It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Economists savage Trump's economic agenda

page: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

What's that mean? I wasn't aware that they changed the way that the unemployment rate was calculated. The graph says "using March 2008 participation rate". Clicking on the link to open the source doesn't explain anything else about the graph except for two comments from Facebook users at the bottom of the page.

I really find the accuracy of that graph to be dubious at best. Looks like someone cooked some statistics to appeal to conservatives wanting to prove their bias that the economy isn't improving.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't blame anything on Bush. In fact, you are the first person to mention his name in the thread.


So what exactly is better? I'm a middle class working American, so tell me what part of the economy is better, because the way I see it, unless you're dependent on government handouts and tax paying Americans paying your bills for you while you sit on your lazy ass or find a part-time job so you can still collect handouts, nothing has gotten better.


It's not all about you, buddy. There are 300 million people in the country other than yourself.


Your thread is about the economy under Bush and I wasn't saying you blamed him but I can remember him being refused time and time again during his last two years while the majority of Congress was held by democrats. That's why the economy went to pot, and it hasn't gotten any better with a democrat in the White House. Of course it's not all about me, but as a middle class American, I represent a large amount of Americans and I would assume that most are in my shoes.


Wow you managed to find a way to blame Democrats for BOTH the recession under Bush AND for the economy not improving to the point you'd like it to improve to under Obama. THAT was an excellent piece of partisanship if I've ever seen it. You do realize that I can literally use the same exact reasoning you just used to blame the Democrats for the economic crash to blame Republicans for the lackluster economy recovery right?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: hubrisinxs

He apparently thinks that micro and macro economics are the same exact thing.


There is no micro or macro, there is only economics.


There is DEFINITELY a difference between micro and macro. Even Austrian Economics admits this...



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: hubrisinxs

Economics is the study of human action as it relates to interpersonal exchange.

There is only one economy.

I do know that the academy has many varied specialized professional tracks which erroneously carry the term economics.

Essentially, Austrian macroeconomics is entirely microeconomics.

"To make an apple pie from scratch, you first have to create the universe."

-Carl Sagan
edit on 11-1-2016 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011
Krazysh0t

Sigh... I'm really tired of conservative posters cherry picking bad parts of the economy and using that as evidence that the economy is worse off than it was in 2008... It's getting tedious. Read this carefully buddy, better != perfect. ALSO better != best.


So Obama and the democrats took $9.65 trillion in debt up to almost $19 trillion in debt....How does one country allow this to happen and still act all positive as if nothing is wrong with its economy...which involves trade btw.


This isn't a thread about how Obama could further improve the economy. It's a thread about how Trump would destroy it with his policies. The fact that we've spent so much time debating on if Obama has improved the economy or not just shows that Trump supporters such as yourself would rather deflect from things that paint your narcissist in a bad light; likely because you have no way to counter the points brought up about Trump. So we waste time deconstructing Obama strawmans instead.


Whoa man, chill... You have absolutely ZERO knowledge about how Trump will help or hurt this economy. You find an article about supposed economic experts and go to derailing Trump's plans. This thread is nothing but a Trump hater calling those who disagree with him Trump supporters and saying we're just deflecting because we support him. In reality you have absolutely no idea whether he can pull us out of this # or not, and neither does a handful of so-called experts.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't blame anything on Bush. In fact, you are the first person to mention his name in the thread.


So what exactly is better? I'm a middle class working American, so tell me what part of the economy is better, because the way I see it, unless you're dependent on government handouts and tax paying Americans paying your bills for you while you sit on your lazy ass or find a part-time job so you can still collect handouts, nothing has gotten better.


It's not all about you, buddy. There are 300 million people in the country other than yourself.


Your thread is about the economy under Bush and I wasn't saying you blamed him but I can remember him being refused time and time again during his last two years while the majority of Congress was held by democrats. That's why the economy went to pot, and it hasn't gotten any better with a democrat in the White House. Of course it's not all about me, but as a middle class American, I represent a large amount of Americans and I would assume that most are in my shoes.


Wow you managed to find a way to blame Democrats for BOTH the recession under Bush AND for the economy not improving to the point you'd like it to improve to under Obama. THAT was an excellent piece of partisanship if I've ever seen it. You do realize that I can literally use the same exact reasoning you just used to blame the Democrats for the economic crash to blame Republicans for the lackluster economy recovery right?


Lol, what?

Anyways, you still haven't answered my question. What has improved for me as a middle class American? I named some of the plaguing issues and all you said is that this isn't all about me. But I'm not the only one with those problems caused by the government. So what has improved?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

I didn't blame anything on Bush. In fact, you are the first person to mention his name in the thread.


So what exactly is better? I'm a middle class working American, so tell me what part of the economy is better, because the way I see it, unless you're dependent on government handouts and tax paying Americans paying your bills for you while you sit on your lazy ass or find a part-time job so you can still collect handouts, nothing has gotten better.


It's not all about you, buddy. There are 300 million people in the country other than yourself.


Your thread is about the economy under Bush and I wasn't saying you blamed him but I can remember him being refused time and time again during his last two years while the majority of Congress was held by democrats. That's why the economy went to pot, and it hasn't gotten any better with a democrat in the White House. Of course it's not all about me, but as a middle class American, I represent a large amount of Americans and I would assume that most are in my shoes.


Wow you managed to find a way to blame Democrats for BOTH the recession under Bush AND for the economy not improving to the point you'd like it to improve to under Obama. THAT was an excellent piece of partisanship if I've ever seen it. You do realize that I can literally use the same exact reasoning you just used to blame the Democrats for the economic crash to blame Republicans for the lackluster economy recovery right?


Lol, what?

Anyways, you still haven't answered my question. What has improved for me as a middle class American? I named some of the plaguing issues and all you said is that this isn't all about me. But I'm not the only one with those problems caused by the government. So what has improved?


Read the thread. I've posted many stats and data showing how the economy has improved, I'm not about to post them all over again just for you.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Democrat controlled Congress (2007 - 2008) under Bush killed it.

Bush had the unemployment rate down to 4.4% at one point.

Why would HE want to sabotage that?

Democrats saw a threat to their precious social programs.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So are any conservatives actually going to talk about Trump in this thread or will I be perpetually dealing with deflections from you guys?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

So are any conservatives actually going to talk about Trump in this thread or will I be perpetually dealing with deflections from you guys?


I started out agreeing with the position that protectionism is just another aspect of economic interventionism and is associated with attempts at autarkic planned economies, aka national socialism.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That's why I continued to engage you for so long in the thread. I appreciate people staying on topic.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Bush had the unemployment rate down to 4.4% at one point.



Yeah that was in January 2001 the day after he took over office from Clinton.




edit on 11-1-2016 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Are these the same economists who said the housing bubble was nothing to worry about?

I can find a reputable economist at 3 in the morning to say whatever I want him to say if I pay him enough.

You guys haven't figured out that statistics are pure propaganda?

Hmm...



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Are these the same economists who said the housing bubble was nothing to worry about?


Probably not, but I don't know. Which ones were they? Got any names for me?


I can find a reputable economist at 3 in the morning to say whatever I want him to say if I pay him enough.

You guys haven't figured out that statistics are pure propaganda?

Hmm...


Statistics are pure propaganda? Lol. Great way to avoid actually discussing the topic. Which is more than just statistics, by the way. It's also heavy on economic theory.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

These economists are obviously tools of the machine. One needs look no further than this statement:

The reasons for this are simple, economists say. The economy is close to reaching “full employment," adding another 292,000 jobs in December. The jobless rate remained at 5 percent.

to recognize this. Any economist worth a damn and not firmly entrenched in the federal government's backwards math used to sugar coat the real unemployment fiasco in America would acknowledge that official unemployment has remained disconnected from reality since the Great Recession. The 95 Million working age Americans listed as "Not in the Workforce" would clearly indicate that America is not even remotely close to full employment.

Go Trump!



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


The 95 Million working age Americans listed as "Not in the Workforce" would clearly indicate that America is not even remotely close to full employment.

I suppose that includes children, right? Or is that just "of those adults who are capable"? Kids (who are working age) are in school - where they should be.....
Millions of people who were in the work force have stopped looking; they have given up.


Go Trump!

No.

(And here I was agreeing with you for a change.)

edit on 1/11/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, I've already had a conversation about the U6 number in this thread. It's also dropping.

Let me tell you a bit about where I stand here. I used to hold out about U6 as the reasoning why the economy wasn't improving, but as I started to look at the employment numbers since 2009, they've pretty much been dropping the whole time. U6 included.
edit on 11-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The only real experts on the economy are the guys controlling it.

I'm going to assume that trump is closer to these guys then the economist.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
The only real experts on the economy are the guys controlling it.

I'm going to assume that trump is closer to these guys then the economist.


Trump is more of a microeconomist. These guys are macroeconomists. Different theories and principles govern economy ideology depending on micro vs macro.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join