Economists savage Trump's economic agenda

a reply to: LSU0408

And guess what that means... They're unemployed. Just because you stop searching for a job and go post up on your lazy tookus doesn't mean you're no longer unemployed.

WTH???? What the hell are you talking about?

"Go post up on your lazy tookus"?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because Obama's plans have worked so very well?

If you don't believe Obama's economic plan has been good for America, you've been brainwashed by FOX NEWS.

The Obama economic recovery has been slow and steady, but has been good for America. Unemployment almost at 5%, deficit cuts, spending cuts, and an improvement on almost every other economic indicator since Obama took office in 2009.

FOX NEWS has been telling their viewers that the Obama administration has been a complete disaster economically, but the data doesn't hold up to this massive lie.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But but but I though Trump was the new Messiah that was going to make America Great again and bring lollipops and Rainbows and gumdrops to all 50 states

In order to be President, you actually have to care for PEOPLE.

The reason a businessman won't make a good President is because modern day billionaires like Trump don't care about people, they care about nothing other than the bottom line.

Billionaires with far right political outlooks ONLY care about the bottom line. However, to paraphrase the great Henry Ford "A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business".

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: greencmp


"The field of economics is broken down into two distinct areas of study: microeconomics and macroeconomics. Microeconomics looks at the smaller picture and focuses more on basic theories of supply and demand and how individual businesses decide how much of something to produce and how much to charge for it. People who have any desire to start their own business or who want to learn the rationale behind the pricing of particular products and services would be more interested in this area.

Macroeconomics, on the other hand, looks at the big picture (hence "macro"). It focuses on the national economy as a whole and provides a basic knowledge of how things work in the business world. For example, people who study this branch of economics would be able to interpret the latest Gross Domestic Product figures or explain why a 6% rate of unemployment is not necessarily a bad thing. Thus, for an overall perspective of how the entire economy works, you need to have an understanding of economics at both the micro and macro levels.

Link for Investopedia

I think even Trump would agree that the subject of Economics is divided into two fields of study. In fact, I am the frist to admit that he is an expert in Microeconomics, how else would have made all the money he has, but I in no way see that as him knowing about the complicated economy of the United States as a whole.

He has never been poor and homeless for a period in his life, how does he know about the economic facts of a life like that? "

Economics is the study of natural market interactions, like psychology is the study of neural processes. Microeconomics addresses markets and nothing else. Microeconomics is economics.

Macro"economics" addresses the government intervention into economics. The government is not an economic entity, it is a political entity. Government spending is part of GNP for example, even though the government makes no products for profit. Macro"economics" is the study of using government to control an economy, not the study of understanding market forces.

a reply to: babybunnies

Obama's economic plan is indeed successful.

Poverty is rising and 45 million people get food stamps.

20% going for 100%

a reply to: Semicollegiate

ec·o·nom·ics
ˌekəˈnämiks,ˌēkəˈnämiks/Submit
noun
noun: economics; plural noun: economics
1. the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.

source dictionary

If you look up college core work for a business major you will see they take two classes at the introductory level, Macro- and Microeconomics.

Topics in Microeconomics

Topics in Macroeconomics

As far as the government being a political body, I never questioned that, but the congress does make legislation on economic issues. Anti-trust acts, tariffs, and other laws that control what a business can do in America.

Last, the whole point of this thread is not to define Economics, but to show that Trump is or is not fit to lead the nation because of his planned economic policies. Even by your definition of Macroeconomics, my opinion on Trump still stands, for he has proven he knows how to make a large amount of money for himself, but he has no experience using a government for the controlling of a national economy.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

No one is fit to lead any nation.

Trump is a business man, and so far in history, no business man has been a dictator. Trump will probably increase economic freedom for the individual American citizen, although the means open to him to do that are all going to expand the power of the Presidency, which is bad.

I would prefer no President at all.

I think Trump will be elected. Left Right Left Right... its the Rights turn and Trump has the Reagan class of charisma and a history of accomplishment.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: babybunnies

Obama's economic plan is indeed successful.

Poverty is rising and 45 million people get food stamps.

20% going for 100%

thats complete slander and this post is not intelligent. just political bashing.

oh look hungry people getting food, what an evil man obama must be

9 pages of bickering back and forth about "It's a recovery!" or "It's an illusion". I don't believe that we will need to wait very long for the latter argument to be proven correct.

We will witness 2008 again, and probably worse, because none of the problems that led to that moment in time have been rectified. There are more bubbles, bigger bubbles, massive unemployment, manufacturing continues to decline. Good jobs have vaporized and been replaced with crap part time service positions. Eventually, the lack of manufacturing will impact the service sectors, if it hasn't begun already.

I can't believe that there is anybody left that believes the numbers coming out of those agencies.

I wander if Macy's got this news before they decided on store closings and layoffs?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: hubrisinxs

No one is fit to lead any nation.

And with that, we are in agreement.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't blame anything on Bush. In fact, you are the first person to mention his name in the thread.

So what exactly is better? I'm a middle class working American, so tell me what part of the economy is better, because the way I see it, unless you're dependent on government handouts and tax paying Americans paying your bills for you while you sit on your lazy ass or find a part-time job so you can still collect handouts, nothing has gotten better.

It's not all about you, buddy. There are 300 million people in the country other than yourself.

Your thread is about the economy under Bush and I wasn't saying you blamed him but I can remember him being refused time and time again during his last two years while the majority of Congress was held by democrats. That's why the economy went to pot, and it hasn't gotten any better with a democrat in the White House. Of course it's not all about me, but as a middle class American, I represent a large amount of Americans and I would assume that most are in my shoes.

Wow you managed to find a way to blame Democrats for BOTH the recession under Bush AND for the economy not improving to the point you'd like it to improve to under Obama. THAT was an excellent piece of partisanship if I've ever seen it. You do realize that I can literally use the same exact reasoning you just used to blame the Democrats for the economic crash to blame Republicans for the lackluster economy recovery right?

Lol, what?

Anyways, you still haven't answered my question. What has improved for me as a middle class American? I named some of the plaguing issues and all you said is that this isn't all about me. But I'm not the only one with those problems caused by the government. So what has improved?

Read the thread. I've posted many stats and data showing how the economy has improved, I'm not about to post them all over again just for you.

You said everything but healthcare has improved. Nothing has helped me.

Did you need help?

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: onequestion
The only real experts on the economy are the guys controlling it.

I'm going to assume that trump is closer to these guys then the economist.

Trump is more of a microeconomist. These guys are macroeconomists. Different theories and principles govern economy ideology depending on micro vs macro.

Doesn't matter. He could put a crew of those guys on his team specifically for economics and people would still write him off.

Well it would make his case a lot better if he had sound economic principles backing his ideas. The complaints around Trump involve him not having substance to his rhetoric and you are saying that people would still write him off if he attempted to correct that problem.

Of course you DID say having economists on his payroll. If he was just paying a bunch of suits to agree with him then that is a different story. I will admit that it may be hard to tell the difference though.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep in mind, with Trump in charge, expect the Defense industry to see WAY more improvements than they are seeing under Obama (who I might add is perpetually the ire of the MIC since they are always complaining about him trying to slash military budgets).

Yes the American Military Bull in the world's china shop. How long you think before someone shoots that bull?

What happens to all that "improvement"? How better for Americans is that?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep in mind, with Trump in charge, expect the Defense industry to see WAY more improvements than they are seeing under Obama (who I might add is perpetually the ire of the MIC since they are always complaining about him trying to slash military budgets).

Yes the American Military Bull in the world's china shop. How long you think before someone shoots that bull?

What happens to all that "improvement"? How better for Americans is that?

Dunno. I want the military budget slashed considerably.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep in mind, with Trump in charge, expect the Defense industry to see WAY more improvements than they are seeing under Obama (who I might add is perpetually the ire of the MIC since they are always complaining about him trying to slash military budgets).

Yes the American Military Bull in the world's china shop. How long you think before someone shoots that bull?

What happens to all that "improvement"? How better for Americans is that?

Dunno. I want the military budget slashed considerably.

Swords into plow shares? Good luck with that. The defense budget is an open artery. A trillion for new nukes, another big stealth bomber, all the infrastructure already out there needing maintenance and ammunition, Syria, Iran, Russia?

The plan will ruin US.

Good thing the Saudis are 'proxy-ing' for the US, buying all that "defense". Overall though, the lesson learned in Vietnam has been forgotten or purposefully overlooked. You can bomb from on high forever, you won't be able to win that way. As soon as you let up the enemy comes out of hiding to shoot at you.

Its a no win situation (except for the bomb makers and delivery systems)

originally posted by: fartlordsupreme

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How so? The economy is actually doing pretty well right now.

You mean prices are going down?

I don't know about where you live, groceries are ever more expensive.

Let me know when shrinkflation reverses its trend. Let me know when wages go up, when interest for savings goes up.

Then we can talk about the economic 'upturn'.

Well every attempt Obama has tried to increase wages has been met with Republican resistance. So it's hard to blame him for that.

Politicians have nothing at all to do with the price of rice.

Edit: When it comes to benefitting the people both sides of the isle talk argue and press conference ad nauseum, but an expenditure for arms shipments or a new aircraft carrier… bang, done deal.

i know this is way back on the second page
but i still had to point out that politicians and legislation actually can and do have a very significant impact on the cost of food through various subsidies, rights to natural resources, transportation, labor laws, taxes, and near countless other ways

the fact that you think politicians have nothing to do with the price of rice is down right ignorant

Proposing the government represents the people is the height of ignorance, the biggest voice in Washington are the corporations.

I see by your join date you've only been here a few months. Stay tuned.

a reply to: intrptr

Yea except we could easily slash our military budget by half and STILL be spending more than every other country.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Yea except we could easily slash our military budget by half and STILL be spending more than every other country.

Thats not enough to rule the world.

The Military will need at least ten times what the world spends to defend itself from US.

Just like they need a ten to one superiority in the field when assaulting a defensive position.

Thats the doctrine anyway, its impossible to maintain a ten to one advantage forever, also impossible to dominate the world.

Try telling them that. The military plans to win, factories for war churn away and banks eagerly loan the money.

Blind with pride, greed and power.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

Yea except we could easily slash our military budget by half and STILL be spending more than every other country.

Thats not enough to rule the world.

Why do we need to rule the world?

The Military will need at least ten times what the world spends to defend itself from US.

Just like they need a ten to one superiority in the field when assaulting a defensive position.

Thats the doctrine anyway, its impossible to maintain a ten to one advantage forever, also impossible to dominate the world.

Try telling them that. The military plans to win, factories for war churn away and banks eagerly loan the money.

Blind with pride, greed and power.

None of this is convincing me why we wouldn't slash the military budget by at least half. Makes an excellent sales pitch for the MIC big wigs though.

the way i read this:

trumps policies are because poor people rely on cheap shoddy Chinese crap from wally world.

If all of our manufacturing jobs didn't migrate to china, that wouldn't be a problem.

if the tariffs were high, maybe those jobs would start flowing back into the US
and we could afford american products again