Bidenomics Workijg Just Fine

[BARE_IS_BEST]

ohh boy... Bidenomics...

519,000 part time labor hired at average income of $44,880.00 a year. 603,150 fired with average income of $106,000.00

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I've looked at the numbers Blackman. The USA was the only major economy where the inflation rate jumped up in the first half of 2021. This was largely because we were the only major economy that was still providing massive stimulus in 2021, far in excess of the output gap which Lusty Lad and Texas Contrarian have discussed here before. The stimulus provided by Biden's American Rescue Plan.

In fact, by the time inflation really kicked off in other countries, the Workingman had already lost about half of that 3.2% in purchasing power I described in the other post. That is, the price of goods and services as measured by the USA CPI increased by about 1.5% more than the increase in wages, BEFORE significantly higher inflation rates hit other developed countries, because of supply chain hang ups and the Russia/Ukraine conflict.

The bigger problem, related in no small part to Biden's American Rescue Plan, is the huge increase in our national debt since COVID started. Yeah, people needed help. But we went overboard. Trump, Biden and Democratic Congresses, moderated to some degree by Senate Republicans before 2021, ran the public debt up to 100% of GDP. The increase in the debt attributable to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was peanuts in comparison. And at least the corporate tax cuts associated with that made our companies competitive again and brought money corporations stashed overseas back to the USA.

This increase in the national debt is going to hurt us. Lusty Lad and Texas Contrarian have described why here in the past much better than I can.

In summary, Biden et al pumped a lot of money into the economy, and that's part of the reason why we're seeing what you noted in the OP. But what have we gotten in return? Public debt greater than 100% of GDP, and inflation higher than wages. That's a piss poor trade off.

OK, the rest of this post is a little off topic and kind of a gimme to WTF, if he reads it.

It would have been interesting if Hillary Clinton had been elected back in 2016. We might be better off. The national debt would almost certainly be lower as Congressional Republicans wouldn't have given her everything she wanted and vice versa. And the Republican Party would be stronger today. Trump's influence hurt the GOP in the 2018, 2020 and 2022 elections. Democrats wouldn't have controlled the Presidency, Senate and House in 2021 and 2022, and thus wouldn't have passed legislation for anywhere near the $5 trillion in additional unfunded spending that they did.

I don't think the vaccines would have gotten into peoples arms as quickly. And she wouldn't have lessened the regulatory burden on businesses like Trump did. But she might have worked with Ryan and McConnell to cut the corporate tax rate, down from what was the highest in the developed world. That was what Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich did with the capital gains tax, which like the 35% federal corporate rate, clearly was not in the best interest of the country.

I don’t know that we disagree that much on this. Stimulus which began long before Biden was in office kept people purchasing goods which became a burden on the lagging supplies. And stimulus went on too long which just worsened that supply issue. Then along with stimulus, people not going back to work and the massive 8+% unemployment, particularly in companies and businesses important to managing the already burdened supply chain began to push up prices.

If I recall, the American Rescue Plan was stimulus package number 3 so there were two prior under Trump. When the supplies ran out, in the early Biden year, prices rose. That’s not a Biden issue. It’s more a Trump/Biden spurred by Covid and the economic thinking originated by Trump/Navarro “the cure can’t be worse than the disease”.

Nonetheless, the current vast economic improvement is Bidenomics working just fine and with most things about back to normal, I expect by summer we should see some really amazing economic numbers. And a flailing GOP economic message.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by BARE_IS_BEST

ohh boy... Bidenomics...

519,000 part time labor hired at average income of $44,880.00 a year. 603,150 fired with average income of $106,000.00

See it's working... the middle class is being eliminated to be replaced by serfs. Besides that democrat math...they'll make it up in volume!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I don’t know that we disagree that much on this. Stimulus which began long before Biden was in office kept people purchasing goods which became a burden on the lagging supplies. And stimulus went on too long which just worsened that supply issue. Then along with stimulus, people not going back to work and the massive 8+% unemployment, particularly in companies and businesses important to managing the already burdened supply chain began to push up prices.

If I recall, the American Rescue Plan was stimulus package number 3 so there were two prior under Trump. When the supplies ran out, in the early Biden year, prices rose. That’s not a Biden issue. It’s more a Trump/Biden spurred by Covid and the economic thinking originated by Trump/Navarro “the cure can’t be worse than the disease”.

Nonetheless, the current vast economic improvement is Bidenomics working just fine and with most things about back to normal, I expect by summer we should see some really amazing economic numbers. And a flailing GOP economic message.

Time will tell Blackman. A lot of economists think the probability of a recession is high this year or next.

[1blackman1]

They said that last year and the one before as well. Could still happen but 3.5 unemployment makes it really difficult.

And though we here in the US only see the world through our lens. We are outperforming the rest of the world by every metric. We even have relative parity with the pound and euro. Anyone taking a big picture view of the economy knows we’re doing great compared to our contemporaries and are more likely to improve faster than everywhere else.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

They said that last year and the one before as well. Could still happen but 3.5 unemployment makes it really difficult.

And though we here in the US only see the world through our lens. We are outperforming the rest of the world by every metric. We even have relative parity with the pound and euro. Anyone taking a big picture view of the economy knows we’re doing great compared to our contemporaries and are more likely to improve faster than everywhere else.

Larry Summers, dean of Democratic Party economists, was on Fareed Zakaria last weekend. He was anything but sanguine. He said the low 3.4% unemployment rate would be temporary. But there was the risk that expectations for higher inflation would result in a long term inflation problem. I believe what he was saying was 3.4% unemployment is inconsistent with 2% annual inflation. Unemployment has to go up if inflation is to come down. And the Fed, correctly, will bring down inflation regardless of whether that causes a recession.

It’s curious though that we had a couple of years of very low unemployment and low inflation just before COVID. I’d attribute part of the reason to lower corporate tax rates from January, 2018 forward, and to Trump’s lighter regulatory hand, which improved business conditions and the demand for labor.

Part of the reason for the current low level of unemployment is because people dropped out of the workforce during COVID and haven’t come back. Or just came back part time.

Maybe Lusty Lad will weigh in now that he’s back. He knows a lot more about this than I do.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

A lot of economists think the probability of a recession is high this year or next.

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

They said that last year and the one before as well. Could still happen but 3.5 unemployment makes it really difficult.

We actually DID experience a recession last year. GDP growth was negative in the first half of 2022. Economists widely agree on the definition of a recession - it's 2 consecutive quarterly declines in real GDP. Instead of acknowledging this fact last year while characterizing the downturn as brief, shallow and mild, the Biden team tried to deny it happened altogether.





By the way 1b1 - I don't follow your argument that low unemployment makes another recession unlikely. That's like saying the tail wags the dog.

The jobless rate doesn't propel the economy. It's the other way around. The level of economic activity drives the jobless rate up or down. That's why unemployment is called a "lagging" indicator.

Originally Posted by Tiny

And though we here in the US only see the world through our lens. We are outperforming the rest of the world by every metric... we’re doing great compared to our contemporaries and are more likely to improve faster than everywhere else.

On what specific economic metrics are we outperforming the rest of the world?

Not economic growth.

Here are the latest IMF comparisons. US growth was 2.0% in 2022 (despite being negative in the first half) versus 3.4% for the world economy.

For this year, the IMF is projecting US growth of 1.4%, less than half the rate it is forecasting for the global economy.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Part of the reason for the current low level of unemployment is because people dropped out of the workforce during COVID and haven’t come back. Or just came back part time.

That's correct. The (pre-COVID) labor force participation rate at the start of 2020 was 63.3% versus 62.4% last month. The difference may not sound like a lot, but it translates into almost 2.5 million American workers who have dropped out of the labor force and not returned.

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


Biden boasted in his SOTU speech that the economy has created 12 million "new" jobs since he took office.

It's true that total employment has increased from 142 million in Jan. 2021 to 154 million last month. Compared with the pre-COVID peak of 152.4 million in Feb. 2020, however, the increase (less than 3 million jobs) looks considerably less impressive.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS#0

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Larry Summers, dean of Democratic Party economists, was on Fareed Zakaria last weekend. He was anything but sanguine. He said the low 3.4% unemployment rate would be temporary. But there was the risk that expectations for higher inflation would result in a long term inflation problem. I believe what he was saying was 3.4% unemployment is inconsistent with 2% annual inflation. Unemployment has to go up if inflation is to come down. And the Fed, correctly, will bring down inflation regardless of whether that causes a recession.

It’s curious though that we had a couple of years of very low unemployment and low inflation just before COVID. I’d attribute part of the reason to lower corporate tax rates from January, 2018 forward, and to Trump’s lighter regulatory hand, which improved business conditions and the demand for labor.

Part of the reason for the current low level of unemployment is because people dropped out of the workforce during COVID and haven’t come back. Or just came back part time.

Maybe Lusty Lad will weigh in now that he’s back. He knows a lot more about this than I do.

Now you’re just starting to tout the Fox News line. I’ve seen no evidence that people are coming back part-time. Wages are up which actually counters that theory. Job creation numbers also don’t support the “people aren’t going back to work” claims on Fox. Maybe we’ll get some job participation numbers by year end that might shed some light on that.

Simply put, 3.4 unemployment is a great sign. Will it be temporary, sure maybe, but not likely in the short term. Recession pressures are being controlled, not just in the US but in Europe. Production is up and supply chains are vastly improved over the past 12 months.

I love how you keep falling back on the Trump tax cuts. How about the Trump deficit spending. Unlike his predecessor, the Trump years even before Covid we deficits annually. So he cut taxes and propped up the economy by not paying for his spending. If you wanna understand the Trump economy that’s it for you right there. At least Obama was able to pay for the money he spent and had low and negative deficits.

Lusty remains on ignore. I can’t really abide people arguing through lying or changing my words to try to make their point.

Bidenomics has worked. The proof is in the puddin.

[farmstud60]

1blackman1


"So he cut taxes and propped up the economy by not paying for his spending. If you wanna understand the Trump economy that’s it for you right there. At least Obama was able to pay for the money he spent and had low and negative deficits."


WRONG, that is the people not understanding the numbers because of baseline budgeting. Record revenues coming into the treasury during Trumps "tax cuts" means spending increased faster. In fact, Democrats in Congress increased spending more than Trump asked for, but Trump signed the bill as the lying press corps won't report things honestly.

[1blackman1]

Farm we will agree to disagree. Mainly because you’re wrong in your assertion and likely the underlying assumption.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Now you’re just starting to tout the Fox News line. I’ve seen no evidence that people are coming back part-time.

Why don't you try looking it up?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of part-time employees has climbed from 24.6 million in Jan. 2021 to 27.4 million last month. That's an increase of 2.8 million since Biden took office.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12600000

And why do you accuse Tiny of parroting FOX News? His post specifically cites Larry Summers, a well-known Democrat economist, during an appearance on CNN, a liberal cable news channel.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why don't you try looking it up?

You can't educate the willfully ignorant.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I love how you keep falling back on the Trump tax cuts. How about the Trump deficit spending. Unlike his predecessor, the Trump years even before Covid we (had) deficits annually. So he cut taxes and propped up the economy by not paying for his spending. If you wanna understand the Trump economy that’s it for you right there. At least Obama was able to pay for the money he spent and had low and negative deficits.

Oh dear! You just shot yourself (and your credibility) in the foot. What is a "negative deficit"? No economist uses that term. Do you mean a SURPLUS? If so, you are as wrong as wrong can be!

Trump's predecessor - that's Barack Obama - ran huge budget deficits during all 8 years of his Presidency. The deficits topped $1 billion during each year of his first term (2009-2012). As a percent of GDP, they averaged a record 8.4%. For you to claim Obama was able to "pay for what he spent" (using federal revenues) is as wrong as wrong can be!





As for the Trump tax cuts, have you looked up how much federal revenues have exploded since their enactment? It's truly mind-boggling!

In FY 2017, the federal govt raked in $3.32 trillion.

In FY 2022, the feds sucked in $4.90 trillion... that's an increase of 48%!!!

It's obvious from this explosion that the Trump tax cuts (so demonized by dim-retards) didn't exactly starve the federal govt of revenues!

Question - How many people on this board can say their income soared by 48% in the past 5 years? And if your income did jump that dramatically, were you able to live comfortably within your means? Or did you piss away all the extra income and go deeper & deeper into debt like the feds habitually do?

Look up the fucking numbers. It's obvious we have a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Lusty remains on ignore...

Lol - I'm pretty sure the OP has peeked at all of my comments, but he won't admit it because then he would have to respond.

But just to make sure 1b1 reaps the full benefits of my tutelage, would someone please go back and quote my posts #39, 40, 52, 53, 57 and 59? That way he won't be able to pretend he hasn't read them.

Thanks in advance!