Author Topic: Political Economics  (Read 620334 times)



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Political Economics, $15 wage is killing jobs all across the city (NYC)
« Reply #1802 on: November 27, 2019, 09:21:22 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Wage growth up ten-fold under Trump-nomics
« Reply #1803 on: November 27, 2019, 09:26:44 AM »
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/steve-moore-trump-economy-is-really-experiencing-a-middle-class-boom-this-data-doesnt-lie?fbclid=IwAR1s2rfhKSv4nFKqTJtO8VWydaVdv6DLu9FjGAYsxnVCWUevcWUqDBuOxH4

"The $5,003 rise in middle-class incomes is especially impressive given that incomes only rose by $1,200 in the seven years under Obama — after the recession ended."

ISN'T THAT WHAT LIBERALS WANTED?  They should support OUR policies.

"Instead, the left has chosen to either ignore this story altogether or to denounce these findings, which come from the gold standard of economic data, the U.S. Census Bureau.
...
This same data also undermines the other riff from the Elizabeth Warren crowd, which is that the Trump economic boom is merely a continuation of the Obama trend. The income gains are four times higher under Trump in less than half the number of years in office.
"

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Political Economics, reverse redistribution, electric car subsidy
« Reply #1804 on: December 17, 2019, 07:32:27 PM »
Electric car subsidies are pure political corruption: "79 percent of electric vehicle tax credits were claimed by households with an adjusted gross income of more than $100,000 a year" and "46 percent of credit eligibility flowed to one state, California."
   - source: economist Alan Reynolds

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17452
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, reverse redistribution, electric car subsidy
« Reply #1805 on: December 17, 2019, 07:40:15 PM »
Electric car subsidies are pure political corruption: "79 percent of electric vehicle tax credits were claimed by households with an adjusted gross income of more than $100,000 a year" and "46 percent of credit eligibility flowed to one state, California."
   - source: economist Alan Reynolds

Obama's "green economy" initiatives were all dem graft operations.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics - income mobility, dynamic versus static
« Reply #1806 on: December 21, 2019, 07:42:39 PM »
About ten percent of Americans will spend at least a year in the top one percent and more than half of all Americans will spent a year in the top ten percent.

39% of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 % of the income distribution, 56 % will find themselves in the top 10%, and 73% percent will spend a year in the top 20 %.

https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1035
    • View Profile
S&P 500 performance by President...
« Reply #1807 on: January 02, 2020, 03:26:25 AM »
Very interesting graph.  Note well that for all the hoopla about Trump's stock market rally, at this point in his presidency, he's actually a bit shy of where Obama was at the same point.  That's not to say that Trump has much more to crow about, but interesting nonetheless.  This surprised me.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1808 on: January 02, 2020, 09:45:11 AM »
The market was RECOVERING during Obama, with Trump it is reaching into new territory.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17452
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1809 on: January 02, 2020, 04:53:20 PM »
The market was RECOVERING during Obama, with Trump it is reaching into new territory.

Well, we had 8 summers of recovery, I was told.

 :roll:

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: S&P 500 performance by President...
« Reply #1810 on: January 02, 2020, 06:35:29 PM »
Very interesting graph.  Note well that for all the hoopla about Trump's stock market rally, at this point in his presidency, he's actually a bit shy of where Obama was at the same point.  That's not to say that Trump has much more to crow about, but interesting nonetheless.  This surprised me.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2482/sp500-performance-by-president

I know Trump brags about the market under his term and some on the Left say the markets perform better under Democrats.  I find that whole direction of analysis flawed. 

Judged by today's party's I would say JFK was a Republican and that Nixon governed as a Democrat.  Reagan's tax cuts were delayed two years, meaning the main policies in those years were the Carter administration's. Clinton's policies were decidedly Democrat for two years and then merged with Newt Gingrich and the Republicans for the final six years.  At the end, Clinton triggered the tech crash that brought down the first two years for W. and then Bush policies was all over the map.  They say he gave supply side economics a bad name without ever trying it.

The W. Bush economic policy arrow switched when he lost Congress in Nov 2006 / Jan 2007 and Obama and team (HRC, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer) were the de facto leaders into the crash.  They were leading in all the Presidential polls when people and markets lost confidence.  In fact it was there policies, unrepealed by Republicans that led to the crash.  Put that period onto his watch and see where the numbers fall.

Then he lost the House two years into his Presidency and was unable to pass any more far Left legislation, just down to his pen and his executive orders.  What he was unable to ban was fracking out in the states.  He opposed the transformational economic force that happened 'on his watch'.

Trump's market surge started with his election, not his inauguration. 

First year budgets come from the predecessor, what I call runners left on base, and the rest come from Congress.  Scoring it all as the President's is trickery IMHO.  Is the House of Representatives doing everything it can to help grow the markets and the economy right now?  Obviously not.

For more instructive analysis, I like GDP better than stocks, a wider measure, and the timeline needs to match the policy arrow shift, not the name on the door. 
----
The comparison of Chile and Venezuela over the last 30 years is instructive. One went from statist and poor to free and rich.  The other went from free and rich to socialist and poor.

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2018/07/24/world-bank-compares-chile-and-venezuela/


« Last Edit: January 02, 2020, 06:44:10 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1811 on: January 02, 2020, 06:56:47 PM »
The market was RECOVERING during Obama, with Trump it is reaching into new territory.

Well, we had 8 summers of recovery, I was told.

 :roll:

He took 8 years to get back what should have recovered in 6 months.  Plus the market crash was caused by bad government policies in the first place. 

As mentioned in my other post, why make a distinction between a Republican (in name only) or a Democrat who both govern with Democrat policies, cf. letting the federal government run wild with the mortgage finance system.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
Paul Krugman
« Reply #1812 on: January 08, 2020, 04:29:26 PM »
are these interests outside his non spot partisan work as a  Democrat Partly  Professor of Economics, or malicious set up / trap ?

https://www.mediaite.com/print/nyts-paul-krugman-says-hacker-downloaded-child-pornography-using-his-ip-address/

Either way this is bad in general.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17452
    • View Profile
Re: Paul Krugman
« Reply #1813 on: January 08, 2020, 07:15:34 PM »
are these interests outside his non spot partisan work as a  Democrat Partly  Professor of Economics, or malicious set up / trap ?

https://www.mediaite.com/print/nyts-paul-krugman-says-hacker-downloaded-child-pornography-using-his-ip-address/

Either way this is bad in general.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/385207.php

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics, rent control
« Reply #1814 on: January 13, 2020, 09:06:04 AM »
Crafty,  I was wondering how your daughter's paper on rent control turned out.  It is hard to find any information other than that screwing up a market makes everything worse for everyone including the people receiving the so-called benefit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1815 on: January 13, 2020, 10:02:06 AM »
Thank you for asking but she changed her mind and instead did something on whether Hermosa Beach should keep its police department or contract the gig out to LA County.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17452
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1816 on: January 13, 2020, 12:31:14 PM »
Thank you for asking but she changed her mind and instead did something on whether Hermosa Beach should keep its police department or contract the gig out to LA County.

Curious what her take on that would be.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1817 on: January 19, 2020, 07:48:04 AM »
a recent working paper by Gerald Auten and David Splinter, economists at the Treasury and Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, respectively, reaches a striking new conclusion. It finds that, after adjusting for taxes and transfers, the income share of America’s top 1% has barely changed since the 1960s (see chart 1).
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/28/economists-are-rethinking-the-numbers-on-inequality
https://www.economist.com/img/b/1280/672/85/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20191130_FBC532_0.png

http://davidsplinter.com/AutenSplinter-Tax_Data_and_Inequality.pdf

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1818 on: January 19, 2020, 07:34:03 PM »
Very interesting!

Please post in the Economics thread on S, C, & H forum as well so that it can be more easily found for the deep theoretical implications it contains.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10161
    • View Profile
The Economist
« Reply #1819 on: January 28, 2020, 07:31:19 AM »
tries to make the upside down case that Trump win in 2020 would be bad for the economy


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-reelection-is-risk-for-markets-economist-220530643.html

as always the business interests making a stink about some trade barriers
all the while China is screwing us over and eating our lunch dinner and our future

Like I said the Economist is a leftist rag
from Europe

isn't even good for toilet paper as the ink comes off on your skin

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics
« Reply #1820 on: January 28, 2020, 09:48:06 AM »
I was first exposed to The Economist back when I was at U PA in the 70s.  Very impressive back then!  Now?  Not , , ,

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17452
    • View Profile
Black Swan times
« Reply #1821 on: January 29, 2020, 10:06:46 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Re: Political Economics - The Obama Expansion? NOT!
« Reply #1822 on: February 19, 2020, 06:01:43 AM »
Barack Obama
@BarackObama
 · Feb 17
Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.
---------

WHAT?!

---------

Real after-tax income was virtually flat from the 2008 recession to the end of Obama's first term, despite temporary tax giveaways in 2009-12.  GDP briefly grew by ~2.7% in 20014-15 (with Fed's QE) but only 1.6% in 2016.  The 2009 spend-spree can't get credit for 2 out 8 years.   - Alan Reynolds



President Bush passed the Economic Stimulus Act in February 2008 and the Troubled Asset Relief Act in October. Whatever Bush & Obama did was of late and largely irrelevant.  What the Fed did (take rates from 5 1/4% to zero) is what mattered.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I might have mentioned this once before.  If Barack Obama wants to talk aboutthe  timing and cause and effect of economic outlook and Presidents' policies:

The end of the previous economic expansion coincided exactly to the month with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry and Joe Biden being elevated to the majority in Congress.  The financial collapse coincided exactly with the market reaction to the reality that Barack Obama will be the next President, The markets knew Democrats would control all levers of government, tax rates especially on capital will be going up, healthcare will be socialized, and the business climate will be going to hell.  And we had financial collapse as smart money pulled out.  Business expansion ended and nbew business startups basically went to zero.

That is when "the worst recession in generations" began.  Congratulations to Obama for not making policies any worse than the markets expected.
--------------
Obama is also the only president in U.S. history to have never had a single year of 3.0 percent or greater GDP growth.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2020, 06:37:36 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49762
    • View Profile