Can progressives learn anything from Republicans?

[Neo-Scholastic]

The economy operates on a delayed effect for many things. Policies enacted under obama, Bush, etc are still having an effect on the economy. It's not all in the moment, and the president has limited effect, as much as people like to blame or credit whoever is in office.

There is some truth to what you say. Policy decisions can have long term effects and policy decisions come from multiple entities, such as Congress, the Fed, and various bureaucracies. At the same time, for 8 years Obama, his administration officials and no shortage of left-leaning economists (Krugman comes to mind) assured us that 2% growth was the "new normal" and that Trump's prediction of achieving 4% was a fantasy. They want to have it both ways. On the one hand claiming that an anemic recovery is the most anyone could expect, then taking credit for when it dramatically improves under the next president. If Obama's policies are indeed entirely responsible for the current boom, the sluggish pace at which they improved the economy is not a point in favor of those policies.

[Angrboda]

The economy operates on a delayed effect for many things. Policies enacted under obama, Bush, etc are still having an effect on the economy. It's not all in the moment, and the president has limited effect, as much as people like to blame or credit whoever is in office.

There is some truth to what you say. Policy decisions can have long term effects and policy decisions come from multiple entities, such as Congress, the Fed, and various bureaucracies. At the same time, for 8 years Obama, his administration officials and no shortage of left-leaning economists (Krugman comes to mind) assured us that 2% growth was the "new normal" and that Trump's prediction of achieving 4% was a fantasy. They want to have it both ways. On the one hand claiming that an anemic recovery is the most anyone could expect, then taking credit for when it dramatically improves under the next president. If Obama's policies are indeed entirely responsible for the current boom, the sluggish pace at which they improved the economy is not a point in favor of those policies.

It's not exactly a point against them, either. You appear to be looking at it through the lense of bias.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[Anomalocaris]

The Wooster is as always full to the bursting of shit.

Annualized Quarterly GDP growth rate hit 5.3% in Q3 2014, under obama.  In the real world 5.3% > 4.1%.  

The quarterly GDP growth rate exceeded 4.1% 4 times under Obama.  Obama actually has more than one,  more than two,  more than three, quarter to choose from if he wishes to trump trump.  But unlike the vain, rubber lipped, crass handicap miming, ill-spelt self-promoting, victory lap every day for no cause disgrace of a shit faced self-serving shit gibbon, obama’s style is service to a cause greater than one self, with no drama.

Astonishingly, both of those Obamas are the very same obama as the obama Wooster alluded to.

A little more about sustained growth as oppose to flash in the pan, steal from posterity to enrich wealthy fuckers today, momentary, unpaid for, tax cut driven fake growth:

The first 6 consecutive quarter of trump administration averaged 2.83%, including fake grow.

The best 6 consecutive quarters of obama administration, Q2 2014 - Q3 2015, averaged 3.22%, not including fake growth.

In the real world, 3.22% > 2.82%, and 2.82% > real underlying growth.

Sustainable Long term average growth rate of 2.5% is considered the maximum achievable by any developed economy by actual real economists.    Let’s see the average growth rate he achieves when trump is frog marched out of the whitehouse to Siberia for failing to deliver Europe to uncle vlad.

[CapnAwesome]

The economy operates on a delayed effect for many things. Policies enacted under obama, Bush, etc are still having an effect on the economy. It's not all in the moment, and the president has limited effect, as much as people like to blame or credit whoever is in office.

There is some truth to what you say. Policy decisions can have long term effects and policy decisions come from multiple entities, such as Congress, the Fed, and various bureaucracies. At the same time, for 8 years Obama, his administration officials and no shortage of left-leaning economists (Krugman comes to mind) assured us that 2% growth was the "new normal" and that Trump's prediction of achieving 4% was a fantasy. They want to have it both ways. On the one hand claiming that an anemic recovery is the most anyone could expect, then taking credit for when it dramatically improves under the next president. If Obama's policies are indeed entirely responsible for the current boom, the sluggish pace at which they improved the economy is not a point in favor of those policies.

It may not be Obama or Trump that is responsible for the boom. It is likely just the market is in a natural boom, in the boom bust cycle. Or all the new tech companies are driving the boom, Or that the fed has reinflated the bubble, and it's about to burst on us again. Ultimately I think the market drives itself more than. People think.

Could have little to do with any president.

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to worry more about things like PPP GDP per capita and debt to GDP ratios than any bubble in nominal GDP. The fact is that Trump has mortgaged our future to big corporations and a massive debt, as well as pissing away money on military spending. What does GDP growth matter when real wages are stagnant? And while it's not particularly telling, China has now eclipsed the U.S. in GDP PPP per capita.

---

I'm unable to find a source for the "2.5% GDP is no longer attainable" quote. Would you mind providing a source for these quotes, Neo?

[The Industrial Atheist]

Didn't Trump's administration promise we'd have so much growth that increased tax revenue would actually reduce the deficit? The deficit is skyrocketing. The sane people knew this would happen.

[The Grand Nudger]

The people who passed those laws also knew it would happen.  It was a completely cynical move to satisfy their backers investments in them.

Only the plebs actually -drink- the trickle down koolaid.

[Anomalocaris]

I'm inclined to worry more about things like PPP GDP per capita and debt to GDP ratios than any bubble in nominal GDP.  The fact is that Trump has mortgaged our future to big corporations and a massive debt, as well as pissing away money on military spending.  What does GDP growth matter when real wages are stagnant?  And while it's not particularly telling, China has now eclipsed the U.S. in GDP PPP per capita.

---

I'm unable to find a source for the "2.5% GDP is no longer attainable" quote.  Would you mind providing a source for these quotes, Neo?

No, China has eclipsed the US in total GDP measured on purpose power basis.   US GDP PPP per capita remains higher by far.

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to worry more about things like PPP GDP per capita and debt to GDP ratios than any bubble in nominal GDP.  The fact is that Trump has mortgaged our future to big corporations and a massive debt, as well as pissing away money on military spending.  What does GDP growth matter when real wages are stagnant?  And while it's not particularly telling, China has now eclipsed the U.S. in GDP PPP per capita.

---

I'm unable to find a source for the "2.5% GDP is no longer attainable" quote.  Would you mind providing a source for these quotes, Neo?

No, China has eclipsed the US in total GDP measured on purpose power basis.   US GDP PPP per capita remains higher by far.

Thanks for the correction.