Q1 2019 watch - if under 3.0% - where is Trump’s economic miracle - can Trump beat O’s 2.9% ever?

[bripat9643]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Obama should be congratulated for the slowest recovery since WWII?

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Fucking moron, the recession ended in June, 2009.

https://www.nber.org/cycles/

The rebound occurred long before that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

Why Credit for the Decline in Black Unemployment Goes to Trump, Not Obama | People's Pundit Daily

Under Obama, people were dropping out of the labor market at record rates, thus black unemployment was down. Under Trump, labor participation is at record highs, meaning unemployment rates are actual indicators of the number of unemployed. Or at the very least, aren't simply a reflection of a dead job market and nobody bothering to look for work.

Record highs? Really? Does not look like record highs to me. Jan 2017 the LPR was 62.9% this month the LRP is 63.0%. Since you seem to struggle with math..that is a change of 0.1%.

Put plainly, it’s real.

Put plainly, you are full of shit.

At no point under Obama's 8 years was there a time when we had more job openings than we had people looking for work. Trump hit that point long ago.

Trump hit that point because every economic measure kept going the same direction it was when he took office.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

Basic math, something that seems to escape you.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%. If you add 10,000 to 1,000,000 you have a growth rate of 0.0099 or roughly 1%.

That is why a 100 point rally for the DJI is not a big deal like it was 20 years ago.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, he should be congratulated for ending Bush's Great Recession.

That recession ended before Obama was inaugurated.

Wrong again...https://www.nber.org/cycles.html

View attachment 258550

The rebound started before Obama's inauguration. It doesn't matter what government bureaucrats determine.

Bullshit. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Nope. economists on the government payroll define the end of a recession as the point where GDP becomes positive, not the point where it stops declining.

Well, yes that is what a recession is. Words have meanings whether you like them or not.

The worst of the job losses did not end until Jul 09...which is after the inauguration

The DJI did not start back up till March 09....which is after the inauguration

The low point for the GDP was the end of Jun 09...which is after the inauguration

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's always amusing when the USMB's fucking moron chimes in.

A moron is someone who believes that graph supports your claim.

It shows a steady rise in employment for the last 9 years. You know, what fucking morons call a slow recovery.

What it needs to show is that this result was better than doing nothing, and the record of past recessions indicates it isn't.

So? Reagan's recession was much milder and was intentionally induced to reduce inflation.

His recession was much worse. Unemployment went to 10.4%

10.4% is much worse than 10.0% ?? Really?

 

[Mac1958]

We'll never do what Trump promised. His "4% to 6%" claim was his standard mix of bullshit and ignorance.

The macro economy is changing right under our feet and we're not paying enough attention to it. A large and growing number of our workforce does not have the skillset required for what's already here, let alone what's coming. Other economies are catching up.

We're too busy watching the Kardashians™, playing political gotcha and screaming at each other to notice. We'll pay for it.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Millions are available.

As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.

So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

Basic math, something that seems to escape you.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%. If you add 10,000 to 1,000,000 you have a growth rate of 0.0099 or roughly 1%.

That is why a 100 point rally for the DJI is not a big deal like it was 20 years ago.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%.

Ummmm...10%.

 

[Faun]

The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


in 2007 they should of let it all crash n burn ..we'd be in a better place today .
cause by what? government policies that were tweeked in 90's
EVEN NEO CON GW stood up and said we're gonna pop
no one listened

We would still be in a depression had they let it "crash & burn."

 

[Faun]

Millions are available.

As far as GDP, you already demonstrated it's been declining for decades following a recession.

So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the overnight rate is 9 times higher under Trump but the employment growth is about the same?

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

Asshole. It's now more than nine times as high as it was for the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

 

[Faun]

There is no rate 9 times higher under trump. And yes, the growth rate is the same.

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

Asshole. It's now more than nine times as high as it was for the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

And again, it was up to 0.75% under Obama. It's only tripled under Trump, just like it did under Obama.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fed Funds.

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

Asshole. It's now more than nine times as high as it was for the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

And again, it was up to 0.75% under Obama. It's only tripled under Trump, just like it did under Obama.

No, the effective Fed Funds rate never touched 0.75% under Obama.
7 years under 0.25%. Two months over 0.50%.

 

[Faun]

Moron.

The federal fund rate has slightly more than tripled since Trump became president. That's nowhere near 9 fold. And it's only 2.5%, which is still low.

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

Asshole. It's now more than nine times as high as it was for the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

And again, it was up to 0.75% under Obama. It's only tripled under Trump, just like it did under Obama.

No, the effective Fed Funds rate never touched 0.75% under Obama.
7 years under 0.25%. Two months over 0.50%.

LOL

Your ignorance knows no boundaries. Even the effective rate did not increase 9 fold under trump. The effective rate in January, 2017, was 0.66%.

Typical conservative; shouldn't play with numbers.

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 258519

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

Basic math, something that seems to escape you.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%. If you add 10,000 to 1,000,000 you have a growth rate of 0.0099 or roughly 1%.

That is why a 100 point rally for the DJI is not a big deal like it was 20 years ago.

Here's some basic math for you:

If $100,000 grows by 10%, then it grows by 10%.

If $1,000,000 grows by 10%, then it grows by 10%.

China's economy grows by 10%/yr, and it has the 2nd largest economy on earth. Obviously, shear size is not a constraint on growth.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


in 2007 they should of let it all crash n burn ..we'd be in a better place today .
cause by what? government policies that were tweeked in 90's
EVEN NEO CON GW stood up and said we're gonna pop
no one listened

We would still be in a depression had they let it "crash & burn."

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

Basic math, something that seems to escape you.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%. If you add 10,000 to 1,000,000 you have a growth rate of 0.0099 or roughly 1%.

That is why a 100 point rally for the DJI is not a big deal like it was 20 years ago.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%.

Ummmm...10%.

GG was giving me a math lesson. Isn't that rich?

Apparently he believes that 9% = 10%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The effective Fed Funds rate was below 0.25% for the first seven years of Obama's presidency.
In March 2019, it was 2.41%. More than 9 times as high.

Dumbfuck, you said it increased 9 fold under trump. But it actually increased from 0.75% to 2.5%.

That is not a nine fold increase, I don't care how conservative you are.

Asshole. It's now more than nine times as high as it was for the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

And again, it was up to 0.75% under Obama. It's only tripled under Trump, just like it did under Obama.

No, the effective Fed Funds rate never touched 0.75% under Obama.
7 years under 0.25%. Two months over 0.50%.

LOL

Your ignorance knows no boundaries. Even the effective rate did not increase 9 fold under trump. The effective rate in January, 2017, was 0.66%.

Typical conservative; shouldn't play with numbers.

Less than 0.25% to 2.41%, it was actually more than 10 times the first 7 years of Obama's weak economy.

 

[Markle]

How many people are available to be hired with unemployment at 3.8%

Why was Obama's GDP growth so weak?
Not enough burdensome regulations?

Why is Trump's GDP growth so weak?

Compared to...?

Compared to Obama...Trump's best year is no better than Obama's best year

The average?

If you take the recession year out of the equation the average is not all that different. Trump's is only slightly better and last year may end up being Trump's best year

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, the slow steady decline of the GDP growth for the last 30 years is Obama's fault?

Has nothing to do with the simple mathematics that the larger some thing gets the harder it is to get high percentage changes.

Who says that?

who says what?

Who says GDP growth gets harder as the economy gets bigger? That certainly hasn't proved to be true in the cases of China and India.

Basic math, something that seems to escape you.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%. If you add 10,000 to 1,000,000 you have a growth rate of 0.0099 or roughly 1%.

That is why a 100 point rally for the DJI is not a big deal like it was 20 years ago.

If you add $10,000 to $100,000 you have a growth rate of 0.09 or 9%.

Ummmm...10%.

You are correct, that is what I get for trying to think before coffee.