GDP 2018 --> 2.9%- Trump fails to deliver, Matches the "worst president ever".

[Zan15]

Wow even after the huge giveaway in tax breaks and repatriation, manipulation of trade tariffs to force huge uptick in 2Q trade before the tariffs took hold, and other changes they could not get higher than 2.9%. This was their one shot at it before 2020 elections. It looks bleak from this point especially with democrats in charge of the house, there is no way they are going to be able to force another huge giveaway to the military corporate machine or to corporations in general.



https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/trum...h-in-2018.html

Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama's. That's not what happened

Throughout the 2016 campaign and since, the president and his party have vowed to kick-start tepid Obama-era economic growth.
New government data show that Trump, too, has failed to reach the 3 percent promised land, according to one major metric.

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis measured 2018 growth at 2.9 percent, matching the peak Obama enjoyed in 2015.
For the rest of the president's term, economic forecasters agree, that number will decline.


Thursday's preliminary 2.9 percent figure could later be revised, although economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics said the most likely direction would be down.



Remember our little friend Jr said:
"Remember when Obama said you need a magic wand to make that happen?" Donald Trump Jr. told Breitbart. "Well 'abracadabra,' Obama. We're doing it."

Guess their wand broke.

Treasury secretary also said:

Yet even as 3rd quarter growth slowed to 3.4 percent, White House advisers reiterated their confidence. In July, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin called the U.S. "well on the path" for four to five years of sustained 3 percent growth.



So what does the future look like for the last two years of his term?

Meantime, economists at CBO and the Federal Reserve have cut their forecasts for 2019 growth to 2.3 percent. For the long-term, both project growth below 2 percent.



Who wants to bet he claims 3% anyway and some crazy deep state manipulation of the numbers that got him only to 2.9%? That his 2.9% is somehow better than Obama's.??

[Breccia]

I'm not sure this deserves its own thread, but before it gets closed:

Who wants to bet he claims 3% anyway and some crazy deep state manipulation of the numbers that got him only to 2.9%?

Oh, it was manipulated.

By Trump.

The Trump Shutdown, Dec 22-31, covered some pretty common holiday money spending ground of Q4 2018. It's possible he would have gotten 3% if he hadn't shut down the government and been proud to do it.

Course, he still promised 4%. "Rounding up to 3%" and "4%" are not the same. I go into more detail here.

[Vermented]

Trump and GOP promised economic growth much better than Obama's. That's not what happened

Thats not a surprice at all.

[Rasulis]

It shows the limit of the Presidential power when it comes to the economy. If you look at the economy on state by state basis, no state did bad in 2018. There were no negative growth. The problem is that the energy producing states (Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma, Wyoming and New Mexico) did not do as well as anticipated. Part of it was because oil price was stuck at $50 - $60 per barrel the entire 2018 (2014 rates), and mounting high-interest debt, lack of means to transport the product, mounting pressure from investors for more cash and tight labor market are cutting into profit.

Also, the supply growth of years past is long gone. The major companies are investing heavily to ratchet up output in the Permian basin, but that is merely offsetting the legacy supply base that depletes year after year. A common problem when companies invest in short-cycle drilling. It is less risky than long-term multi-billion-dollar megaprojects. However, they have keep spending money drilling new wells to maintain the level of productions.

[Zaydin]

It shows the limit of the Presidential power when it comes to the economy. If you look at the economy on state by state basis, no state did bad in 2018. There were no negative growth. The problem is that the energy producing states (Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma, Wyoming and New Mexico) did not do as well as anticipated. Part of it was because oil price was stuck at $50 - $60 per barrel the entire 2018 (2014 rates), and mounting high-interest debt, lack of means to transport the product, mounting pressure from investors for more cash and tight labor market are cutting into profit.

Also, the supply growth of years past is long gone. The major companies are investing heavily to ratchet up output in the Permian basin, but that is merely offsetting the legacy supply base that depletes year after year. A common problem when companies invest in short-cycle drilling. It is less risky than long-term multi-billion-dollar megaprojects. However, they have keep spending money drilling new wells to maintain the level of productions.

Problem is that Trump has been tripping over himself to take credit for good news. Any one with a functioning brain cell can point out that taking credit for the good makes avoiding responsibility for the bad news much harder.

It's why Josh Earnest said Obama never took credit for stock market highs, since Obama and his White House understood what goes up must come down.

[Breccia]

Problem is that Trump has been tripping over himself to take credit for good news.

Also, he campaigned on and ran with the promise of 4% growth. Either he didn't know about such limits, or he did and he lied, or he did but thought this time will be different.

Pick one. None of these traits is redeeming.

[Rasulis]

Also, he campaigned on and ran with the promise of 4% growth. Either he didn't know about such limits, or he did and he lied, or he did but thought this time will be different.

Pick one. None of these traits is redeeming.

"Do you think the president has a grasp of macroeconomic policy?" Marketplace's Kai Ryssdal asked former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen.

"No, I do not," she replied.

"I doubt that he would even be able to say that the Fed's goals are maximum employment and price stability, which is the goals that Congress have assigned to the Fed," Yellen, who was replaced by Jerome Powell last year, said in the Marketplace interview. "He's made comments about the Fed having an exchange rate objective in order to support his trade plans, or possibly targeting the U.S. balance of trade. And, you know, I think comments like that shows a lack of understanding of the impact of the Fed on the economy, and appropriate policy goals."

"President Trump's comments about Chair Powell and about the Fed do concern me, because if that becomes concerted, I think it does have the impact, especially if conditions in the U.S. for any reason were to deteriorate, it could undermine confidence in the Fed. And I think that that would be a bad thing," she said.

When Jerome Powell, the current Federal Reserve Chair, was asked the same question, he would not commit to either yes or no. Which in itself is an answer.

When asked by Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a potential 2020 contender, if he agreed with Yellen’s assessment of Trump’s economic prowess, Powell punted, saying, “I wouldn’t have any comment on that, senator.”

[Draco-Onis]

It shows the limit of the Presidential power when it comes to the economy. If you look at the economy on state by state basis, no state did bad in 2018. There were no negative growth. The problem is that the energy producing states (Texas, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma, Wyoming and New Mexico) did not do as well as anticipated. Part of it was because oil price was stuck at $50 - $60 per barrel the entire 2018 (2014 rates), and mounting high-interest debt, lack of means to transport the product, mounting pressure from investors for more cash and tight labor market are cutting into profit.

Also, the supply growth of years past is long gone. The major companies are investing heavily to ratchet up output in the Permian basin, but that is merely offsetting the legacy supply base that depletes year after year. A common problem when companies invest in short-cycle drilling. It is less risky than long-term multi-billion-dollar megaprojects. However, they have keep spending money drilling new wells to maintain the level of productions.

I actually disagree there are things the president can do that would have greatly increased economic growth if instead of giving trillions to the rich and corporations Trump had prioritized a true infrastructure project (highways, bridges, interstate travel). He could also hire people in the government and increase their pay something he seems to be against, although the US is a mature economy that huge of an economic stimulus would have easily given 4%+ growth.

[PC2]

For sure we should replace leaders that don't reach the 3-4% GDP mark. So long as the same standard is held to next leader.

While the US bickers about social micro-aggresions China is growing at 6% each year...

[Acidbaron]

For sure we should replace leaders that don't reach the 3-4% GDP mark. So long as the same standard is held to next leader.

While the US bickers about social micro-aggresions China is growing at 6% each year...

Yep, that whole Anti-PC movement always crying about something

[Draco-Onis]

For sure we should replace leaders that don't reach the 3-4% GDP mark. So long as the same standard is held to next leader.

No one here mentioned removing the president for not reaching 3-4% growth, is that what you want?

[Edge-]

While the US bickers about social micro-aggresions China is growing at 6% each year...

That's a grossly inaccurate portrayal of what's going on but sure, I guess you can believe that.

[Breccia]

No one here mentioned removing the president for not reaching 3-4% growth

Actually, I'm 100% okay with removing a leader who promises something, and by their own actions, causes the opposite of that to happen. That's fine with me. If they, for example, promise 4% growth and don't even deliver 3% because of their own applied policies and actions, for example.

There was this one guy who did that. I can't remember his name, it's on the tip of my bone spur...

[Wyrt]

Yep, that whole Anti-PC movement always crying about something

I believe they're crying about Captain Marvel at the moment. After moving on from a razor commercial.

[Rasulis]

For sure we should replace leaders that don't reach the 3-4% GDP mark. So long as the same standard is held to next leader.

While the US bickers about social micro-aggresions China is growing at 6% each year...

Chinese investors are like lemmings rushing toward a precipice, while the Chinese government is frantically dumping dirt (i.e. money) to extend the ledge so that they don't fall to their death. Sooner or later, unless the government figure out a way to gradually ramp it down, the Chinese government will either run out of money or the lemmings, I meant investors, will outpace them.

All three indexes (Hanseng, Hong Kong & Shanghai) for the last 7 years looks like seismogram print out. Huge gains followed by big losses in a period less than 12 months.

[Acidbaron]

Actually, I'm 100% okay with removing a leader who promises something, and by their own actions, causes the opposite of that to happen. That's fine with me. If they, for example, promise 4% growth and don't even deliver 3% because of their own applied policies and actions, for example.

There was this one guy who did that. I can't remember his name, it's on the tip of my bone spur...

Are you certain? I mean often the most effective policies are ones that take time to get into full effect and sometimes even longer than a few election cycles.

Politicians are already too often populists and fearful of taking unpopular steps because it might remove them out of their position, adding more fear to this would lead to rather bad decision making me thinks.

[PC2]

That's a grossly inaccurate portrayal of what's going on but sure, I guess you can believe that.

What I mean is politics can emphasize social issues or economic issues. My argument is that while China's economy grows it would be a mistake to get bogged down in social results over economic results. Having an uber equal society in 20 years won't be so great when China is mopping the floor with us overall.

[Breccia]

Are you certain?

I was actually calling out PC on his comment. This topic wouldn't even be an issue if Trump hadn't gone out of his way to promise what basically no economist at the time thought he could provide. You're right, just so we're clear.

EDIT: Actually wait, I wasn't done. If Trump called Obama "the worst President ever" and used low GDP numbers as evidence, and he has the same numbers, then yes, he should be replaced, since he'd be admitting he was as bad as the worst.

And 2019/2020 ain't shaping up to be his friends, as listed earlier.

[Skroe]

For sure we should replace leaders that don't reach the 3-4% GDP mark. So long as the same standard is held to next leader.

While the US bickers about social micro-aggresions China is growing at 6% each year...

The US doesn't bicker social micro-aggressions.

A small handful of very pathetic people, mostly on the far-right with skin as think a tissue paper, do that.

They are not "the US". They are internet weenies who need a new hobby.

And China's growth numbers are bullshit and everyone knows it. It's beeng growing at no greater than 1-3% for years. It may even have slipped into recession a few years back.

[PC2]

Chinese investors are like lemmings rushing toward a precipice, while the Chinese government is frantically dumping dirt (i.e. money) to extend the ledge so that they don't fall to their death. Sooner or later, unless the government figure out a way to gradually ramp it down, the Chinese government will either run out of money or the lemmings, I meant investors, will outpace them.

All three indexes (Hanseng, Hong Kong & Shanghai) for the last 7 years looks like seismogram print out. Huge gains followed by big losses in a period less than 12 months.

Good points. I think China is heading for a recession because they're at the end of a process where they could build new cities in a year and there was just enough upward moving rural citizens to fill them. But they've basically tapped all the rural populations that can afford to move out of poverty.

- - - Updated - - -

And China's growth numbers are bullshit and everyone knows it. It's beeng growing at no greater than 1-3% for years. It may even have slipped into recession a few years back.

Okay, but how long do you think it will be until they are forced to report accurate numbers? I don't think they can lie forever.