'Murica! (203 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
Once a scheming criminal organization, always a scheming criminal organization
The economic mastermind recognizes instantly that the line leading up to 2020 should be red given that 2016 wasn't quite the demographic sweep. The report exposes itself at the very beginning as just another lame attempt to attribute the flourishing economy under Trump to the Democrats. After identifying this report's heavy bias there is no need for further investigations. Just another desperate noise the swamp makes when it's scared of being drained.
The economic mastermind recognizes instantly that the line leading up to 2020 should be red given that 2016 wasn't quite the demographic sweep. The report exposes itself at the very beginning as just another lame attempt to attribute the flourishing economy under Trump to the Democrats. After identifying this report's heavy bias there is no need for further investigations. Just another desperate noise the swamp makes when it's scared of being drained.
Numbers are biased when they don't fit my narrative. I'm still waiting for your analysis about the limitations of the statistical methodologies (linked below) used in the report. Straw man arguments are not enough in serious discussions.
https://www.economy.com/home/products/samples/macromodel.pdf
I'm not laughing at you, but rather the nonsense from Moody's. Read what they wrote. Of course an infrastructure plan would increase GDP by definition -- it's all government spending, which even Trump has mulled before. But where does that capital come from? It comes from taxing or borrowing, thus decreasing saving and investment from elsewhere. We aren't selling the roads as a good or service (unless we place tolls everywhere), so it doesn't create anything other than short-term job growth, then the bonds have to be repaid. Then they go on to say increasing spending on higher education and increasing skilled worker immigration will increase GDP, but for what jobs? Did they not look at the unemployment rate? What good is it going to do bringing in a bunch of foreign workers and having a bunch of kids obtain Masters in History when we just spent trillions in an infrastructure plan that sucked out investment from actually making real goods and services? At least they admitted that the higher tax burden would have an impact; of course it would.
If government was that adept at what they do and it was so easy to tax, borrow and spend all time without producing anything, meaning the "G" in the formula for GDP was the only thing that mattered, then why wasn't Argentina or Venezuela or any of the other nations with similar structures have the best economy ever? Why even produce anything at all? Just let government do it all, right?
I can't even believe that nonsense came from Moody's, so that's saying something.
- - - Updated - - -
Mr. Paul "The internet will never be anything" Krugman is literally wrong about everything but he's a Keynesian so he woke. For those that need the basics, here you go.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/criticism-keynesianism/
- - - Updated - - -
"Subprime is a great investment opportunity."
"Market conditions made it difficult to see the defaults coming."
Fuckin' Moody's, the bond whores.
Last edited:
I'm not laughing at you, but rather the nonsense from Moody's. Read what they wrote. Of course an infrastructure plan would increase GDP by definition -- it's all government spending, which even Trump has mulled before. But where does that capital come from? It comes from taxing or borrowing, thus decreasing saving and investment from elsewhere. We aren't selling the roads as a good or service (unless we place tolls everywhere), so it doesn't create anything other than short-term job growth, then the bonds have to be repaid. Then they go on to say increasing spending on higher education and increasing skilled worker immigration will increase GDP, but for what jobs? Did they not look at the unemployment rate? What good is it going to do bringing in a bunch of foreign workers and having a bunch of kids obtain Masters in History when we just spent trillions in an infrastructure plan that sucked out investment from actually making real goods and services? At least they admitted that the higher tax burden would have an impact; of course it would.
If government was that adept at what they do and it was so easy to tax, borrow and spend all time without producing anything, meaning the "G" in the formula for GDP was the only thing that mattered, then why wasn't Argentina or Venezuela or any of the other nations with similar structures have the best economy ever? Why even produce anything at all? Just let government do it all, right?
I can't even believe that nonsense came from Moody's, so that's saying something.
Also regarding your second paragraph, there are levels to government spending. Venezuela is a lazy comparison as I doubt anyone in the US is looking to follow their model. Nor do I think that there is the same level of corruption in the US government. There are plenty of strong economies here in Europe for example that rely on government spending to differing degrees.
We're quite unlikely to see either party win with a sweep though so we won't see either scenario happen in reality. It'll be one of the in-between scenarios again and there isn't likely much difference between them when it comes to economic growth. I posted that report here because it's another piece of evidence that refutes the belief that Trump is undoubtedly better for the economy. The president seems to make little difference for economic growth unless he holds both the house and the senate.
This whole discussion again seems to come down to the age old question about who should see the benefits of that economic growth.
If you're interested, here are the analyses from the 2016 election:
Hillary:
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/...s-of-Secretary-Clintons-Economic-Policies.pdf
Trump:
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf
Here you can also listen to Zandi speaking on Trump's proposals after the 2016 election:
https://www.moodysanalytics.com/webinars-on-demand/2016/economic-impact-of-trump-presidency
- - - Updated - - -
Also as of now, with "average non-incumbent turnout," they're currently predicting Biden with 279 electoral votes vs Trump with 259 and calling it very close.
Hillary:
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/...s-of-Secretary-Clintons-Economic-Policies.pdf
Trump:
https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf
Here you can also listen to Zandi speaking on Trump's proposals after the 2016 election:
https://www.moodysanalytics.com/webinars-on-demand/2016/economic-impact-of-trump-presidency
- - - Updated - - -
Also as of now, with "average non-incumbent turnout," they're currently predicting Biden with 279 electoral votes vs Trump with 259 and calling it very close.
Last edited:
The left is such a mess. Its terrifying that these people have political power
https://news.yahoo.com/pledge-dismantle-minneapolis-police-collapsed-155801253.html
https://news.yahoo.com/pledge-dismantle-minneapolis-police-collapsed-155801253.html
So Spotify employees want to strike if Spotify doesn't start censoring Joe Rogan.
Tolerance.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, here comes their savior.
https://pagesix.com/2020/09/25/meghan-markle-has-serious-ambitions-to-run-for-president-report/
Tolerance.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, here comes their savior.
https://pagesix.com/2020/09/25/meghan-markle-has-serious-ambitions-to-run-for-president-report/