U.S. Back At No. 1 Competitiveness Ranking — Will Trump's Critics Ever Admit To Being Wrong?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Economy: Have Donald Trump's policies had a big impact on the U.S. economy and its competitiveness? The answer, we think, is an obvious yes. Now comes a new report, based mainly on "hard" data, that confirms that.
The report comes from the IMD Competitiveness Center in Switzerland. Each year it ranks countries by 256 different variables to come up with its global competitiveness rankings.
For 2018, there was a surprise: The U.S. leapt three places to take over the top spot in global competitiveness — just ahead of Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands and Switzerland. That jump was based on its "strength in economic performance and infrastructure," ranking first in both areas.
That this is so shouldn't shock anyone with any knowledge of what's going on in the economy.
Since Trump took office, GDP growth has averaged 2.9%, up from 2% under President Obama. Unemployment now stands at 3.9%, and jobless rates for African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics are at or near all-time lows.
Inflation, at about 2%, remains under control. Business investment is surging, and a big reason for that is that corporate taxes are low, thanks to Trump's tax cuts.
Meanwhile, Trump continues to slash away at the thicket of regulations that strangles the U.S. economy, costing us collectively nearly $2 trillion a year. All of this has helped to fuel an economic renaissance of sorts. U.S. households are $7.1 trillion richer since Trump entered office, thanks to rising share prices and strong real estate markets.
Just to be clear, we're not citing this one report as a be-all and end-all for competitiveness or even for the fate of the economy. Nor are we in the forecasting business.
But others are, and among them have been some of Trump's fiercest critics. To read what they wrote and said, the U.S. returning to No. 1 in competitiveness wouldn't just be unlikely — it would be impossible.
Just last November, for instance, a blog post on the Economic Policy Institute's website informed us that "Republican tax plan will reduce American competitiveness." That was, to be kind, wide of the mark.
Similarly, the liberal Brookings Institution opined in March of last year that "Trump's 'America First' budget will leave the economy running behind." Didn't happen.
Going back even further, many economists and pundits were wrong — dead wrong — about Trumponomics. But to this day they can't bring themselves to admit it. Imprisoned by the illogic of their own liberal ideology, they all saw not just failure, but instant disaster. They still do.
We've run the following quotes in IBD before, but in light of this new report they bear repeating:
"We are probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight," said New York Times columnist and Nobelist Paul Krugman, just one day after Trump won the election.
"Under Trump, I would expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months. The damage would be felt far beyond the United States," said Larry Summers, the former top economist for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, speaking in the summer of 2016.
"If the unlikely event happens and Trump wins you will see a market crash of historic proportions," agreed MSNBC's Steve Rattner, a former Obama administration official, speaking in October of 2016.
3% Growth Is Possible
As we said, when it comes to the economy, past performance is no guarantee of future results. And sure, Trump or Congress or the Fed could make big mistakes that would cause an economic hiccup or even a recession.
But let's focus on policies, not personalities, and facts, not opinions, when it comes to performance. And in doing so, by any economic measure you might make, the U.S. is doing better today than it was when Trump was elected.
Moreover, Trump might be on the verge of another big win over his critics in the media and economics profession.
Recall that when Trump promised 3% growth, he was roundly criticized and even ridiculed for what many claimed was pie-in-the-sky political hyperbole. Some even said such growth would be impossible.
But, as we noted, GDP growth has averaged 2.9% since Trump moved into the White House, just a hair under 3%. If the Atlanta Fed's GDP "Nowcast" — which uses current data to make up-to-date forecasts — is correct, 2018's second quarter could see growth of as much as 4%.
That would push average growth above 3% for Trump's term. If so, that would be yet another "crazy" idea that Trump had that turned out to be true.
While all those dire prognostications we mentioned proved false, the media continue to quote those who made them uncritically.
It seems that among the media and the Beltway and coastal elites, no distortion of Trump's many successes ever gets corrected — only repeated. And facts are never acknowledged — only ignored or distorted.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
all predictable...
the fastest racehorse in the stables has been held back on purpose for far too long and now has been let loose.
this is just the beginning.
Cheers
Will Trump's Critics Ever Admit To Being Wrong?
Mr. Trump first, he has so much more to admit.
I will take that as a no.
A maybe, there are actually a couple of things that I feel he has been correct on. Unfortunately unless someone puts their thumb on the scale, it tips sadly away from him.
Get real, the Trumpster is doing a remarkably good job. Please tell us how the alcoholic old biddy in the pantsuits would be doing by now.
A lot of this good news was in the pipeline before trump became a zit on the nation's ass.
Of course they won't accept that because it was Obama, they would like to think that the presidency went from George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump with no one in between.
You give him far too much credit. He's not able to form a thought much less a zit. I'd say he's more along the lines of a dingleberry.
There's a cure for that.
Hi X - I see you've put on your comedian hat tonight.
I haven't chatted with you in a while. Hope all is well.
True...it would appear that he does not even know what a dinglebery is.
At least she isn't a cunt like Ivanka is.
Nope....wrong again. When are you going to stop trying to pretend to be Google when you obviously don't even use it yourself.
She is worse! Much much worse than Ivanka could ever be!
No Ivanka is young and fresh, Hillary is a old dried up cunt with a taint of crotch rot.
It is easy to be vulgar. Grow up.
She is also the mother to Donny's baby...convenient.. LOL
And you tell others to grow up? Try taking your own advice.
My statement going right over your head is not surprising.
It is just projection on the liberals part .They figure if they do it then everybody must do it also .
"There is nothing beneath what they will attempt to display their all-consuming hatred of anything and all things Trump."
And there is nothing beneath what the right wing will attempt to display their all-consuming hatred of anything and all things Obama and Hillary. The right walks on no higher or righteous ground than the left. They merely tell themselves they do.
Nope...I understood it very well. You're not quite as clever as you think.
Not near as sickening as what Trump and his total ignorance is doing to our country.
Obviously from your comment you didn't.
Clever enough.
Amen!
Those same unemployment numbers that rightwingers claimed were always fudged under Obama are, of course, now being hailed as pure since the Obama trend continues and ScumptyTrumpty tries to claim all the credit for it. If the republican model plays out again as it has over the past 30 years we're looking at another big financial crisis and recession in ~3 years, maybe sooner if Scumpty sticks to his tariff threat this time.
Do not believe these Trumpian numbers.
Wall Street, the big Investors and The Big Banks are doing fairly well. And will continue to do so until the time is right to pull the plug again.
The US debt is rising swiftly.
Main Street, on the other hand, is taking on more debt. The high paying jobs with security are simply not there for the average person.
Is the Trump Administration engaging in economic propaganda?
Nope, just telling it like it is. Nothing Obama did had a positive impact on the economy.
That is such an absurdly big lie that I'm sure you could hardly stop laughing as you <del>pawed</del>(oooo, excuuuse me) typed it out.
For once you are correct. Obama did have a positive impact on the economy, of OTHER COUNTRIES. Remember all those jobs that "weren't coming back" that are miraculously coming back? How about all the money and weapons sent to other countries that could have been used for our infrastructure?
Can somebody with a brain PLEASE tell me why liberals and leftists are dead set on the failure of the US?
Can always count on you, Jermy, to double or triple down on both the lie and the absurdity. Well done by your "standards."
If by digging us out of the republican caused recession in 2007-2008, is "failure", I am all for it.
Fact...
When Bush took office, the country was in the best shape it had been in since 1943...when Bush left office, it was in the worst shape it had been in since 1929. And in that 8 year span, bush had a republican congress for 6 years. Spin all you want. Bush and the republicans destroyed our economy.
LMAO!!!
WOW!!! Gotta love it when the uninformed try so hard to pretend to be informed.
I 'm not aware they are IMO most are simply trying to help take the USA into the future as the world changes. Many conservatives seem to believe we can hold on to the past and that is a better way to go into the future.
horse and buggy or modern transportation, you choose.
Scandals? There were none.. LOL Trump has been a scandal since day one!
I suppose you can dispute the numbers with facts? We'll wait.. LOL
Flat out lie.
Literally everything in your post is a lie... LOL Did you get that from alex "pizzagate" jones?
Garbage, normie, total g-a-r-b-a-g-e.
Hey, normie, good job showing that low-paying jobs without benefits are making a comeback under ScumptyDumpty.
The average monthly job increases during Obama's last 12 months in office was 207,000. ScumbyTrumpy's average since taking office is 182,000. He's a piker compared to Obama.
CLAIM
The Obama administration secretly bribed Iran to release four prisoners in January 2016. See Example( s )
RATING
ORIGIN
In January 2016, the Obama administration successfully negotiated the release of four Americans who had been imprisoned in Iran in exchange for the release of seven Iranians who had been imprisoned in the United States.(A fifth American prisoner was released separately.) At around the same time, the U.S. airlifted the equivalent of USD $400 million in various currencies to Tehran, sparking conspiracy theories about the timing:
As with other issues that would normally fall by the wayside in a normal daily news cycle, the payout to Iran became prime fodder for yet another election-year debate :
However, the $400 million dollar transfer was actually an openly announced one, paid in settlement of a nearly 40-year dispute between Iran and the United States — a settlement that likely saved the United States several billion dollars.
Back in late 1979, after Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America. Among those frozen assets was a $400 million delivery of fighter jets from the U.S. that Iran’s previous government had already paid for.
Although the American hostages were finally released a year later, issues such as the frozen Iranian assets (including that $400 million) were not settled at that time. Instead, an international court based in the Hague, the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal was established to deal with such legal claims. The tribunal process dragged on for years and years without a ruling on the $400 million being issued, and finally, when arbitration process was apparently about to wind up (quite possibly not in American’s favor), the U.S. agreed to pay Iran back the $400 million principal along with $1.3 billion in interest. If the issue had gone to the tribunal for a decision, as was expected, the U.S. could have been on the hook for the full $10 billion in compensation Iran was seeking.
It is true the U.S. agreed to the settlement at the same time it was negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran and for the return of four U.S. citizens who had been detained by Iran. However, the negotiations over these these issues were conducted by completely separate teams in order to avoid any overlap or suggestions of connections between them.
As Vox noted, charges that the U.S. had paid “ ransom ” to Iran for the release of hostages didn’t even make logical sense:
Even though the Obama administration openly announced the settlement in January 2016, it wasn’t until several months later that claims the U.S. had offered a “ransom payment” began to circulate due to spin from some Iranian officials. But Vox also noted that spin wasn’t too credible:
On 18 August 2016, the Obama administration acknowledged that delivery of the $400 million payment due to Iran in settlement of the dispute over payment for military equipment had been held up until officials were sure that American prisoners Iran had agreed to free in a separate deal were safely away:
The fact that the money was physically sent to Iran in various currencies rather than simply transferred by wire may seem odd in the context of the United States’ increasingly cashless society, but that was done in order to avoid existing Treasury Department sanctions that banned the use of American currency in transactions with Iran, and international sanctions which at that time kept Iran from accessing the global financial markets (and which were lifted in January 2016).
Anything else I can prove you wrong on? Thanks for playing!
That 150 billion was from the time that Jimmy Carter was president and, took all Iranian assets in American banks when the Mulla's took over Iran. So, that money belonged to Iran anyway.
Shove off. Your stinking pile of lying garbage gets the name he deserves.
Where's the link? Or are you showing off your Power Point skills again?
And it took him 36 months to get to that. The current President has added just under double that in his FIRST 18 months.
When considering each presidents starting point trump should be well above where he is to equal the increase in numbers of the past.
When Obama took office we were losing about 800,000 jobs a month, when trump took office we were gaining about 250,000 jobs per month, So my question is WTH is trumps huge contribution ?
Seems like more of the same to me.
I don't think you understood the numbers, Jermy. That 207,000 figure was Obama's monthly average for his last year in office and 182,000 is your scumbag's far lower monthly average since then. Not sure what you mean by the 36 month comment but suspect it was just thrown in for cover purposes. In the first 3 months of 2009, the economy lost nearly 1.3M jobs. That's what Obama inherited and that wasn't the end of it. By Oct. of that year another 2M were gone. 2010 was the first year that the trend started to shift and 2011 had a 2+M increase or about 174,000 per month, just a bit lower than Scumbag's average right now in a "booming" economy. Here's some other numbers:
2014 3M jobs (avg 250k/mo)
2015 2.6M jobs (avg 220k/mo)
Summary: Your Scumbag's numbers really aren't even close no matter how you might try to juggle them around.
I saw that too. Obviously an attitude that a moderator should not have.
Norman,
You can not call out a member on this site, even a mod. That is a violation. If you have a complaint you are supposed to write me a PN and I will look into it. If you have another outburst like this, you will get a weeks suspension.
Actually NO. I recall, during his campaign, Trump promised 4% and more.
Then in Dec, 2017 Trump said;
So he touts 3.3 QUARTERLY GDP and cites 2 percent average GDP over 10 YEARS. For the YEAR of 2017, GDP was 2.3%
As to citing infrastructure as a metric, did the report, which wasn't linked in the seed [in fact the article isn't linked either], site what Trump policy has positively effected U.S. infrastructure?
Even with this last GDP report, ScumpityTrumpity's average GDP since taking office is merely 2.2%. Sad.
I can hardly wait for the Q2 actual number when it's released on July 1. I wonder if you'll even have the nerve to come back here when that comes out.
1st quarter GDP was revised down to 2.2.....
You are aware that Obama isn't president any longer aren't you Norman...
The old, but but Obama...LOL, you need some new material Norman....
Removed for context
Lol, Obama has said virtually nothing, he's been windsurfing with Branson and enjoying his retirement. GWB, to his credit, said very little as well. When Trump is out of office he will whine every day for the rest of his life about how 'unfair' everyone was to him [
] and how terrible his successor is doing.
Get out of that dream world Norman. Obama has said virtually nothing. Trump on the other hand whines and cry's 24/7...The whole world is unfair to him...LMAO he'll be using ''depends'' soon.
Well, Trump has just tanked any hope for our economy with his trade war with our allies, and he has crated a havoc for Republicans facing mid-term elections. Even Mitch McConnell, who usually has his head up Trump's butt, has parted with Trump on his recent tariffs on Canada, the EU and Mexico, which will backfire immensely. And McConnell is seeing it for exactly what it is, as disaster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell joined the calls of his congressional colleagues in asking President Donald Trump to reconsider a fresh round of tariffs levied against US allies in Mexico, Canada and the European Union.
"I hope we pull back from the brink here because these tariffs will not be good for the economy, and I worry that it will slow, if not impeded significantly, the progress we were making economically for the country," he said.
McConnell added that he hopes it ends soon and that he is "not happy about the prospects of a trade war."
The comments came during an economic conference in his home state of Kentucky. McConnell pointed to the impacts that a trade war might have on local employer Toyota and on Kentucky farmers.
House Speaker Paul Ryan issued a strong statement on Thursday evening, writing, "I disagree with this decision."
Ryan added, "There are better ways to help American workers and consumers. I intend to keep working with the President on those better options."
One Republican senator, who asked not to be identified, complained Thursday about Trump's decision to impose the tariffs, 25% on steel imports and 10% on aluminum imports. "I don't like trade wars. There are no winners in trade wars. And this scares me," the senator said.
Sen. Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady also spoke out against the President, creating a noticeable break between influential Republicans on the Hill from the White House.
Source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looks like Trump is losing his solid grasp on his party's support for everything he does. It seems that the party powers that be are finally waking up to the fact that Trump is not making wise decisions that can cost their party it's choke hold on the government come the mid-terms, and the next election in 2020.
It looks more and more like the initial Republican rejection of Trump was the right decision, but, they were left with having to accept what they were stuck with. Now they have to try to control the uncontrollable metal case in the Oval office that is supposed to represent the best of their party.
I saw that too. I wonder how many of these farmers that voted for trump will vote for him again if they lose everything they have because trump started a trade war with Canada, Kentucky's biggest customer?
None.
Typical McConnell candy-ass statement....he's going to "ask" the POS to change his mind. Republicans have turned Congress into a lapdog rather than a co-equal branch of the government. Cowards and scumbags almost to a one.
Well....he has to at least act like he cares about America and its people if he wants to get re-elected again. Lying is what he and his fellow party of Trump do best.
They all wimped out. I love this from George Will about Pence and republicans :
Because his is the authentic voice of today’s lickspittle Republican Party, he clarifies this year’s elections: Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing.
" Vote Republican to ratify groveling as governing."
That really does say it all about what the low level the Party of Trump has dropped down to.
First, Welcome back my friend.
George Will is in no way representative of conservative Republicans
He maintains his Conservative credentials, but he has officially left the GOP:
"Conservative columnist and commentator George Will announced that he is no longer a registered Republican after changing his Maryland registration from the GOP to "unaffiliated."
"I'm an unaffiliated voter in the state of Maryland," Will told PJ Media in an interview.
"This is not my party," Will said during a speech beforehand to the Federalist Society. He also reportedly said that House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to endorse Trump was part of why he left the party."
Either he wasn't able to swallow the flaws of a populist candidate or he felt that Trump didn't personify Conservative values. That may have been true when Trump was a candidate, but there is no question that President Trump has served Conservative interests since being elected.
He is not. Sorry...the same applies to McCain, Corker, Mueller and several other RINOS. There...now you know.
Agreed. I hate to say it but IMO John McCain has severely damaged the Conservative agenda because he is still bitter over what candidate Trump said about him. Corker, like McCain was a moderate to begin with and never really got over Trump being nominated. Mueller is a registered Republican, however his selection of a investigative team tells us all we have to know about how he feels about the President who passed him over.
No value {SP}
removed for context
Off Topic, "BF"
CoC violation "BF"
Excellent post!
You're using last years rankings.
Marking its 30th edition this year, the IMD World Competitiveness Rankings emphasize a long-term trend highlighted in past editions – that the countries on the top of the list each have a unique approach to becoming competitive.
Our mission remains to help countries achieve prosperity and higher quality of life. And this is how we expect our rankings to be used and interpreted: competitiveness is both a tool and an objective of economic policy.
The top five most competitive economies in the world remain the same as in the previous year, but their order changes. The United States returns to the first spot, followed by Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The Netherlands moves one place to 4th, swapping with Switzerland which moves down to 5th.
The remaining places in the top 10 are occupied largely by Nordic countries: Denmark, Norway and Sweden rank 6th, 8th and 9th respectively.
https://www.imd.org/wcc/world-competitiveness-center-rankings/world-competitiveness-ranking-2018/
Deleted CoC {SP}
Deleted skirting, {SP}
I'm going to do something that neither HA nor any other rightwinger on this or any forum ever does: admit my mistake. I did manage to pull up the wrong year for the competitive rankings. I hereby apologize to HA for the accusations I made. Don't get used to it.
Thank you, at least you do have some integrity. However, I don't believe it was a mistake, I think you did it intentionally
Deleted, skirting {SP}
Deleted, skirting {SP}
The growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) is a key indicator of economic activity, but the official estimate is released with a delay. Our GDPNow forecasting model provides a "nowcast" of the official estimate prior to its release by estimating GDP growth using a methodology similar to the one used by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
GDPNow is not an official forecast of the Atlanta Fed. Rather, it is best viewed as a running estimate of real GDP growth based on available data for the current measured quarter. There are no subjective adjustments made to GDPNow—the estimate is based solely on the mathematical results of the model.
Recent forecasts for the GDPNow model are available here . More extensive numerical details—including underlying source data, forecasts, and model parameters—are available as a separate spreadsheet .
Latest forecast: 4.8 percent — June 1, 2018
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the second quarter of 2018 is 4.8 percent on June 1, up from 4.7 percent on May 31. The nowcasts for second-quarter real consumer spending growth and second-quarter real private fixed investment growth increased from 3.4 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively, to 3.5 percent and 5.4 percent, respectively, after the employment report from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the construction spending report from the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Manufacturing ISM Report On Business from the Institute for Supply Management were released this morning.
Back to the subject of this article. This "competitiveness" ranking is obviously a forecast of something--exactly what isn't very clear. In any case a 2018 ranking when only 5 months of the year have gone by is pretty meaningless. But meaninglessness is an upgrade for the stuff HA slops onto this forum.