end of 2017 at 17,286,500,000.

    Do you dispute those numbers? Is the BEA lying?

    That is a 2.58% increase.

    You can average the quarterly change in GDP to get the average annual change, that's how math works. Care to cite a mathematical law that shows that isn't true?

    Of course you cite Krugman when he is big on Obama's Deficit Spending, but didn't share anything mid GWB. Of course debt is bad again now that Trump is in.

    So we should only look at Obama's second term, that would be as dishonest as looking at only the first term of GWB.

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    9,939
    Thanks
    1649

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    For someone who tries to talk as if she knows something.. how about you accept that BO was not even running in 2016, therefore could not be rejected ?

    Which was the best luck Trump could have had, and the reason why he didn't run 4 years earlier.. he knew he would not stand a chance were he to run against Obama, and that he could not put on any circus show that would survive.
    He was stumping full time for Hillary and Hillary was promising to be his third term.

  10. #50
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    1,830
    Thanks
    2532

    From
    Massachusetts
    Quote Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
    https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xlsx

    You post a source that proves my point, then you go looking for something different.
    As you're now aware, each of the sources I posted debunked your point. The BEA, FRED, and all the news sites all agreed that 2017 real GDP growth was 2.3%. You just went out and did a mathematically invalid operation (doing an arithmetic average of four quarters of annualized growth to give you the annual growth figure), and came up with a nonsense answer.

    Is the BEA lying?
    No, they're telling the truth: the GDP growth rate in 2017 was 2.3%. I even gave you the exact cell to find the answer in, in the BEA spreadsheet. Your home-brew calculation is the problem here, not the BEA's data.

    You can average the quarterly change in GDP to get the average annual change, that's how math works.
    No, obviously, you can't. That's not how math works. Here, some simple math for you, to show your error. Say GDP grows by 10% first quarter, then shrinks 10% in the second quarter, grows 10% in the third quarter, then shrinks by 10% in the fourth quarter. How much has it changed?

    If you never made it past about 4th grade math, you might say it hasn't changed at all, since the arithmetic average of +10%, -10%, +10%, -10% is 0. But now do the actual math and see if that's where it comes out. Say you start at 100.

    Q0 100
    Q1 100+(10%*100)=110
    Q2 110-(10%*110)=99
    Q3 99+(10%*99)= 108.9
    Q4 108.9-(10%*108.9)= 98.01

    See, you didn't get 0 change. You got a decrease of 1.99%.

    The same basic thing plays out with alternating plus and minus annualized 10% change (which is about 2.4114% quarterly change)

    Q0 100
    Q1 100+(2.4114%*100)=102.4114
    Q2 102.4114-(2.4114%*102.4114)=99.9418515
    Q3 99.9418515+(2.4114%*99.9418515)= 102.3518493
    Q4 102.3518493-(2.4114%*102.3518493)= 99.88373681


    So, again, rather than the net-zero change you'd get if math worked the way you'd expected, you instead find a net decrease. You need a geometric average, not an arithmetic average.

    Geometric Average vs. Arithmetic Average: Which is Correct For Investment Returns? - Arbor Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (AAAMP) Value Blog

    Of course you cite Krugman when he is big on Obama's Deficit Spending, but didn't share anything mid GWB
    I shared a Krugman column from the Bush era. If you now want to retreat and redefine your claim only to include things from the "mid GWB," fine, but you still haven't produced an example of his supposed screaming on the topic, whereas I did provide a Bush-era example of him downplaying the risk of deficits when Bush was president. As a general matter, Krugman believes in running deficits in hard economic times, and eliminating them in good economic times. The political party of the president doesn't enter into it, as you now realize (since you've seen that column from the Bush era arguing against the deficit scolds).

    So we should only look at Obama's second term
    What makes you think that? Or were you trying to pretend I'd said that? If so, why not just stick to what I've actually said, rather than devising straw men and attributing them to me?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Economy is NOT Booming
    By Babba in forum Economics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 5th March 2017, 04:43 AM
  2. The Colorado Economy Is BOOMING
    By BigLeRoy in forum Economics
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 17th May 2016, 01:23 PM
  3. The Economy Is Booming
    By Mrs Behavin in forum Economics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th March 2006, 10:00 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed