Unfit Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

[wgdsr]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

Yes. Borrowing a few trillion dollars, and pumping it throughout the country, willy-nilly, will do that.

get used to it.
inflate, default to the fed, or semi-permanently low rates. pick one.

or we have a magical transformation and kick crazy economic ass without borrowing.

[Farfromgeneva]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

What was US working age population doing over that period? A critical factor not included.

I don’t understand what you are saying. I said wages couldn’t really grow until 2014 for the aforementioned reasons and you’re saying it started in 2014. What am I missing. Please note the smallest rate of growth in employment in a decade was in 2019.

I only base it on what I know professionally dealing in banking, credit, derivatives. Speak with economists and FS, rate trading heads of major money center and super regional banks. Not saying they’re right but to a man they all would tell you the UE rate was a facade that didn’t represent he underlying reality broadly.

[a fan]

get used to it.
inflate, default to the fed, or semi-permanently low rates. pick one.

or we have a magical transformation and kick crazy economic ass without borrowing.

Or, we raise taxes to actually pay for what we're getting.

Ask the CBO about how awesome this path of borrowing with reckless tax cuts is.

Payments on interest will exceed what we spend annually on the military in just 7 years. Sound smart to you?

[Cooter]

Lacrosse will probably start up in the next 4 years if not this spring.

I keep my powder dry a lot on politics.

Of course you do....when your guy is a moron...crickets.

And now we will have your moron for 4 years.

Trump was not really my guy. I did not vote for him in either election.

Biden is no more a moron than you or me.

You can speak for yourself, but given Biden's academic record, Biden is significantly closer to being a moron than me.

[wgdsr]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

What was US working age population doing over that period? A critical factor not included.

I don’t understand what you are saying. I said wages couldn’t really grow until 2014 for the aforementioned reasons and you’re saying it started in 2014. What am I missing. Please note the smallest rate of growth in employment in a decade was in 2019.

I only base it on what I know professionally dealing in banking, credit, derivatives. Speak with economists and FS, rate trading heads of major money center and super regional banks. Not saying they’re right but to a man they all would tell you the UE rate was a facade that didn’t represent he underlying reality broadly.

it looks like since late 2016 or thereabouts to 2020 it stayed the same and stopped its previous growth.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LFWA64TTUSM647S
you asked for the best metric. i profferred wages. you countered that that wasn't that good because...

again, you can have any take you wish. fine by me.

[PizzaSnake]

Everything Trump had going in "the right direction" was on borrowed dime too. "Tax and Spend" vs. "Tax Cut and Spend More" seems to be our choices nowadays.

The last part is what bugs me. At this point taxes have to go up, unfortunately (thanks boomer generation, will never stop on this one, the 1980s ruined this country for everyone afterwards), but it shouldn’t have been that way and if we have to hit future generations harder than prior ones got as taxes were being reduced and spending went up then some degree of sterilization and reduced spending has to occur too.

The eighties?

2 decades into uninterrupted democrat power in the house and senate. With another decade and a half to go.

Pelosi Biden and Schumer in the middle of "ruining it for everyone afterwards"

Yeah it’s all those dirty liberal lying cheating baby murdering people who don’t think like you who are the problem.

Yeh but still

from the sixties to the nineties liberal democrats were unfettered. How'd they do?

Forgetting about Tricky Dick and the “opening of China”, abandoning the gold standard and the little matter of the OPEC embargo and its impact on a highly inefficient manufacturing sector?

I know thinking is hard for some, but occasionally it’s worth the effort.

[MDlaxfan76]

Everything Trump had going in "the right direction" was on borrowed dime too. "Tax and Spend" vs. "Tax Cut and Spend More" seems to be our choices nowadays.

The last part is what bugs me. At this point taxes have to go up, unfortunately (thanks boomer generation, will never stop on this one, the 1980s ruined this country for everyone afterwards), but it shouldn’t have been that way and if we have to hit future generations harder than prior ones got as taxes were being reduced and spending went up then some degree of sterilization and reduced spending has to occur too.

The eighties?

2 decades into uninterrupted democrat power in the house and senate. With another decade and a half to go.

Pelosi Biden and Schumer in the middle of "ruining it for everyone afterwards"

Yeah it’s all those dirty liberal lying cheating baby murdering people who don’t think like you who are the problem.

Yeh but still

from the sixties to the nineties liberal democrats were unfettered. How'd they do?

Forgetting about Tricky Dick and the “opening of China”, abandoning the gold standard and the little matter of the OPEC embargo and its impact on a highly inefficient manufacturing sector?

I know thinking is hard for some, but occasionally it’s worth the effort.

I was puzzled by the "unfettered" statement too.
Your answer was more detailed, but simply, Nixon, Ford, (Carter), Reagan, Bush...how many years in the 20 year 1970-1990 period had a Dem POTUS?

How many years in the '90's didn't have either a GOP POTUS or GOP House?

Fettered

[foreverlax]

Lacrosse will probably start up in the next 4 years if not this spring.

I keep my powder dry a lot on politics.

Of course you do....when your guy is a moron...crickets.

And now we will have your moron for 4 years.

Trump was not really my guy. I did not vote for him in either election.

Biden is no more a moron than you or me.

You can speak for yourself, but given Biden's academic record, Biden is significantly closer to being a moron than me.

So you measure sometimes intelligence based on how they did school....good for you.

[kramerica.inc]

So an interesting question remains.
How will Brookie and other doves here react to Biden upping troops in the ME once he takes office? Just curious because it's gonna happen.

[DocBarrister]

Lacrosse will probably start up in the next 4 years if not this spring.

I keep my powder dry a lot on politics.

Of course you do....when your guy is a moron...crickets.

And now we will have your moron for 4 years.

Trump was not really my guy. I did not vote for him in either election.

Biden is no more a moron than you or me.

You can speak for yourself, but given Biden's academic record, Biden is significantly closer to being a moron than me.

And that’s saying something.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

So an interesting question remains.
How will Brookie and other doves here react to Biden upping troops in the ME once he takes office? Just curious because it's gonna happen.

Biden will consult with the military and diplomatic professionals and make a rational, considered decision on troop deployment. Whether everyone agrees with the decision is a different matter, but we will at least know that the decision wasn’t some irrational, impulsive move.

That’s progress either way.

DocBarrister

[kramerica.inc]

Lets hope we don't just leave it up to Mr. 76 of 85.

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do!"



https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

[jhu72]

So an interesting question remains.
How will Brookie and other doves here react to Biden upping troops in the ME once he takes office? Just curious because it's gonna happen.

I don't think I count as a dove, but I want us out of the ME. So lets review the bidding:

- Bush put us in the quicksand, we have never recovered. Pissed me off.
- Obama ran on no more stupid wars. He drew down, but didn't get us out. Pissed me off, though less than Bush.
- Trump basically ran on Obama's platform, bring the boys home, no more stupid wars, and oh yea, I am a tough guy. Accomplished about the same as Obama, in terms of bringing the boys home, but we are still not out, still doing stupid things. Pisses me off, about as much as Obama did.
- Biden is more likely to up troop count, we will see. Will probably piss me off in that regard.

* if you count Iran (which is not the same as bring the boys home), then I would have to say Trump has taken a bad situation and made it worse and that pisses me off way more than Obama.

[Farfromgeneva]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

As can you. That one statistic in isolation without any discussion of distribution, inflation or population is hardly enough to hang ones hat on that the economy was humming or doing well, which is what was stated as fact, prior to Covid in spite of GDP, underemployment, affordability and about a hundred other metrics yet you throw it out there with no context as if to suggest it alone and with no context is sufficient evidence. So like you said you can have any take you wish.

[wgdsr]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

As can you. That one statistic in isolation without any discussion of distribution, inflation or population is hardly enough to hang ones hat on that the economy was humming or doing well, which is what was stated as fact, prior to Covid in spite of GDP, underemployment, affordability and about a hundred other metrics yet you throw it out there with no context as if to suggest it alone and with no context is sufficient evidence. So like you said you can have any take you wish.

the first link i gave you was in real terms (inflation), i also initially gave it with the caveat of wage growth inequality (your distribution?). you asked for us worker population for context vis a vis total employment/underemployment, which i gave you as flattened (and is cut off from this post as we've each had a reply since).
you asked what was going well. oh, well.

[Cooter]

Lets hope we don't just leave it up to Mr. 76 of 85.

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do!"



https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

But he was 506 out of 688 at the University of Delaware as an undergraduate.

[kramerica.inc]

Lets hope we don't just leave it up to Mr. 76 of 85.

"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do!"



https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

But he was 506 out of 688 at the University of Delaware.

"Top half" of his class, by his thinking.

[jhu72]

Based on his election week work Steve Kornacki is one of People Magazine's Sexist Men Alive and Trump isn't.

[Farfromgeneva]

Of course it could be a pro Biden swing. Or a pro trump Swing. He had things going the right direction before the Rona hit.

All I read is it’s probably excitement about split gov and no likely major policy changes.

Aside from the stock market, which is not the economy, can you point to quantitative or measurable items that indicate the president had things going in the right direction economically? And I would point out that economists who lean both Ways have exposed massive flaws in the measurement of unemployment rate, they are all working towards a better measurement to eventually be adopted by the government which would apply underemployed, meaning people working but below the level they need to support themselves effectively. By this measurement we weren’t doing very good.

So not applying a flawed UE rate and understanding the stock market doesn’t mean anything, what did he have going well?

GDP growth?
Stability of the dollar?
Budget deficit?
Productivity?
Inflation? (Why did we have Powell lowering Fed Funds prior to Rona if inflation was stable at the long run benchmark? Deflation is 100x worse than inflation when it hits you surely know)
Other metrics?

wage growth was probably the best metric
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/
a lot of numbers someone can not like in there (wage inequality, others), but as a result of the already tightening employment picture prior and since, wages had a lot of beneficiaries.

The underemployment metric would suggest it wasn’t nearly enough to declare success. I would also note it took a long time after the financial crisis for wage growth to make ground. Stabilization took 4-5yrs into 2013, then we had the “taper tantrum” that summer because, oh god the Fed is going to raise rates, then the biyach Fed backed off and let the market have their way. There was almost no way to see true wage growth until 2014 or 2015.

And while that’s a nice metric, it’s not enough to state the “economy was humming” under this soon to be prior admin. Fact is things were weakening in 2019 for sure.

https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/mobil ... r-2019.htm

total employment had been climbing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269 ... ed-states/
as had wages. started in 2014 for both in unison. i guess you can have any take you wish.

As can you. That one statistic in isolation without any discussion of distribution, inflation or population is hardly enough to hang ones hat on that the economy was humming or doing well, which is what was stated as fact, prior to Covid in spite of GDP, underemployment, affordability and about a hundred other metrics yet you throw it out there with no context as if to suggest it alone and with no context is sufficient evidence. So like you said you can have any take you wish.

the first link i gave you was in real terms (inflation), i also initially gave it with the caveat of wage growth inequality (your distribution?). you asked for us worker population for context vis a vis total employment/underemployment, which i gave you as flattened (and is cut off from this post as we've each had a reply since).
you asked what was going well. oh, well.

No I asked a person who stated that the economy was going well to point to something factual. You threw out one metric, sure I can agree that's a good thing and think I already acknowledged that, but it's also not nearly enough to say "the economy was going well". Your caveat isn't a minor thing either when discussing the economy as a whole don't you think. To me that negates the entire premise if it's skewed such to leave significant portion of the populace. It's as if you picked one sentence out of a conversation and threw one, flawed when including the "caveat", metric out and that's the entire counterpoint. Is that what your intention was with this? Did you read what I originally replied to at all? Or is the whole methodology to only play devils advocate to others and never take a position to stand behind?

[kramerica.inc]

"The Dow, wage, and unemployment numbers don't count. Other market indicators are more important than that."