US revised second-quarter GDP up 3.0% vs 2.7% rise expected

[gyrados]

regardless how you feel about the president a good economy is a great thing and its something that should be strived for and one should hope for

[Toogoodman]

regardless how you feel about the president a good economy is a great thing and its something that should be strived for and one should hope for

Not here or in the media, partisanship and loyalty to the party is that matters to them

[Dug]

Not here or in the media, partisanship and loyalty to the party is that matters to them

So let's talk about the economy then and not gobble up a president's balls seeing as he and GoP haven't passed shit. "Investor confidence" would have been there with literally any right wing politician.

[God Save The King]

I didnt hold him responsible lmao, have you read anything ive written? I have simply said investor confidence has driven this bull market, which is a response to his proposed legislation. You dont have to pass any legislation to get people investing, just talking about it will drive growth, look what happened when his healthcare crap got shot down, markets recessed a few hundred points for multiple days.

Also, on the topic of GDP growth, I will direct you to some numbers, and i will average them out as well for each of the two presidents

2000: 4.1%
2001: 1%
2002: 1.8%
2003: 2.8%
2004: 3.8%
2005: 3.3%
2006: 2.7%
2007: 1.8%
2008: -0.3%
2009: -2.8%
2010: 2.5%
2011: 1.6%
2012: 2.2%
2013: 1.7%
2014: 2.4%
2015: 2.6%
2016: 1.6%
2017: ~3%

So, if you give Bush 2000-2008, he averages 2.33% GDP Growth, that's with two recessions and two wars. The recessions being the dotcom boom from the late 90s to the early 2000s, and the great recession starting in 2007. The wars being Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama gets 2008-2016, where he averages 1.27% with one recession and no wars (started, he backed out of one though). Even if you get rid of 2008/2009, he still only gets 2.08%.

Bush inherited unregulated web companies, and Clinton era reckless mortgage lending, which lead to the housing market bubble, so to say Obama inherited his plight as well is stupid, because they both inherited shit from Clinton.

So, what was that about Obama and his 3-4% a year?

It's hard to blame a President for his first year in office, when he still has to use the previous budget, and any economic policy has had no time to take affect (in Trump's case, there is no new policy however).

Economists debate when to start 'counting' the President's economic impact, some argue that it should be their second year, others argue it takes a whole term for economic policy to take affect. Very very few people (besides hardline party loyalists) genuinely think that a President has any real impact on their first year.

2001 belongs to Clinton, 2009 to Bush, and 2017 to Obama at the least.

That gives Bush, 2002-2009 a 1.64% and Obama 2010-2017 (pending on the last year ofc) a 2.2%.


Also, something else that's incredibly worrying, you attempted to give Bush 2000, and Obama 2008....

You do realize, that the Election that elected Bush, occured 11/7/2000, right? He wasn't inaugurated until 2001, in January.. Clinton was President for all off 2000.

The same thing in 2008. Election was 11/4/2008, and he was inaugurated in 2009. All of 2008 is Bush's. You can't just give Bush 2000, a year he wasn't even President, just because it fits the narrative.

[Arterus]

Thanks Obama budget, tax policy, economic policy, and regulations. Glad he finally got that 3% growth.

Can't tell if that is sarcasm or serious. Is it really hard to admit that the president is succeeding at what he promised he would do?

[God Save The King]

Can't tell if that is sarcasm or serious. Is it really hard to admit that the president is succeeding at what he promised he would do?

Serious, is it really hard to admit that Trump has passed no economic legislation, had essentially 0 impact on the economy, and is still using all the policy and the budget from Obama?

A 15 trillion dollar economy does not turn on a dime. The true impact of Trump will not be seen for several years, just as the true impact of Obama's policies is just coming to fruition. Just like we saw the true impact of Clinton/Bush policies in the 2007/8/9 crisis.

[Draco-Onis]

Can't tell if that is sarcasm or serious. Is it really hard to admit that the president is succeeding at what he promised he would do?

Because contrary to what his supporters believe Trump does not have magical powers, you have to pass a budget, legislation and reform to affect an economy the size of the US.

[Talon8669]

I didnt hold him responsible lmao, have you read anything ive written? I have simply said investor confidence has driven this bull market, which is a response to his proposed legislation. You dont have to pass any legislation to get people investing, just talking about it will drive growth, look what happened when his healthcare crap got shot down, markets recessed a few hundred points for multiple days.

Also, on the topic of GDP growth, I will direct you to some numbers, and i will average them out as well for each of the two presidents

2000: 4.1%
2001: 1%
2002: 1.8%
2003: 2.8%
2004: 3.8%
2005: 3.3%
2006: 2.7%
2007: 1.8%
2008: -0.3%
2009: -2.8%
2010: 2.5%
2011: 1.6%
2012: 2.2%
2013: 1.7%
2014: 2.4%
2015: 2.6%
2016: 1.6%
2017: ~3%

So, if you give Bush 2000-2008, he averages 2.33% GDP Growth, that's with two recessions and two wars. The recessions being the dotcom boom from the late 90s to the early 2000s, and the great recession starting in 2007. The wars being Afghanistan and Iraq.

Obama gets 2008-2016, where he averages 1.27% with one recession and no wars (started, he backed out of one though). Even if you get rid of 2008/2009, he still only gets 2.08%.

Bush inherited unregulated web companies, and Clinton era reckless mortgage lending, which lead to the housing market bubble, so to say Obama inherited his plight as well is stupid, because they both inherited shit from Clinton.

So, what was that about Obama and his 3-4% a year?

I don't think Bush gets enough credit for what he had to deal with. (2) war's and the nation wide/world wide economic collapse is something almost no other president had to deal with. Plus SNL skits and other news comedy shows gave us some good laughs! Obama largely inherited a slowly recovering economy that he essentially did nothing to help recover but merely left stagnant. Trump.....well the economy is thriving, there's a ton of jobs. Hell our company has been looking for electricians for months and there simply is a huge shortage of skilled labor out there right now. IDK if you attribute that to Trump though or just the natural ebb and flow of our economy. If you look at it at a much larger scale than Bush to Trump you'll see it's really more of a roller coaster than anything.

[Rasulis]

There are two items that bother me in that article.

First, the GDP increase is borne under consumers spending. By itself it is not bad. However, from the decreased savings, we know that the consumers are using their savings to do these purchases. Which makes this unsustainable in the long run.

Investment on homebuilding is at its worst in seven years. Why? Price is increasing, supply is almost at an all-time low, demand at all time high, and interest rate is low. Home sales been declining, and not because of lack of demand, but supply.

[Nadiru]

The same thing in 2008. Election was 11/4/2008, and he was inaugurated in 2009. All of 2008 is Bush's. You can't just give Bush 2000, a year he wasn't even President, just because it fits the narrative.

Shifting the range from 2000-2008 to 2001-2008, and Obama for 2009-2016, Bush averages 2.4% compared to Obama's 2% for a 7 year span.

[kaid]

Those Obama policies are sure looking good, eh?

Keep in mind that the GOP has passed nothing and done nothing that would affect the economy.

This is my main thing about giving much credit to trump so far is basically neither he nor the congress has really pushed anything much that would change the economy. Most of the regulations that were removed were ones that were either not implemented yet or were some of the last ones obama passed. The reason for this is once a regulation passes a certain time window it becomes MUCH harder to get rid of them but before that window it can be done by executive order quickly and easily.

So basically the only thing Trump has going for him is some expectation he is going to magically redo the tax code and reduce taxes. But even wallstreet is starting to realize neither of those is terribly likely to happen. Best case scenario for trump seems to be on the order of the bush tax cuts that are set to automatically expire in 9 years so they can be passed by reconciliation. Due to failing on the ACA push they don't have much money in the budget to do the tax cut things they wanted which is why trump basically has zero details for his tax cut plan just vague promises.

The flip side of that he has been so ineffective he has not done anything to cripple the economy yet either so its basically just going along on the trajectory it had been going on.

[Toogoodman]

Shifting the range from 2000-2008 to 2001-2008, and Obama for 2009-2016, Bush averages 2.4% compared to Obama's 2% for a 7 year span.

But you have to give bush the bad years and Obama the good years, obviously

[Daelak]

Oh, like Solyndra(recieved $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and closed it doors in 2011), Solar Trust of America(Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012), Bright Source, LSP Energy(filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012, ), Energy Conversion Devices(filed bankruptcy protection - 2012), Energy Conversion Devices( filed for bankruptcy 2012), Evergreen Solar(received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011), Azure Dynamics(filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 ), Ener1(received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt. )

Yeah, you invest you money in green energy and enjoy the soup kitchen.

You know why they failed? Because the Chinese government kept funding their companies even though they were losing millions, flooring the market, yet they know the critical importance of the technology for the 21st century. This is why China is/will be the leader of renewable energy production and usage in the coming years while we get to listen to the milquetoast conservatives yelling over snowballs and how global warming is a Chinese Hoax.

Yeah let's listen to conservatives and other people fearful of change, it's a sure way to make us a mediocre nation where the brightest minds in the world will not want to move to.

- - - Updated - - -

While i agree that green energy is extremely important, saying that subsidizing it would get us to that level of growth is silly. Were a post industrial nation, anything over 4% is basically impossible, there simply isnt that much room for growth.

It would because it would require the current set of labor and capital intensive projects that we have today, while our current GDP production is still in place, effectively doubling growth because it would overtake the old paradigm while enabling a whole new generation of jobs, services, new/emerging markets. There is no downside risk for the reserve currency of the world, the country which directs the global economy from putting all of its weight and productive force into changing the world's energy and technological needs into renewable energy-based.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh what a coincidence that everything about this neatly compartmentalizes into your wrong-headed political ideologies. There couldn't possibly be any nuance or anything like that?

What does this have to do with political ideologies? It's modern economics. What, in your "political ideology" think fossil-based energy, material production, and transportation system will be viable in the coming decades? Put your money where your mouth is.

[Toogoodman]

It would because it would require the current set of labor and capital intensive projects that we have today, while our current GDP production is still in place, effectively doubling growth because it would overtake the old paradigm while enabling a whole new generation of jobs, services, new/emerging markets. There is no downside risk for the reserve currency of the world, the country which directs the global economy from putting all of its weight and productive force into changing the world's energy and technological needs into renewable energy-based.

Any solid numbers on this? if not, then its just words. Thing is, green energy is all subsidized, it cant even support its own capital costs, most of the companies in the industry keep going bankrupt.

[Daelak]

There are two items that bother me in that article.

First, the GDP increase is borne under consumers spending. By itself it is not bad. However, from the decreased savings, we know that the consumers are using their savings to do these purchases. Which makes this unsustainable in the long run.

Investment on homebuilding is at its worst in seven years. Why? Price is increasing, supply is almost at an all-time low, demand at all time high, and interest rate is low. Home sales been declining, and not because of lack of demand, but supply.

Which means we need more immigration, legal and illegal, to help alleviate the housing crisis and to get people to use their new found equity.

- - - Updated - - -

Any solid numbers on this? if not, then its just words. Thing is, green energy is all subsidized, it cant even support its own capital costs, most of the companies in the industry keep going bankrupt.

Because Chinese firms are propped up by their government because they are thinking in the long term, not in 4 quarters. We don't have the political will because conservatives are too obsessed with protecting a dying industry and too scared to believe that libhruls and the grant grubbing scientists are correct in their assessment as to how the US can keep global hegemony.

- - - Updated - - -

Any solid numbers on this? if not, then its just words. Thing is, green energy is all subsidized, it cant even support its own capital costs, most of the companies in the industry keep going bankrupt.

You can see it all over the world. The current set of global players/commodities today will not be the players in a decade. We either come to the realization of this fact and use all the productive and investment power of both the public and private sector to continue to be the global leader in energy, telecommunications, transportation, business, trade, education, or we go with what conservatives are selling, which will predictably be, like all of their pet projects, mediocre, milquetoast in addressing the underlying issues, and a huge giveaway to entrenched interests within their own political sphere.

[Stormspellz]

I hate to break it to you, but the moment Trump won the economy started to boom. The reason for this was investor confidence, investors believe (and are correct) that tax cuts for individuals and business lead to better investment opportunities and healthier economic environments. Where as the 8 years of Obama fiscal policy lead to an extremely lack luster and anemic growth.

boom? no. Uptick? yes Mostly on killing of various consumer protection work arounds Obama did via EO that of course ended via Donny's EOs. The numbers are added up the same way, they did under obama where Donny proclaimed them "fake numbers" for unemployment and such. Lets not also forget most of Obama's follow up legislation for the stimulus was blocked by the GOP after 2010 midterms.

[Taso]

But history has shown "tax reform" of the gop is not closing said loopholes, its simply cutting taxes to wealthy and large corporations, Trumps tax plan will look very similar to kansas "tax reform"

But history also shows that empires and countries who raised taxes to cover up revenue ended up falling. Just ask bush 41 how it felt to lose to a buissness man and a southern nobody after he raised taxes or ask the French kingdom under king Louis the 15th.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know of anyone who blames FDR for the great depression, as it was already in full swing when he took office and many of his policies that helped get us out of it are still loved today. Jimmy Carter gets a lot crap especially by the right for stuff outside his control, but yeah he tried to do some things to prevent it the economic downturn but was ineffective and in that regard he shares some of the blame.

my point is that presidents are horrible economists and I would rather pay an actual economist to run it then the government.

[hrugner]

Why would wars negatively affect GDP growth? They would mostly affect government spendings and deficits, which aren't the same thing. Plus, I don't think it's fair to equate the dotcom boom and the recession of 2007, the latter was far more crushing on the economy, just look at how the GDP tanked. Or the Dow Jones if you want to use that, there's no real comparison. 200 was a ''normal'' recession the likes of which any economy see and that we're likely to see in the next decade or so. 2007 was a far more major, global event.

Wars and disasters positively and substantially increase GDP as they require emergency spending of savings. GDP is just a measure of total spending. If GDP increases enough, you run into import/export shortfalls as your economy's purchasing power and needs outstrip it's ability to produce. Essentially, as long as we have an import deficit, increases in GDP aren't necessarily a good thing as they are likely to herald a drop in US dollar value.

[HumbleDuck]

Obama's policies, which they try to repeal, are working better than expected, very good news for Republicans indeed.

Ps. I remember someone predicted this ( that someone would post a thread like this on 2nd quarter gdp, claiming it's the Republicans doing) a few days after the election.