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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.)


Here is the easiest economic indicator you need.

Wages.

When wages star going up that means enough jobs have been added to the economy for companies to have to compete for talent.

Wages are still not just stagnating but in a constant state of decline.

That means there's in fact less jobs not more.




posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

You are correct.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Actually that's not true. Wages aren't increasing like we'd like them too, but they ARE actually increasing. But the rate of increasing is near stagnation levels. Plus the wage issue transcends the 2008 crash. Wages have been flat lining for WAY longer than the last 8 years or so.

For most workers, real wages have barely budged for decades


Following the better-than-expected September jobs report, several economic analyses have pointed out the continuing lack of meaningful wage growth, even as tens of thousands of people head back to work. Economic theory, after all, predicts that as labor markets tighten, employers will offer higher wages to entice workers their way.

But a look at five decades’ worth of government wage data suggests that the better question might be, why should now be any different? For most U.S. workers, real wages — that is, after inflation is taken into account — have been flat or even falling for decades, regardless of whether the economy has been adding or subtracting jobs.

edit on 11-1-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

What is with those arrows? It is pointing up when it is going down. I guess none of you remember the massive layoffs after 9/11 and when the housing bubble created by Slick Willie bust. The 90's were a great time to be

Then it went down until it looks like everyone quit their jobs when Obama came to town.

The way the current DOL releases job numbers is they drop off after a few months and are not included which makes the rate look better but it is not. Creative math.

Real numbers show 97 million not in the workforce. There are actually 11 million more without jobs since Obama took office and he ran on a platform of turning the country around.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs




What is with those arrows? It is pointing up when it is going down.


That is easy it shows presidential terms.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Grimpachi

What is with those arrows? It is pointing up when it is going down. I guess none of you remember the massive layoffs after 9/11 and when the housing bubble created by Slick Willie bust. The 90's were a great time to be

Then it went down until it looks like everyone quit their jobs when Obama came to town.

The way the current DOL releases job numbers is they drop off after a few months and are not included which makes the rate look better but it is not. Creative math.

Real numbers show 97 million not in the workforce. There are actually 11 million more without jobs since Obama took office and he ran on a platform of turning the country around.


It wasn't just Clinton that caused the housing bubble, it was an actual bubble where people weren't behaving rationally buying land on the basis that there's a limited amount so it's an ever dwindling supply meaning the value could only go up.

Wage stagnation has gone on for 40 years, the donor class wants it that way. The top 10-15% have done fantastic under Obama, as they did under Bush. Everyone else did poorly but with effectively zero political representation I'm not sure what other results you would expect.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

And that's the boom encouraged by government subsidy that Hayek won the Nobel prize for identifying.

Unfortunately, good money burns just as readily as bad money when the bubble bursts.

Then the Paul Krugman's of this world blame "capitalism" for the bust.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

And that's the boom encouraged by government subsidy that Hayek won the Nobel prize for identifying.

Unfortunately, good money burns just as readily as bad money when the bubble bursts.

Then the Paul Krugman's of this world blame "capitalism" for the bust.


Although interestingly Hayek was actually (and in my view correctly) opposed the concept of a Nobel Prize for Economics.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

And that's the boom encouraged by government subsidy that Hayek won the Nobel prize for identifying.

Unfortunately, good money burns just as readily as bad money when the bubble bursts.

Then the Paul Krugman's of this world blame "capitalism" for the bust.


Although interestingly Hayek was actually (and in my view correctly) opposed the concept of a Nobel Prize for Economics.


Quite so!



Frankly, the Nobel peace prize is about as ironic as it gets.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But but but I though Trump was the new Messiah that was going to make America Great again and bring lollipops and Rainbows and gumdrops to all 50 states



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because Obama's plans have worked so very well?


Thats a pretty dumb argument.

Just because Obama policys have failed doesnt makes Trumps any more promiseing.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So don't vote for Trump and keep 35 million illegals here to make us a third world country with no hope of making America great again?

Have I got it?


Every time you repeat a slogan it just shows how people are like sheep. Baa baa baa.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So the one pointing up that is going down is...a jedi mind trick for low IQ's?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs



They are 8 year time periods. Starting from the beginning of a presidency to the end. Start to finish. It isn't rocket science.



What can't you understand?



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


You said everything but healthcare has improved. Nothing has helped me.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
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.




And guess what that means... They're unemployed. Just because you stop searching for a job and go post up on your lazy tookus doesn't mean you're no longer unemployed.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


Doesn't matter. He could put a crew of those guys on his team specifically for economics and people would still write him off.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Trump might "control the economy" more than the Economists, but you're delusional if you think he's going to use that control to help anybody but himself and his associates.

Also, a large part of his... Let's call it "Business Skill" likely comes from exploiting government loopholes and corruption. Loopholes and corruption that he has absolutely no incentive to fix if he gets into office.
edit on 11/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408

If Trump were to appoint Robert Reich as the secretary of treasury I would still trust Reich and still distrust Trump, so your point is meet, but I must say that I do not and would not think less of any person just because they support Trump or his ideas.

I write Trump off because he has a bad track record when it comes to helping humanity, if he were to be POTUS and his plans showed an increase in my wages and a decrease in the bills I have to pay, then I would vote for him on a 2nd term, until then I have no faith in the man.

Finally, I have no faith in any of the politicians for like everyone else in the world, they look out for themselves. Trump won't fix America, nor will any of the other candidates, for only the people of the US are capable of taking control of their own economic future.



posted on Jan, 11 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t


How so? The economy is actually doing pretty well right now.

You mean prices are going down?

I don't know about where you live, groceries are ever more expensive.

Let me know when shrinkflation reverses its trend. Let me know when wages go up, when interest for savings goes up.

Then we can talk about the economic 'upturn'.


Well every attempt Obama has tried to increase wages has been met with Republican resistance. So it's hard to blame him for that.

Politicians have nothing at all to do with the price of rice.

Edit: When it comes to benefitting the people both sides of the isle talk argue and press conference ad nauseum, but an expenditure for arms shipments or a new aircraft carrier… bang, done deal.


i know this is way back on the second page
but i still had to point out that politicians and legislation actually can and do have a very significant impact on the cost of food through various subsidies, rights to natural resources, transportation, labor laws, taxes, and near countless other ways

the fact that you think politicians have nothing to do with the price of rice is down right ignorant




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join