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

[nycnyc88]

Rising tide floats all the boats. (i.e. the largest influx of printed money has elevated the stock market to an even bigger bubble vs 2007).
We know how that will end.
In NYC, already observing "Space available" in almost every block on 5th and 6th avenue (let alone other locations) - just like in 2007.
When this baby blows, its going to be epic.
Obama, Trump, Demopublicans, Republicrats, Right , Left - all theater designed to keep you distracted while you are literally being robbed by the financial elite and deep state who are really in charge.

[Draco-Onis]

Because if you can let people keep more of their own money, while at the same time bringing the same amount of money into the government, why not? Trumps goal was 4%, he's on his way.

Because that's not how it works and Trump tax plans heavily focus on cutting taxes for the rich and corporations who use the money for financial engineering and don't put it back into the economy. The fact is tax cuts do not pay for themselves, if Trump's tax plan is similar to the one he proposed during his campaign we are looking at a 2-4 trillion dollar loss in revenues.

[Toogoodman]

And how does that fact that the growth during the Trump presidency has been a direct continuation of the one under Obama fit within this cute narrative of yours?

Narrative?

#1 Did you look at any economic data before posting this trash

#2 You do realize that we were in a nearly 2 year cycle of close to zero net growth
-November 28, 2014 DJIA: 17,828
-November 4, 2016 DJIA: 17,888

#3 Pre-recession levels (DJIA close to 15,000) weren't met until nearly the end of 2013. This means that market rebound, that is almost always met with a huge upswing after a recession, was hampered and artificially slowed down dramatically. This is partly to blame on QE and monetary policy, but Fiscal policy from the white house certainly didn't help either.

Do some research before shit posting

[Narwal]

And how does that fact that the growth during the Trump presidency has been a direct continuation of the one under Obama fit within this cute narrative of yours?

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-...-growth-annual

It seems to me that it's damn near impossible to say it's Obamas policies driving the GDP. The GDP has been pretty cyclical between 1% and 3% growth during the Obama Presidency, negating the huge valley due to the recession. Based on that, there's no reason for me to assume his policies would ever push over 3%. One thing the data shows for sure, however... 2016 the GDP slowly fell all year. I have to assume that's because of the "inevitable, it's her turn" expectation of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. In all honesty, we should probably thank Trump for fixing the slump of "Hillary Inevitability".

[Toogoodman]

It has been in an upward trajectory since the recession, this is a continuation of pent up demand being met, and inflation is still a non-issue, so we have many more years of developed nation GDP growth before any inflation fears. You want a multi-decadal period of growth? Subsidize green energy technology and science.

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.

[Narwal]

Because that's not how it works and Trump tax plans heavily focus on cutting taxes for the rich and corporations who use the money for financial engineering and don't put it back into the economy. The fact is tax cuts do not pay for themselves, if Trump's tax plan is similar to the one he proposed during his campaign we are looking at a 2-4 trillion dollar loss in revenues.

His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households.

They're also paying a vast majority of taxes... so of course a tax cut will have the highest benefit the people paying the most. People who aren't paying anything in taxes (there are a lot of them) of course won't benefit from a tax cut.

[Draco-Onis]

They're also paying a vast majority of taxes... so of course a tax cut will have the highest benefit the people paying the most. People who aren't paying anything in taxes (there are a lot of them) of course won't benefit from a tax cut.

Wrong again his proposal gets rid of a lot of deductions used by the bottom, past analysis of his plan showed that the middle class would get +2/-2% difference in their taxes far lower than the 30 - 50% reduction people on the very top would receive.

[Jastall]

Narrative?

#1 Did you look at any economic data before posting this trash

#2 You do realize that we were in a nearly 2 year cycle of close to zero net growth
-November 28, 2014 DJIA: 17,828
-November 4, 2016 DJIA: 17,888

#3 Pre-recession levels (DJIA close to 15,000) weren't met until nearly the end of 2013. This means that market rebound, that is almost always met with a huge upswing after a recession, was hampered and artificially slowed down dramatically. This is partly to blame on QE and monetary policy, but Fiscal policy from the white house certainly didn't help either.

Do some research before shit posting

And why do you think growth can be reduced to the Dow Jones, again? Especially when we're talking about GDP in this thread, which is a far more reliable measure. No shit the Dow Jones goes up when the guy who wants to deregulate Wall Street gets elected. The Dow Jones was also sky high just before the recession, look how that turned out.

@ Narwal: the point is the GDP's growth was already close to 3% in the latter stages of Obama's presidency. Setting aside your thinking Clinton's possible election tanked it for some biased reason, the upwards trend of growth is clearly present before Trump was elected. And since Trump hasn't actually enacted any major economic policy, I have to ask why this growth can be attributed solely to him.

[Stormspellz]

So would you give credit to jimmy carter and FDR for a prolong recession and depression?
Potus has very little control of the stock market and u.s economy as a whole. Sure some things that a president may do can create a boost in confidence but much of it falls between congress and the people of the u.s not the president. The federal reserve has much more of an impact then anything else.
As much as I love trump and his maga campaign, the GDP growth and low unemployment is separate of him. Pretty much no president deserves the credit on the success or failure of an economy.

- - - Updated - - -



Theirs nothing wrong with deregulation or lowering taxes. You lower and close whatever loop holes their are, end the oil/ fossil fuels subsidies and corporate welfare and open up more trade on oil exports and the economy will do well.

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"

[Worvon]

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.

Kansas has done literally everything that the GOP has wanted to do at the federal level. It is literally the GOP economic plan in action, so we should look at that to have a real world example of how things would work. What's that? Kansas has spiraled down economically since all the Republican policies took over? Oh yea, they will only cause more and more economic loss and it's a proven fact.

[Toogoodman]

You should probably learn how the fiscal year works and how much a government budget and tax plans policy affect the budget. Those have a lot more effect on the economy then some changing the drapes in the white house.

Do you understand why i used November as my base point? I wont give any hints, its a pretty obvious point.

- - - Updated - - -

Kansas has done literally everything that the GOP has wanted to do at the federal level. It is literally the GOP economic plan in action, so we should look at that to have a real world example of how things would work. What's that? Kansas has spiraled down economically since all the Republican policies took over? Oh yea, they will only cause more and more economic loss and it's a proven fact.

Im not in here pushing an agenda, i am simply answer the question of why GDP growth has gone up. Those reasons being investor confidence in tax reform and healthcare reform, I am in no means endorsing anything from either side of the isle.

[Karfal]

So Trump did something the failure anti-American Obama could not do? I'm surprised. Accomplished in his first year as well, impressive.

[arandomuser]

So are we gonna ignore the like last 6 years of the obama presidency that had positive gdp and say once trumps in office, oh all the sudden hes amazing, even though congress literally hasnt passed any large bills regarding the economy, literally zero fucking sense.

[Toogoodman]

And why do you think growth can be reduced to the Dow Jones, again? Especially when we're talking about GDP in this thread, which is a far more reliable measure. No shit the Dow Jones goes up when the guy who wants to deregulate Wall Street gets elected. The Dow Jones was also sky high just before the recession, look how that turned out.

@ Narwal: the point is the GDP's growth was already close to 3% in the latter stages of Obama's presidency. Setting aside your thinking Clinton's possible election tanked it for some biased reason, the upwards trend of growth is clearly present before Trump was elected. And since Trump hasn't actually enacted any major economic policy, I have to ask why this growth can be attributed solely to him.

DJIA and the S&P 500 are the leading indicators of economic growth, and GDP is highly correlated to the indexes, that's why its more commonly used. Also, GDP is highly influenced by inflation, and thus is almost always increasing, indexes show how the economy is actually behaving. If we want to get real picky with this, we should be looking at the Inflators and consumer baskets, but most people will get lost int hat convo.

[Jastall]

DJIA and the S&P 500 are the leading indicators of economic growth, and GDP is highly correlated to the indexes, that's why its more commonly used. Also, GDP is highly influenced by inflation, and thus is almost always increasing, indexes show how the economy is actually behaving. If we want to get real picky with this, we should be looking at the Inflators and consumer baskets, but most people will get lost int hat convo.

Always increasing? Sure. Always increasing by about 3% for several years in a row? That's fairly rare, and has been happening under Obama before it's happened under Trump. And again, Trump has passed no economic legislation unless one really wants to count some two-bit EOs. So I'll have to ask again, why should he be held responsible?

[Toogoodman]

Always increasing? Sure. Always increasing by about 3% for several years in a row? That's fairly rare, and has been happening under Obama before it's happened under Trump. And again, Trump has passed no economic legislation unless one really wants to count some two-bit EOs. So I'll have to ask again, why should he be held responsible?

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?

[cubby]

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.

[Jastall]

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?

You don't hold him responsible, then in the next sentence you say the bull market is due to him inspiring investor confidence. Which is which?

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.

I also never said Obama had 3-4% a year, I said he got close to 3% in several years which is not far from what Trump got this year; we'll see if the trend keeps up. I'm not saying Obama was some sort of fiscal genius, he didn't actually do that much either. But to me it's hard to equate the President with the GDP when Congress controls the purse strings and most legislations. That goes for both sides as well, I'm not blaming Bush for the recession in 2007 either. Well certainly not in large part anyway.

The good growth that the US got this year is the continuation of a good trend, that's all.

[Toogoodman]

You don't hold him responsible, then in the next sentence you say the bull market is due to him inspiring investor confidence. Which is which?

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.

I also never said Obama had 3-4% a year, I said he got close to 3% in several years which is not far from what Trump got this year; we'll see if the trend keeps up. I'm not saying Obama was some sort of fiscal genius, he didn't actually do that much either. But to me it's hard to equate the President with the GDP when Congress controls the purse strings and most legislations. That goes for both sides as well, I'm not blaming Bush for the recession in 2007 either. Well certainly not in large part anyway.

The good growth that the US got this year is the continuation of a good trend, that's all.

Saying he is responsible is say "his policy directly impacted the market causing it to grow", saying the market is growing due to investor confidence is exactly that, investors are positive of the future outlook on the economy. I don't know to dumb that down further, its a pretty simple thing to understand.

Wars are usually seen as something that is a moot point, they simply deflect resources from one aspect of productivity to another, I was simply adding it for context for when someone would eventually say "wars are good", when in fact theyre not.

Dotcom bubble and the great recession are in fact different on scale, but once again, i added them for context. 43 had to contend with two recessions, while 44 had one, yet 43 had better growth numbers. In fact, 43 had 3 years where growth was above 3.3%, and in contrast, Obama had his best year at 2.6%, which was followed by an anemic 1.6%.

- - - Updated - - -

The trend was actually downwards 2.6% -> 1.6% -> ?? if Clinton was elected.

Thing is, investors don't like over regulation, which Clinton would have surely added more of. Trump has deregulated several sectors which have done a little, but the main focal point is that investors aren't expecting continued regulation which obviously dampens growth.

[God Save The King]

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