What, specifically, will Trump do to 'fix' the economy?
The economy was a major issue in the campaign. And that is the usual case in presidential elections.
However, in 2024 the economy is in great shape. Two key lingering problems are prices and interest rates. High prices were triggered mostly by the pandemic. They spiked due to supply chain issues and suppliers using the pandemic as an excuse to raise prices. There are still suppliers who are charging artificially inflated prices but the market will take care of those naturally. Other than that, prices will always rise over time unless inflation was 0%. High interest rates are lowering naturally and these are a function of the Fed, not the PotUS. The factors influencing the decisions to raise or lower interest rates are largely out of the control of a PotUS.
So outside of prices and interest rates, let's look at the state of our economy. The GDP is growing and healthy. Wages are in good shape. Unemployment is at a normal rate. Inflation is at a normal rate. We are a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. We are exporting record levels of domestic crude.
So what, specifically, is Trump going to 'fix' in our economy?
Is Trump going to make the stock market continue to break record highs?
Is Trump going to magically reduce consumer prices?
Is Trump going to actually fund his programs from excessive tariffs ... and, on top of that, not spike consumer prices?
The PotUS does not control the economy; we have a market economy. That means prices (among other factors) are a function of supply and demand. The PotUS cannot magically make prices across the board reduce but that is apparently what the electorate believes he can do.
So what is wrong with the economy and the direction it is moving right now and, if you identify what is wrong, how exactly do you think Trump will 'fix' it?
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
What, specifically, is wrong with the economy and the direction it is moving right now and, if you identify what is wrong, how exactly do you think Trump will 'fix' it?
He is not going to fix the economy. He is going to break it.
This fantastical view that Trump is somehow going to cause the economy to get "better" belies the truth of the classical indicators of economic health listed in the article. That is, the economy is already cooking along. His planned direction as a disruptor of normality is not usually seen as being economically stimulating. The planned greatest deportation will rock the housing and food markets. If, as he says he plans on doing, he extinguishes the jobs of many bureaucrats, that will create a massive spike in unemployment. All of these losses will contribute to a ripple effect of job losses throughout the economy.
Look at his history as a business person. Just as he has done on many occasions, Trump will fuck it all up and blame someone else.
As you stated, there isn't A whole lot wrong with the current economy, but believe there soon will be, via that same A whole. High prices were not the result of some Biden policy. With Trump's closed mind set, anything he does will be sure to generate more wealth for those that need it the least, cause it is the nature of the beast, and on the poor and middle class, again the wealthy will feast and prosper, cause with the malleable minds he adds to the roster, each one a representative imposter, and not an example of imposter syndrome,yet still a sin, so dumb, have become his constituency, and unbelievable, how so many still don't see
I have with good reason a bad feeling. This country will not be healing.
The economy is fine and only far right wing Trump fascists pretend it isn't.
According to Trump he is going to lower taxes, cut government waste, rid ourselves of many gov’t departments, education, EPA etc. get rid of DEI and most everything that he doesn’t like.
Which of the above will help the economy is up for debate, if any at all.
If he lowers taxes, people will spend more. That is good for the economy (within limits). But the thing is, the economy is already healthy. So what problem is Trump fixing?
If he cuts government waste that is good for the nation's health and could help move closer to balancing the budget. He will not accomplish that, but it would be a good thing.
Ultimately, a key factor in Trump's election was that he would 'fix' the economy. So I ask Trump supporters what is broken and how will Trump fix it?
This is what Republicans always do. They come in right as Democrats have gotten the economy back on track and reduced deficit spending and they take credit for all the wins, then they give their billionaire friends massive tax breaks which create massive deficit spending again and then spend four years giving all their friends metaphorical goodie bags and actual pardons for the huge number of slimy right-wing criminals from the last several years, point the nose of the plane towards the ground just before the next election and then blame Democrats for the direction of the country even though they'd been in power the last four years.
Robert Reich (How Democrats Clean Up the Messes Left By...)
No doubt those who find this to be an inconvenient truth, perhaps because their brains are simply not large enough to understand facts, history and the economy, will attack this and attack Robert Reich instead of actually refuting even a single fact he points out. They'll just whine and moan about how the "left" is too obsessed with identity politics and doesn't know what "real Americans" want when nothing could be further from the truth, but because that argument can be reduced to a "Nuh uh!" Uh huh!" debate it matches rightwing intelligence levels, math and facts are just too hard for them to understand.
back on track and reduced deficit spending
too funny.
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org
Deficit More Than Cut in Half Since 2009 | whitehouse.gov
So, over the last 30 years, Republican Presidents have exploded the deficit and Democrat Presidents are forced to clean up their mess. It's a fucking fact, there's nothing funny about it unless someone is incapable of understanding economics, math or what deficit spending is.
Republicans come in, inevitably after a Democrat administration didn't "fix" every fucking problem for Americans (even though Republicans claim they want a small government that isn't responsible for fixing anyone's problems) which is what Republicans use to get back in power. And, like Bush did with a balanced budget and no deficit, Republican Presidents cheer at their windfall and start shoveling money to their wealthy donors, usually in the form of tax breaks for the rich. Bush gave nearly $3 trillion to the rich and added over $450 billion to the deficit.
The deficit for 2024 was 1.8 trillion dollars for a country at peace, not in depression and with no pandemic shutting down the economy.
Nothing else needs to be said.
No fact-check information was found for claim: 'The deficit for 2024 was 1.8 trillion dollars for a country at peace, not in depression and no pandemic shutting down the economy.
Your fact checker isn't very good:
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
I was just tryin out our new feature, perhaps i did it incorrectly, but damn, won't that come in handy dealin with you and yours ...when did this come about anyway ?
I have no idea. First time I noticed it.
Other than that was down from $3.1 trillion four years before. Apparently when Republicans are in power, they recognize that cutting spending and reducing the deficit take time and effort (especially since a Republican administration hasn't reduced the deficit by the end of their term in over 40 years.
Reagan took the deficit from $70 billion to $175 billion.
Bush 41 took it up to $300 billion.
Clinton got it to ZERO.
Bush 43 took it from $0 to $1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to $600 billion.
Trump increased it back to $3.1 trillion.
Biden nearly halved it again bringing it back down to $1.8 trillion.
Not a single Republican Administration in the last 40 YEARS has reduced the deficit by the end of their terms while every single Democratic Administration during that time did. Nothing else needs to be said, yet clearly some people never listen. In fact, even Jimmy Carter reduced the deficit from $74 billion in 1976 to $70 billion in 1980 so that time frame is closer to 50 years.
Sadly, the rightwing conservative Christian Republican today doesn't trust facts so none of this will make a lick of difference and not inform anyone that didn't already know these glaring truths. No wonder Republicans and rightwing media have spent so much time and effort undermining facts and dismissing fact checkers as the "real problem", not the mountain of lies coming out of their candidates' mouths.
Gee, What was going on then that caused a massive deficit?
Use keywords rather than full sentences.
This was stated in the announcement:
Google Fact Checker is not good with normal English sentences. It works mostly on keywords.
Use few good keywords. For example: " 2024 deficit" yields this:
Stated Claim: 2024 deficit
unfortunately, the best thing mr art of the deal could do to sustain a booming US economy, he has once again inherited, is a ToS violation to even mention it. I anticipate he'll default to the rwnj SOP ...
So, just like last time, pretty much?
Although him allowing/letting co-vid run amok while pretending 'nothing to see here' is what brought the economy to the brink in the first place
Far right wing fascism is all we have to look forward to under Trump.
I'm going retro. rules for radicals. a nice humiliating 1971 style insurgency. only this time, I blend right in with them ...
It's amusing that those who blather on and on about socialism, Communism, Marxism, and the evils of command economies are begging for one now, from a man whom they associate with the successes of capitalism.
“It's amusing that those who blather on and on about socialism, Communism, Marxism, and the evils of command economies are begging for one now…”
The focus on ‘isms’ blinds them into believing, through their myopic lens, that his attempts to manipulate prices are in any way attainable.
Time will tell, time will most certainly tell.
So I can kiss $1/gallon for gas goodbye?
first come the exaggerated promises, followed by lame excuses for not fulfilling them, then blaming his enemies for his failures ...
You just listed perfectly what we heard from the left for Obama's and Bidens entire presidency's.
Just can't take him anymore.
wonder if he'll blame the 2025 plan, he said he knew NOTHING about, on them damn lefty liberals, who have somehow infiltrated his traitors amongst his former policy heads, and they have slowly begun to slip not plan 2021, and all that jive, they have somehow found 2025, and maybe that will spur our sputtering economy to come back alive, from the dead , end, beginning of when the Trumpy Knight Mayoral candidacy gets candid, about its' plans for this planet of the Aches, and pains US ta sea, how deep it runs down a leg up on the competition, that thought it was no big deal to vote, inn one who explained who and how it would be , just for FUn, F U voted for he, and plane as day, the fuN has beguNZ, and ///////////////////////////////////////then some
An apostrophe is used to show possession. Not plural.
You're welcome.
good luck getting anything thru the senate, maga. they're familiar with rule by the minority, right?
I'm hoping elon makes him the first POTUS in space ...
Paramedics, police, fire departments and every service we take for granted is socialism. Far right wing fascists are dumb.
they want to defund that too ...
I‘ve been asking NT's "conservatives" for policy ideas for ten years. Zero. Nada. Zilch.
Nothing.
So I wish you luck.
Conservatives don't give a fuck about thinkers
Tax cuts and tarrifs.
Of course.
Along with a wand of good, supple wood.
Of course.
The question for Trump supporters is "what specifically is wrong with the economy?" and "how will Trump fix it?".
he's already taking credit for the economy as it is now ...
I don't think that you will find too many of the Trump supporters frequenting this article, unfortunately.
Clearly, because the economy is in good shape. They cannot argue based on facts since the facts are against them.
Bottom line, Trump voters who voted for Trump (at least in part) because of 'the economy' were duped into thinking the economy is bad and that Trump will magically fix whatever they felt was bad.
The two factors of the economy that are currently bad are prices and interest rates. Neither of these can be fixed by a PotUS.
Are you suggesting that the PotUS has no influence on either?
The word I used was 'fixed'. Let's stick with that.
A PotUS cannot fix a problem of consumer prices being too high across the board nor can a PotUS fix a problem of interest rates being too high.
One who votes for a PotUS thinking that he (or she) can fix those items has a very flawed understanding.
Nothing. It's bubbling along quite nicely.
But MAGA will "fix" it.
like their hero "fixed" a porn star ...
Do you believe the cost of energy effects the cost of goods?
Yes.
Do you understand that the USA is the third largest exporter of fossil fuel and we are producing plenty of crude? And we are producing at record levels.
The USA exports more crude oil and refined petroleum products than we import.
The USA is also the leading exporter of Natural Gas.
Are you aware that the vast majority of USA refineries are designed to process sour/heavy crude rather than sweet/light crude?
Do you know that the USA crude is of the sweet/light variety?
Do you know that the reason energy companies have (by their own choice) not switched to sweet/light crude is due to the enormous expensive of building / modifying refineries?
Do you know that it is cheaper to buy sour/heavy crude from other nations than it is for us to harvest our own sweet/light crude?
Do you recognize that the reason we import sour/heavy crude is because of basic economics?
So now tell me exactly what you think Trump is going to do to lower the cost of refining fossil fuels so as to lower the price of refined fuels and related products so as to lower the cost of production and transportation to eventually (in theory) lower the price of goods in the USA?
The 'spigot' is already open.
Like they've "fixed" so many things. Thanks to Fox, Americans have a completely skewed perception.
Trump took credit for Obama's great economy.
And then Trump ran it into the ground long before covid hit.
only the fucking morons that watch FOX ...
All of MAGA watches Fox, and little else. Sometimes they watch channels that are even further out in the dark.
Never said anything about lowering refining cost. What happens when supply exceeds demand? What happens when unnecessary regulations are lifted or eliminated?
I gave you tons of information and you dodge.
The point is that we are generating all sorts of fossil fuels.
So what is Trump going to do to lower the price of goods?
Are you saying the Federal Government should compel private companies to produce specific quantities of goods to manipulate pricing?
What regulations do you think are unnecessary when energy producers are making record profits?
I answered you just didn't like it, "when supply is exceeds demand" which is what will happen with increased production.
Trump will do nothing to lower the price of goods, when the cost of doing business is reduced it will lower the costs of goods, due to competition in the market.
The same stupid game of claiming you answered when you dodged a very detailed, thoughtful post from me.
Correct. Trump cannot do anything to lower the price of goods. So based on your post:
You imply that Trump will reduce the cost of energy. Which is what I addressed in my first reply to you @5.2.9. So how will he do that? (I predict you will dodge again.)
How will Trump lower the cost of doing business? Be specific.
Business have cost, cost of materials, cost of production, cost to ship / transport finished goods. Supply and demand are a basic premise of economics. If supply is high and demand is low or decreased, the cost goes down. Regulations cost businesses money to comply, if these regulations are eliminated or relaxed the business's cost go down. Trump has indicated he will increase energy production in the United States which will increase the supply, he has also indicated he will decrease regulations which will reduce the cost to businesses. Neither of these promises will lower the cost of the finished product, however competition in the marketplace will. If a company's cost are down 20%, they will reduce the cost of their goods to obtain more market share. This will affect the overall market and bring down the price. So, the answer is increasing supply and reduce regulations.
Why do you persist? All you ever get is word salad, because that's all they have, and it's good enough for them. They don't know it's nothing but word salad because they don't understand what they're talking about. For them, word salad is just as intelligible as actual analysis.
My post @5.2.8 directly showed that we already have plenty of supply.
Which regulations? Regulations exist for good reasons: safety, environmental, etc. One does not just decrease regulations. That means nothing. Which specific regulations would Trump decrease? We need to know that to see if your claim that it will reduce the cost of business holds any water and to evaluate the consequences of same.
I have not suggested otherwise. The question is not if lower costs of production and distribution in a competitive market will affect prices. The question is how the costs are lowered.
To wit:
Given our energy production is already healthy, Trump claiming to increase energy production falls flat. Companies normally do not voluntarily increase their supply in order to reduce market prices. And since we do not have an energy shortage, there is no gap that needs to be filled. It would be different if the USA was starved to produce fossil fuel energy but that is not the case.
Decreasing regulations is a bullshit response. Which regulations, specifically, are decreased?
Why do any of us engage Trump supporters?
Frankly, I am offended when people knowingly hold to partisan 'truths' even when it is clear that those 'truths' are nonsense. So I will challenge the nonsense and expose it for what it is.
Trump cannot reduce prices across the board. And in spite of Trump's propaganda, our economy is quite healthy. The key remaining problems for ordinary people are prices, wages, and interest rates. That is what Trump supporters believe Trump will magically fix.
People bought his bullshit and elected that scoundrel to be PotUS. That illustrates the danger of confirmation bias, stubborn partisanship, and (as you call it) 'bumpersticker thinking'. It has real, negative consequences for society.
That is why.
Hey,I resemble that implied sub-limanel message, and if I have to, i'll toss out a couple that will make the heads of those 'righties' spin, in their tighty whitey's, like Linda Blair at the gym exorcising her demons that demand good cardio, cause that's just how I roll,lessen iiii'z B on a role, modeled off of rockstars bazaar, i sum times R rated X, because it pre-seed's Y, and another thing, Trump is not going to do ANYTHING that benefits the average Joe, but if you are living well above middle class, even then, Trump says kiss my ASS not and thee shall not receive, cause I've red till blue in thr face of reason how the 'right' just can't seem to answer TiGs' ?, which leads me to B leave that Trumps BS a peers to have hit its mark, chalk up another shot in the dark, for the one wanting to death penalty the WRONG guys in Central Park, cause he's not neutral, just reversing 10 -20 years of progress or so.
But they're not listening. All they do is troll
It's why I won't engage with them anymore
I'm thinkin i could come up with a couple of those bumpersticker bush wackin drinkin N thinkin thingeeeeez, I'll just need a Truck the size of one of those giant earth movers found in strip mining facilities, and a baseball bat size pencil, i'll keep in my ear.
I can't help if you don't like the answer. If you want to show me how increased supply increases pricing or that reduced regulations increases cost, please do so. Otherwise, you will just have to wait.
Why would I do that given I made no such claim? You continue to deflect. You have no argument.
You cannot show how Trump will cause manufacturers to increase supply nor have you listed the regulations he will relax to cut costs.
No surprise there.
I don't know whether that is admirable... or ridiculous. Persisting in truth is admirable. Repeating the same action over and over, expecting a different result... is a definition of insanity.
Good luck!
Ah, but... Your salad has fine herbs and spices...
Who said I expect a different result? I never expect to change the mind of my interlocutor ... especially when it is a Trump supporter. Exposing nonsense is different from trying to change a mind.
TiG asked for "actions".
"Undoing" is not an action. But it is all conservatives have had, for decades. They've been undoing Obamacare for a decade.
If the market is already substantially pumping "energy" products, over-saturation and surpluses can harm/fracture/decrease market health and the suppliers in terms of storage capacity/facilities and the bottom line.
They kind of balance out don't they?
Tax cuts for the already wealthy.
Tariffs (tax increases) for businesses large and small which will be reflected in consumer prices.
They work in tandem in that they both harm middle- and low-income people the worst.
I thought that was Trump's economic plan. It was during his 1st term.
Are you saying "only" the wealthy got a tax cut?
The middle class gets a $10 cut. The rich get a $10 000 000 cut. So... you're right: everyone gets a tax cut.
2024 Federal Income Tax Brackets
2023 Federal Income Tax Brackets
2017 Federal Income Tax Brackets (Pre-Trump Tax Laws)
Trump Tax Brackets: Did My Tax Rate Change? - SmartAsset
The middle class gets a $10 cut. The rich get a $10 000 000 cut. So... you're right: everyone gets a tax cut.
Please explain what you are talking about. Provide an example.
Sorry - educating people who do not want to be educated... is not a good use of my time.
[deleted][✘]
Under the Biden administration the heavy task of raising up the economy after Trump's disastrous handling of Covid is nothing short of remarkable. As always Republicans want to tear down and destroy any progress a Democrat makes. Whether tearing down ACA/Obamacare that helped millions of Americans or tearing down American families by failure to renew the Child Tax Credit, tear it down is all Republicans know. Tear down the enormous boom in American manufacturing and jobs created rebuilding American infrastructure that the Burden administration created. Bush spent like a drunk sailor destroying the Clinton surplus and booming job market many times invoking 9/11 as a pretext while ignoring better economic plans. If Republicans can't tear it down they lie in order to falsely claim credit for Democrat accomplishments.
Tarrifs and tax cuts. America will be great again..
......again
My feelings are pretty much the same which I tried to express before seeing this - awesome - just regarding co-vid though - but the rest - so true.
Not a single Trump supporter yet to explain what is wrong with the economy and how Trump will fix what is wrong.
sorry, posted my comment literally 25 seconds after yours, but asz usual, forgot my sarc tag
They'd have to understand Econ 101.
Far right-wing fascists understand nothing but hate of the other.
It is so, so, so sad too. It's almost 'maddening' to know that some people would choose ideology over and above 'regular' living and breathing people.
Boy, that's odd, no one from the right is answering....
we'll probably have to wait until monday. saturday is gun show day and there's church tomorrow ...
family get togethers looking for hot dates tonight that they can repent tomorrow...
I know, he will stop DEI in schools so the savings on books for students on that subject will save the US $100,000 and we can apply that to the additional debt that he will add to the already yuuuge deficit.
I knew that if I looked long enough I would find something.
Just wait until the American people who live paycheck to paycheck and those on or almost on welfare discover that they will have to pay an extra thousands of dollars a year that they don't have on necessities because of Trump's intended massive tariffs.
There are lots of links on the internet that predict that.
I just read an article that states that Trump will inherit the best economy in the last 50 years.
Well people can label it as they see fit, but there simply is no fact-based denying that in terms of the defining characteristics of an economy, ours is in very good shape.
And apparently Trump supporters can only deem it bad yet cannot explain why the economy is bad (truthfully) or how Trump will 'fix' whatever they deem bad.
Unless they don't feel it is, maybe?...
Feeling are irrelevant.
Name what is wrong with the economy and then state how Trump will 'fix' the specific items you named.
[✘]
Yeah, parts of the economy is doing well but other parts not so much. I said before Biden dropped out that a lot of people were going to vote on kitchen table issues and that was definitely part of the election. When people are worried about putting food on their tables or keeping a roof over their heads, they just aren't going to feel particularly rosy about the economy. About all they can hope for is that wages start to catch up.
Name the parts that are bad in this economy and then state how Trump will 'fix' the specific items you named.
[✘]
As the members posting here before you suggested, Trump supporters cannot name the specific problems in the economy and how Trump would 'fix' those problems.
You are demonstrating this quite well.
[✘]
Your feeble attempts at an argument.
[✘]
[✘]
... uh, ... where? it looks like just personal attacks were attempted.
and TiG and I were so damn offended we lost our composure and { at least I ] ran and hid in the corner, till I exclaimed "Nobody puts Baby in the corner" imitating Patrick Swazey when her evil father wanted to prostitute Baby out ( sorry campers, just keeping it in the realm and theme of Trump and his staff pickers dream, as the women abusers seem to have an on going theme }
blind loyalty? sexual assault? unqualified? you're hired!
seems to be the only real requirements.
knuckle dragging ignorance fits in there somewhere ...
He inherited a great economy from Obama then claimed it as his own and then he trashed the economy even before covid hit. Everything Trump says is a lie. Trump said covid was a hoax. Trump says anthropogenic climate change is a hoax
Wish I owned a sniper rifle.
stinger, manpads ...
The only way the word "fix" can be used in relation to Trump and the economy is "the fix is in". He most certainly wants to emulate how Putin gets a piece of everything going on in the Russian economy.
It's fascinating that - for at least a decade - our NT "conservatives" (I use that word to avoid a ticket) have never given us a single policy statement.
What's interesting and telling is by now I know from experience that some conservatives do little to nothing. . . without a financial interest involved. Ten years, eh. One could wonder what is it some conservatives being here days in and days out - GAIN/SEEK.
Well, let's cast bread upon the water. The author asks two questions: what are the problems in the economy and how will Trump fix them? The attempt to shoehorn discussion into prices and interest rates (immediate effects) doesn't really capture the situation. Real people, in the real world, view the economy in terms of past, present, and future. The recent past is clearly understood and fresh in memory. The present is always fuzzy because of estimates, unknown risks, and level of resiliency in the economy. Long range weather forecasting is an easier task than economic forecasting.
First the problems. Inflation can grossly distort measured GDP. And distortions of only a fraction of a percentage point can reverberation through the economy in unpredictable ways. According to FRED, real GDP has grown from $21,058 billion in Q1 2021 to $23,386 billion in Q3 2024. But is that a healthy level of growth? A simple test would be looking at buying power using an inflation calculator. According to the calculator, we would need a real GDP of $25,511 today to match the buying power of the $21,058 billion GDP in 2021. So, the growth in GDP has fallen behind the loss in buying power. From this simple measure, the economy is not doing as well today as it was in 2021.
There are other factors influencing public perception of the economy, too. Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness sends a message that education is now a drag on the economy that requires government intervention. We have seen labor unrest over the last 4 years over pay and benefits. (There really have been labor strikes with demands for rather startling pay increases and job protections. Not indicators of a great economy.) Inflation in food and housing costs have overwhelmed pay increases; any good feelings over income gains quickly fade away in grocery aisles. (That creates a feeling that it is impossible to get ahead.)
Beyond feelings and emotional responses to prices, news that the US economy has lost resilience is a nagging concern for the future. The loss of a single food processing plant or manufacturing facility can cause major disruptions in supply and wild surges in price. People are no longer just living from paycheck to paycheck, they are now required to live crisis to crisis. The country couldn't supply itself with baby formula because one manufacturing facility was lax on sanitation. Any disruptions in international shipping threatens to shut down large sectors of the economy. Our economy has become so fragile that it isn't possible to plan for the future.
On top of all of those problems, the government continues to impose regulatory obstacles hindering economic expansion. And the government has become the greatest single competitor for investment capital in the US. The government doesn't actually print money with deficit spending. Those deficits must be paid for with sales of bonds. The government must take money out of the economy to spend more than tax revenue provides. The government debt represents money that is no longer in the economy. Public debt really does impede private investment and becomes a drag on the economy.
Inflation is not a measure of wealth. In fact, inflation devalues wealth. Inflation indicates the economy is spending more than it can earn. Trade deficits contribute to inflation by encouraging spending and discouraging wealth creation and savings. Easy credit devalues future wealth and savings making economic planning difficult if not pointless. And inflation means a past economy always looks better than the current economy because, in past, fewer dollars were required to buy the same goods and services. Our government, the financial sector, and monetary regulators have imposed a constant inflation onto the economy so the future will never look as bright as the past.
There is no shoehorning; prices have been a major complaint driving the electorate. The question however is what are the problems in the economy (as you see it) and how you see Trump 'fixing' the problems you perceive.
You just transferred the problems resulting from inflation to be a problem of the GDP. Okay, let's explore that. Growing the GDP in itself does not mitigate inflation. What mitigates inflation is growing supply of goods to match demand. So let's get more specific than merely growing the GDP and focus on what your transfer of problem really means. It means companies will need to produce more per demand (in the cases where demand is not sufficiently being met) so that prices get to what people consider to be fair. Given that, what will Trump do to ensure companies increase their production so that they sell more at a lower price?
Name the obstacles and state what Trump will do to stop these obstacle AND (the intended effect) ensure economic expansion (back to increasing supply).
This paragraph is just rambling about what inflation is.
So you have identified prices as the key problem and blame lack of production (supply) as the root cause. So what will Trump do to cause prices to lower to what the public perceives to be fair?
I've shown that today's GDP doesn't have the same buying power as had the GDP of Jan. 2021. This economy sucks because it is not producing enough growth to overcome cumulative effect of price increases.
You've used GDP to suggest the economy is healthy. But a simple inflation computation (use the link) shows the economy is not healthy. I didn't transfer the problem to the GDP -- the GDP is a symptom of the problem and I have discussed the problem in that manner.
And you've conveniently ignored the other problems I discussed.
Refer to my next comment @15. The issues are complex and require more discussion than can be included in a single comment. And I am not allowed to reply to myself to keep the discussion together.
A major obstacle created by government is competition for investment capital. The Federal government cannot deficit spend without taking money out of the economy. The government really must sell bonds to cover its deficits; the government is not using credit to obtain revenue for deficit spending. The current Federal debt is almost $36 trillion. That is $36 trillion has been taken out of the economy and sitting on a shelf, unavailable for use. That $36 trillion cannot be used for anything other than balancing the government's accounting books.
The government sucking $1 trillion out of the economy to cover a deficit spent on perishable investments won't contribute to economic expansion or future resilience.
The growing GDP indicates a healthy economy. There is no denying that. There is, however, no disagreement from me that inflation has been too high and that prices are too high. So show how Trump is going to address the problems that Trump supporters actually perceive.
If you think so then list the problems that you think I have ignored clearly.
Refer to my reply @15.1
Since when?
Yeah, guilty as charged. I was preparing to discuss interest rates and the impact of government bond yields on higher interest rates. Fiscal policy can independently influence inflationary interest rates separate from monetary policy. But the discussion was getting long. And the nagging reality that the discussion would actually be pointless overcame any desire to continue.
If the money is used for things like infrastructure then that typically increases the GDP. If the money is wasted then yes it is not helping the GDP.
Yes. Factually accurate ... somewhere over $33 trillion.
That is a profound misconception of what is taking place. Purchased bonds can be (and are) traded. They are also used as active capital (e.g. used as collateral for securing loans to build real estate, expand a manufacturing facility, etc.) and the returns from bonds are often reinvested back into the economy.
So why does the average Trump supporter care about this? What problems do they perceive and how will Trump fix these problems?
That doesn't make any sense. A government bond is a fixed asset, like a bar of gold. How does trading bonds or bars of gold expand an economy? Trading gold bars won't generate wealth. And pointing to higher price of gold bars demonstrates that the buying power of money has declined through inflation. Inflation is not a measure of wealth and will not produce wealth.
Mining more gold will produce wealth. But generating new bonds will not produce wealth because the bond requires redistribution within the economy.
Then I suggest you do some research to see how this works.
I did not claim it did. I stated that bonds are not just sitting idle that they are used, for example, as active capital. But I explained this all in my comment.
If the deficit spending is used to pay insurance premiums then the money won't have a lasting impact on producing and distributing wealth in the economy.
Welfare won't grow an economy that is dependent upon foreign imports. Welfare spent on imported goods and services grows a foreign economy. If those welfare expenditures were used to sustain demand for domestically produced goods, then the welfare expenditures would contribute to stabilizing and possibly expanding the domestic economy.
And we can't strengthen the productive capacity of the US by simply increasing welfare spending. Especially when imported goods have a gross competitive edge on price due to government favoritism. So, welfare spending, by itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. But welfare spending does need to be managed to benefit our economy rather than foreign economies.
What on Earth are you talking about now?
Again, where is this coming from?
Okay Nerm, I think we are done. With this leap to welfare you have taken this already off-track discussion too far off-track.
The questions of this article are:
I'm confident in my understanding of how this works.
Bonds may be used as collateral to acquire a medium of exchange but are not themselves a medium of exchange. And using bonds as collateral for credit, in and of itself, entails an inflationary loss of value.
Bonds represent stored capital. Stored capital is capital taken out of the economy.
Scenario: you want to expand a manufacturing facility. To secure the funds you need to put forth collateral. Bonds used as collateral are active.
In general, bonds exist to provide money to government (and to enterprises who issue bonds). Like I said, it matters how the money is used. If the government uses cash from bonds to promote infrastructure, etc. then that is an enabling factor to grow the GDP. It is when the bond cash is wasted that we have a problem. An example of waste is a tax cut that does not stimulate the economy (or does so only temporarily) and does not provide long-term benefits.
The government spends very little on infrastructure. And the Federal government has imposed excise taxes for the specific purpose of spending on infrastructure.
The government spends far more on welfare type programs than on infrastructure. As I have explained, government spending on welfare can be leveraged to sustain and, possibly, expand the economy. Why is that off track or controversial?
Trump hasn't campaigned on starving the government. Trump has campaigned on the government being used in the wrong way to damage the country.
Well, I'll try to answer in the common vernacular we see used in mass media. Naturally the answer will be hyperbolic but that seems to be what you are asking for. Simple language for simple folks.
Trade deficits are too large. The government is favoring imports with low taxes, lax regulations, and Federal subsidies (through foreign aid). The government is giving our jobs to China, Mexico, and any third rate, third world country. The government is deliberately punishing domestic manufacturing and production with odious regulations and unsustainable tax burdens. The government is overspending on things that do not contribute to economic stability or growth. The Federal government is actively selling out the United States and shows more concern for people in other countries than citizens of the United States. And if people of the United States complains, they're lectured about who we are as a nation. It's time for Americans see some of the benefits our politicians and business leaders brag about giving other countries. Why isn't the rust belt given more consideration than China? Does Columbus, OH, need to built a nuke to get Washington's attention?
Trump supporters are expecting Trump to kick the bureaucrats asses to force them to pay attention to Americans before wringing their hands about Palestinians or Ukrainians or some goat herder with a nuke. Trump is expected to force Congress to give more attention to Springfield, OH, than anyplace in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, or South America. Trump's supporters don't expect Trump to threaten adversaries; they expect Trump to warn adversaries.
Trump's supporters expect Trump to piss on foreigners, strengthen the US economy for Americans, and punish anyone who tries to sell out America. If the United States is dependent on the rest of the world then that's a problem that must be fixed. It's not more complicated than that.
Then you've created more money using credit. You haven't created any wealth. And that creation of money is inflationary. By using credit instead of stored capital, existing wealth will automatically be devalued in the future. That stored capital will have less value tomorrow than it has today.
In response to these specific questions:
You offer this answer about what Trump supporters believe is wrong with the economy:
On 1, trade deficits in and of themselves are not always bad. There is no need to achieve a balance of trade. It should not be lopsided but mere imbalance is not necessarily bad. And I really doubt that Trump supporters would state that this is why they feel the economy is bad. If so, they totally missed the boat.
On 2, you are talking about spending priorities (trying to bring this closer to the question). Hard to imagine that Trump supporters view this as 'the economy is bad'.
On 3, you offer nationalism. You mention strengthening the economy yet do not state specifically what this is supposed to mean.
On 4, you offer isolationism. Again, hardly a statement of 'the economy is bad'
Gish galloping is a waste of everyone's time.
This is simply nonsense.
Which was the whole point of asking the questions in the first place. This hasn't been an invitation for discussion, after all.
The point of asking the questions is to get clear answers. I have spent considerable time catering to your galloping so you have nothing to complain about. There is a point, however, where my patience runs out.
Okay, clear answers. The claim that Trump inherits a good economy is wrong.
GDP has lost buying power as discussed in @14 . The GDP growth rate has been devalued by inflation. GDP growth would be considered healthy under the pre-pandemic economy but not in today's post-pandemic economy.
Unemployment data has been distorted by a significant drop in labor participation. People who have left the labor force are not unemployed. Naturally that has created more employment opportunities for those remaining in the labor force.
Inflation spiked during the current administration. The prices are sticky meaning a return to historically low rates of increase won't translate to lower prices. The best that can be hoped for is that wages increase at a faster rate than inflation (which isn't happening, discussed below). The sticky prices may force those who left the labor force to return which, in turn, causes pressure to curb immigration.
Trade deficits has increased dramatically under the current administration. Cheap imports have not reduced prices or allowed people who have left the labor force to stay out. Since imports are not excluded from the CPI, there are indications that import prices have experienced inflationary increases.
Consumer debt has increased under the current administration. While the amount of debt is relatively small compared to the overall economy, consumer debt does provide an indicator that inflation has not been counterbalanced by cheap imports. Further research would be needed to identify the need for consumer debt.
Household income has plateaued following the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic household income had been steadily increasing (as part of the recovery from the Great Recession). There is a lag in availability of income data but the data that is available may partly explain while the public is nostalgic for the pre-pandemic economy when inflation was low and household incomes were rising.
The economy is not as good as we're being told. The data would be good under pre-pandemic economic conditions but not in the post-pandemic economy. The listed indicators are suggesting the prices are too high at current income levels (or income is too low at current price levels). Trade deficits are a drag on domestic job creation. Competition for jobs is a drag on household income. Competition for goods in the (global) marketplace raise prices and becomes a drag on lifestyle.
Some put forward the old bromide that inflation is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods. The Federal Reserve responds by increasing the cost of credit (attempting to reduce the number of dollars). A robust, healthy economy would also attract investments to increase the amount of available goods. We're seeing the government response but we're not seeing the private sector response. That indicates the economy lacks resilience, hampers competition, and is not investing to expand and grow the economy. So, the problems can't be corrected with monetary policy trying to make everyone poorer. An industrial policy utilizing tariffs, taxes, and, possibly, subsidies are the indicated remedies to incentivize private investing for domestic expansion and growth of the economy.
Current GDP is outpacing inflation:
Whereas inflation is about 2.6%:
Even if growth did not outpace inflation, GDP growth is net good. Deeming the economy bad in spite of positive GDP growth is ridiculous.
Labor participation per your link is at the same level it was in 2014. It took a hit during the pandemic and has since recovered.
True. What will Trump do to fix this? It seems that Trump supporters predominantly saw Trump as the guy to fix their biggest concern and that concern was current prices. So, per the focus of this article, what will Trump do to lower prices?
So what will Trump do about this in a manner that does not cause prices to raise (via tariffs) or reduce supply (which would also cause prices to raise)?
Yes and the current level is a linear projection from the Trump administration. That is, if not for the pandemic, the current level is what we would naturally hit if consumer debt increased at the same rate it did throughout the Trump administration. What will Trump do about this?
What will Trump do to raise wages across the board? He can certainly push through a tax cut which would improve household income. But then we have the problem again of non-productive government spending and the inflationary consequences. So, again, what will Trump do?
The economy is demonstrably very good. The GDP is growing, unemployment is low, inflation is back to a normal rate, interest rates are settling, and the bellwether (the stock market) of the economy continues to break new records.
You have pointed out factors that are adjacent to the economy. The factors, given my rebuttals, that remain valid are:
The factors that the average person sees are prices, debt, and net income. Trade deficit, in itself, is not necessarily bad, does not impact the individual, and is NOT a defining characteristic of an economy. Debt is personal ... not a defining characteristic of the economy, but it is a factor so I will include it. So we have, yet again, prices and wages and we will add consumer debt.
What will Trump do to lower prices?
What will Trump do to increase wages?
If he does effect a real middle-class tax cut, how will Trump pay for it?
What will Trump do to reduce consumer debt?
Nerm, the point of this article is to give Trump supporters the means to explain what they believe is bad with the economy and why they believe Trump will do to make all things better. I maintain that the belief Trump will address the economic factors that his supporters perceive is false. That his supporters will NOT get the relief they expect and the reason is that Trump (true for any PotUS) does NOT have the power to fix these problems.
So, finally, what will Trump do?
A single quarter does not make an economy. Credit liabilities don't have a time limit. And people need to look beyond the next quarter to plan for the future.
Was the economy great in 2014?
Reverse the trend -- incentivize more goods chasing fewer dollars. Trump can utilize incentives to increase domestic production. Trump could also address drags on the value of the dollar (such as the national debt) to increase buying power.
Trade policy over the last 40 years has focused on increasing imports to satisfy demand (more goods chasing fewer dollars). But that approach requires a constant devaluation of buying power of the dollar. The imported goods have created wealth in their country of origin and not in the US. We still end up with more dollars chasing fewer goods and those dollars have lost buying power. As an example, the average price of an automobile in 1980 was $7,500 and today is $48,400. Opening the country to imported automobiles still resulted in more dollars chasing fewer goods because the US lost capacity to create wealth and sustain the buying power of the dollar.
Why didn't the economy crash when Trump placed the tariffs during his first term? When Trump imposed the tariffs, why didn't see higher inflation, higher prices, and unhappy consumers during his first term?
Keep in mind that Trump also got tax cuts to offset the imposed tariffs. So, addressing the problems will require a mix of tariffs, tax changes (probably cuts), and subsidies. Trump can also lift some of the regulatory burdens to reduce overhead costs. Trump could improve the buying power of the dollar by reducing deficits (possible) and paying down the national debt (unlikely).
What is amazing about consumer debt is that the Fed's monetary policy doesn't seem to have had any effect. Higher interest rates hasn't slowed the increase in consumer debt. If Trump can get fiscal measures passed that incentivizes saving then that should reduce dependence on consumer debt. Consumption paid for with savings is always cheaper than credit. The problem has been the drags on saving. I haven't heard Trump talk about savings so don't know if this even on Trump's radar.
If Trump can lower the cost of production through tax cuts (and targeted tax increases), regulatory reform, and lessening government competition for investments then businesses can either increase wages or lower prices. Keep in mind that lowering prices would have the same effect as increasing wages.
The average person is comparing the economy under Trump with the economy under Biden. And the recession caused by the pandemic happened on Trump's watch. Did Biden inherit a bad economy?
I've already addressed the factors that can be seen as problems and Trump's possible means for addressing those problems. No need to repeat.
Well, I have been explaining what is bad with the economy and what Trump could do to address those problems. It's not my fault if you don't like those explanations and solutions.
Trump can lower prices by incentivizing domestic production and reducing unfair competition. Trump can increase the buying power of wages; a wage increase that doesn't require more money.
Trump has direct control over the regulatory burden. Trump has direct control over reducing unfair foreign competition. And Trump has a trifecta government that may be able to put in place tax changes and changes in fiscal management.
That was not my point. My point was that the GDP is outpacing inflation currently and that even if that were not true, there is not a disparity that justifies labeling the economy bad.
Apparently you missed my point. If you wish to argue that the participation rate indicates a bad economy then you will need to include the entire Trump economy since it had basically the same participation rate. Are you arguing that the Trump economy was bad?
So Trump will borrow more and use it to incentivize (subsidize) domestic production. That, Nerm, is at best a temporary measure and will introduce more non-productive government spending which (as you should know) is one of the factors that contributes to inflation.
Let's hope Trump does not try to do that.
You are leaping to a crash (I did not mention anything like that) and you also are ignoring the fact that his tariffs in his first term are modest compared to what he is now talking about. Further, you seem to have forgotten that even his more modest tariffs triggered a trade war which hurt domestic farmers and required federal subsidies. And subsidies contribute to .... inflation.
It is not clear what Trump is going to do about American citizen's debt. My prediction is that he will do nothing.
Lowering the cost of production through targeted taxation does not necessarily translate into lower prices (it will more likely translate into inflated profits ... see the energy industry). Regulatory changes can make it easier for businesses to expand but that again is no guarantee that this will affect prices. The reality is that we are in a market economy. Prices are determined by market dynamics and government can at best cause temporary adjustments to this. When the dust settles there are hard costs in the value chain that determine the lowest possible prices and there is the normal motivation for suppliers to charge as much as the market will bear and what the market will bear is a function of competition.
Biden inherited an economy in a fragile state, but it was not a bad economy. It was recovering from the pandemic but was not yet healthy. Businesses were struggling and failing, unemployment was high, GDP was positive but weak.
You made arguments, I made rebuttals. Don't complain about debate, you willingly engaged.
After a rather abbreviated presentation of problems in the economy, it's now time to turn attention to what Trump 'is going to' fix in the economy. That's a loaded question because another crisis can disrupt the best laid plans of pirates. So, the realistic answer to the question addresses what Trump could do to fix the problems in the economy. And Trump has talked about tools he could use and what Trump could try to achieve with those tools.
Trump has talked about using tariffs and taxes to boost wealth creation and resilience in the economy. Trump has also talked about reducing government competition for investment capital and savings.
Trade deficits do not contribute to resilience or wealth creation. Yes, US capital can be invested offshore to supply the US market but that would only create wealth for the investors. That offshore wealth cannot be repatriated to the US without paying taxes. (Yes, taxing repatriated profits works the same way as tariffs.) So, any wealth created offshore won't be broadly distributed in the US and the government will compete for a sizeable share of wealth brought back to the economy. The only way to create wealth that can be broadly distributed in the US economy is to manufacture and produce in the US.
At present, our economic underpinnings to produce things cannot compete in the US economy which means our country cannot produce wealth for its own people. And trade deficits really do contribute to inflation by transferring domestic wealth offshore, lessening the country's ability to save, and increasing reliance on credit to augment income. Buying on credit has a much larger future cost (inflationary cost) than buying from savings. Credit creates a drag on creating wealth for the future. Trump could address this drag on the economy by using a mix of tariffs and tax incentives to encourage investments in domestic production capacity. Taxing imports while not taxing domestic production makes manufacturing in the US more economically attractive. Tax incentives for STEM jobs created in the US becomes more affordable for domestic business and more attractive for investment capital.
The Federal government really has become the single largest competitor for investment capital in the US. Government deficits require selling bonds to generate revenue. Selling bonds takes money out of the economy because the bonds are not paid for with credit. (Using debt to buy debt typically is a losing proposition.) A trillion dollar deficit must be covered by taking a trillion dollars out of the economy. Ostensibly the government uses deficits to concentrate and leverage capital for investment in the economy. But using deficit spending to pay for perishable investments rather than durable investments short circuits the capability of the economy to create wealth. Instant gratification won't deliver long term stability or resilience. Trump could address government competition for investment capital by reducing government expenditures on investments that do not contribute to future economic resilience or stability. Government deficits invested in the wrong things are extraordinarily damaging to the economy's ability to produce broadly distributed wealth. Government redistribution cannot replace a healthy economy that produces and distributes wealth to the people.
Germany dominates the EU economy with manufacturing and exports. China has emerged as a world power challenging the dominance of the United States with manufacturing and exports. Even the United States grew to dominate the world economy by investing in production, manufacturing, and exports that changed the 18th and 19th century mercantile global economy built upon exploitation and trade. The United States becoming a trade beggar in the global economy completely ignores the history, traditions, and strengths of the United States. We've turned our backs on what made the United States a world power. Donald Trump could fix that. Whether or not Trump will fix that remains an open question.
First off, reducing trade deficits is what Trump ran on in his first term. Using his line, why did he not do it when he had four years in power? Given he is even more of a buffoon nowadays and is clearly focused on surrounding himself with sycophants to do his narcissistic bidding, there is little chance that Trump will do anything good regarding trade deficits and a very good chance he will fuck things up and trigger prices increases.
Second, I doubt the average Trump voter is contemplating trade deficits and investment capital. They are far more likely to be concerned with financial factors that they feel directly and in the short term:
They will very likely experience (even if they do not realize it) the effects of having voted against their own interests. Most of them will probably just buy the bullshit Trump will predictably peddle and deem him a hero no matter what.
The best chance Trump supporters have to get what they likely want is a middle class tax reduction. How that is paid for remains a mystery (oh, yeah, Trump will pay for this through excessive tariffs) but at least that is something within Trump's control. There is no method for Trump to lower prices or raise wages across the board. Manufacturing and distributing in the USA requires conditions that make it economically feasible for the companies. That does not translate into higher wages because the manufacturers already have a substantial increase in labor costs by coming back to the USA. But it does translate into higher prices (assuming the market could even bear it ... doubtful) since they would pass their extra costs onto consumers.
On this ...
The US buys imported goods because they are cheaper; because the prices are lower. Addressing trade deficits as you have described is counterproductive to the apparent wishes of the Trump electorate given that will increase prices. Further, buying imported products rather than domestic products does not matter to the individual. The money has changed hands regardless. You seem to view the GDP as a zero sum game where spending money on imports is a loss. The way global macroeconomics works is that GDP is grown based upon the creation of value. If we buy less expensive 'parts' via import to produce domestic commodities of value, that is just smart business and it enables the production of less expensive commodities for consumers.
The key with trade deficits is careful balance based on the needs of the USA. If, for example, we seek to retain manufacturing control over a certain class of products (e.g. electric vehicles) then we can use tariffs to dissuade purchasing same from non-USA suppliers. That is a strategic move based on a need. However, this is replete with important considerations. For example, we cannot realistically bolster US ICE vehicle manufacturing through excessive tariffs since that would only result in increased ICE prices domestically. It would help the US ICE vehicle manufacturers but would harm domestic consumers. Further, every time we impose tariffs, we need to factor in the countermeasures imposed by trading partners.
To wit, this is a complex, delicate concern. The brain-dead stupid notion of Trump to just impose gratuitous, excessive tariffs to generate tax revenues is one of the most idiotic ideas posed by a PotUS. The electorate has made a major mistake.
Trump did impose tariffs and did push corporate tax cuts through Congress. The economy responded positively to what Trump did during his four years in office. (Maybe that's why voters preferred Trump on the economy.) We know Trump used tariffs and tax cuts because Kamala Harris and Democrats complained about them.
Trump hasn't said he would do something different; Trump has said he will do more of the same. Trump has been implying that the tariffs weren't large enough and the tax cuts weren't deep enough.
I agree. But voters understand buying power. Voters likely would consider looking at the buying power of GDP but, I'd bet, they would understand the explanation.
Won't do a damned thing. Trump doesn't need to buy votes any longer so a pandering tax cut won't really accomplish anything. Middle class tax cuts might starve government. But Trump isn't that kind of small government Republican. Trump has been talking about government in terms of improving efficiency and effectiveness instead of eliminating government altogether. As an example, Trump wants to streamline EPA and make more responsive rather than eliminating EPA.
And imports are taxed less and regulated less than domestic production. The government has put its thumb on the scale to favor imports.
You mean allow demand to regulate the marketplace rather than supply? By allowing unrestrained importation, the supply side of the economy regulates availability and prices. Domestic producers cannot compete. So, the key with trade deficits is to ensure fair competition. Otherwise we end up with a malformed economy where, as an example, a supplier like Microsoft can force crappy software onto the marketplace without serious fear of competition.
The problem with that statement is that Trump's tariffs and tax cuts during his first term actually worked. The results really do show that Trump's rhetoric wasn't gratuitous pandering; Trump might actually know what he is talking about.
Then why are tariffs on the table now?
Yes, Trump is now talking about tariffs as high as 500%. Do you support this nonsense? And Trump says his tariffs will not cause prices to increase. Do you buy that bullshit?
So you essentially have taken off the table the only realistic thing Trump could do to address the local, short-term financial problems perceived by his supporters.
Although true to a degree, this does not address the point.
No, I described exactly what I meant:
First I am talking about Trump's current proposals, not what he did in his first term (when he was less of a buffoon than he is now). Second his tax cuts likely had a modest, temporary, impact but they caused a permanent, long-term increase of the national debt.
His tariffs resulted in a widening of the trade deficit. Steel manufacturers were helped due to decreased competition and others saw increased costs (big surprise). And, of course, consumer prices affected by tariffs rose (another big surprise).
And of course his tariffs were met with retaliatory measures; trade partners do not just simply take it and get used to it as Trump idiotically claims. Just imagine what would happen with 500% tariffs. Ask US farmers if Trump's tariffs helped or hurt them due to retaliatory measures by trade partners. Ask GAO if subsidizing farmers in response was a healthy move for the USA.
“Just imagine what would happen with 500% tariffs.”
Easy for some to parrot platitudes, we’re all going to have to endure the painful consequences.
Tariffs from Trump's first term are still in effect. What's on the table is adjusting what Trump did during his first term to increase the effect.
Biden didn't negotiate more liberal trade policies and did not lift Trump's tariffs. In fact, Biden adopted a more draconian trade policy with sanctions and threats of sanctions. I haven't heard Trump talk about sanctions.
The major change Biden made to Trump's policies was to dramatically increase government spending. And the economy hasn't responded to that increased spending in a positive manner.
Depends on the details. If the extremely high tariffs are targeted then they may be beneficial. High tariffs can't be any worse than the trade quotas, sanctions, and embargos that Biden has imposed.
Well, that's rather disingenuous since voters voiced a preference for Trump's economy from his first term compared to Biden's economy from his first term.
You don't think voter's were comparing the incumbent records of the two Presidents? Trump hasn't promised to change course. Trump has promised to double down on what worked the first time. That's what voters have indicated they prefer.
It's too bad the data doesn't support the contention that Trump widened the trade deficit.
So, we need to sustain a $1 trillion trade deficit to protect $200 billion in agricultural exports? You know, if we used domestic soy oil instead of imported palm oil we'd be healthier and better off economically. And if we replaced fossil fuel based plastic with degradable bioplastics the entire planet would be healthier and better off economically.
Why don't we have the capital to invest in developing new uses for agricultural products? We're supposed to believe that US farmers selling their products to impoverished countries will increase the resilience of our economy and provide opportunities for economic expansion? Right now the economic potential of our economic sector is just being crapped away.
"The GDP is growing and healthy. Wages are in good shape. Unemployment is at a normal rate. Inflation is at a normal rate. We are a net exporter of fossil fuel energy. We are exporting record levels of domestic crude."
If the economy is so good and roaring right along, why did a diverse electorate of all ages, races, and income levels throw the democrat rascals out...in no uncertain terms. Please be specific and factual. Did it have anything to do with what is known as the "misery index."
I think it is because of high prices and stagnant wages. It is a political reality that if the electorate is feeling local pain (and that typically is financial) they will vote for change. Prices are high across the planet and incumbents have been voted out of office across the planet.
I have been quite specific and quite factual throughout this article.
So what will Trump do to lower prices and increase wages?
Be specific. And I will tell you upfront that a PotUS does not have the power to lower prices across the board or increase wages across the board. So what, specifically, will Trump do?
Round up all the illegal immigrants so there will be plenty of housekeeping, landscaping and construction jobs paying entry level wages. Yes, that's sarcasm....
I keep asking but no one answers: Who will mow the fucking lawn?
Robots
Astroturf. HOA approved and fireproof, of course.
Who's going to be doing the agriculture work that supplies our food? If these MAGA idiots think groceries are expensive now, just wait until all the migrant ag workers disappear into the darkness fearing they'll be rounded up.
Made by another Elon Musk company?
Realizing the democrats want slave labor, how about this instead FFS!
Guestworker Programs – Farmworker Justice
There is such a thing a s a lawn roomba. My neighbor has one
The very vast majority of American citizens mow their own damn lawns.
But are they proud of their lawns in their middle-class neighborhoods?
Interesting hypocritical take there George? So Trump ran on the cost of groceries being too expensive and the Right bitched and moaned it would be the end of the world when minimum wages on food service workers got raised in CA, but now that Trump will send the bad migrant workers scattering into the dark in fear of being rounded up it's all okay?
If the guestworker program worked so well why did FL need to exclude checking status for ag workers when it passed it's law promising to round up illegals?
Government overspending is bad when Dems do it for things like infrastructure but OK when fake political emergencies are manufactured to round up brown people?
We could have avoided all this if we spent as much time pushing CONGRESS to act as we do bitching amongst ourselves. We need to revamp the guestworker program to be less expensive for the farmers who have to pay for the visas, increase asylum detention centers and the number of people needed to process them. No more catch and release. Only something that Congress can do.
Elon will make them?
Food, schmood!
It's the lawn!!!
It's name is Juan. It rides around in a 25-year-old Toyota Tacoma.
I'm serious, Bob
I think it is because MAGA media told MAGA nation that the economy was bad. MAGAs know nothing about anything, so they nodded dumbly and voted against an excellent economy.
So the 76,461,200 votes for Trump were all MAGAs who know nothing about anything, so they nodded dumbly and voted against a mediocre economy?
You are back commenting yet no response to my reply to you. I asked you to weigh in on the topic of this article:
So explain, with specifics, why you call the current economy mediocre. What, specifically, is wrong with our economy as you see it? And then what do Trump supporters think Trump will do about these specific items?
The apparent key factor is prices. Do you believe Trump is going to magically reduce prices across the board? If so, how?
Finally! Someone understands!