Economy is worse off than we thought.

[Fantine]

The 46th president of the United States is bringing his time at the White House to a close with the S&P 500 SPX up over 55% since he took office on Jan. 20, 2021. The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA advanced more than 39% over the same period, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite COMP jumped nearly 46%, according to Dow Jones Market Data.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20250119180/a-final-look-at-how-the-us-stock-market-performed-under-joe-biden

In October, 2024, under Biden, the DOW was at 43,300, roughly equivalent to where it is today.

The Biden recovery was in full-swing when Trump won the election and we have seensurges and slumps and no stability. We still believe that in the long term the economy will grow well, but have retreated to mutual funds for a little more safety.

Historically, stocks have risen far higher under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones.

 

[trophy33]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country. They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[Laeomis]

This sounds like more voodoo economics.

No, this field is known as macroeconomics.

 

[FireDragon76]

No, this field is known as macroeconomics.

You're describing a macroeconomic theory, one that sounds completely counter-intuitive. Burning a village to save a village doesn't exactly sound like a wise or sound policy.

 

[The Barbarian]

Consumer spending and GDP are two different tools that are used to measure inflation. Consumer spending is at first seen as something wanted, but in reality it goes both ways. Consumer spending does not necessarily mean consumers are buying more, but it might mean they are spending more on the same amount of items.

The Commerce Department reports real GDP, not raw GDP. So this is not an issue.

 

[Laeomis]

You're describing a macroeconomic theory, one that sounds completely counter-intuitive. Burning a village to save a village doesn't exactly sound like a wise or sound policy.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is also counter-intuitive, and many call Christ a fool. He says to not care for your life, or else you will lose it. Not to care about clothes, food or shelter. To love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those that hate you. The field of economics also contains many of these paradoxes. In the study of economics, it is sometimes surprising that moving in one direction will sometimes end you up in the other direction that was not intended. These paradoxes pervade through all things, and the end goal is not to destroy your life but to save it, or the goal is not to destroy the economy, but to preserve it, and many times the choice is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Larniavc]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is also counter-intuitive, and many call Christ a fool. He says to not care for your life, or else you will lose it. Not to care about clothes, food or shelter. To love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those that hate you. The field of economics also contains many of these paradoxes. In the study of economics, it is sometimes surprising that moving in one direction will sometimes end you up in the other direction that was not intended. These paradoxes pervade through all things, and the end goal is not to destroy your life but to save it, or the goal is not to destroy the economy, but to preserve it, and many times the choice is the lesser of two evils.

How is any of that relevant to macroeconomics?

 

[Laeomis]

The Commerce Department reports real GDP, not raw GDP. So this is not an issue.

Real GDP is just the nominal GDP divided by the GDP deflator. Nominal GDP is the raw GDP, and this is done to balance out price change. The graphs I made, and I made them myself with the data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis [BEA] and Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], use either nominal or real GDP. Personally, I like to use nominal GDP, and I cant remember which one I used in the graphs. It doesn't make much of a difference though. During the COVID pandemic, the president used economic theory to artificially raise GDP through the roof. This was not supposed to last forever, it was temporary inflation caused by pushing production past its potential, which raises prices. Either way the last election went, this inflation had to come down, and since the current administration is conservative, it will come down faster. We have all been under these economic theories, that many think betray common sense, for our whole lives. Economics is Greek for the 'Study of the laws of the house'.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is also counter-intuitive, and many call Christ a fool. He says to not care for your life, or else you will lose it. Not to care about clothes, food or shelter. To love your enemies, bless those who curse you, and do good to those that hate you. The field of economics also contains many of these paradoxes. In the study of economics, it is sometimes surprising that moving in one direction will sometimes end you up in the other direction that was not intended. These paradoxes pervade through all things, and the end goal is not to destroy your life but to save it, or the goal is not to destroy the economy, but to preserve it, and many times the choice is the lesser of two evils.

I think that's a category error, to confuse the transcendent with the secular. And it also carries the very real possibility of profaning what is sacred, for no good purpose. Appealing to the Gospel to justify a crazy economic theory doesn't seem holy or wise.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country. They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

Oh well, I guess he didn't really have any interest in trading with Canada.

Good to know that the de-USsing of the economy should be even clearer now.

 

[Laeomis]

How is any of that relevant to macroeconomics?

I think that's a category error, to confuse the transcendent with the secular. And it also carries the very real possibility of profaning what is sacred, for no good purpose. Appealing to the Gospel to justify a crazy economic theory doesn't seem holy or wise.

These are not crazy economic theories, these are neoclassical economic theories, and are what are accepted as standard today. Any other economic theory used today is called heterodox economics, and that means they are 'different' or strange. Perhaps you would rather ascribe to a communist heterodoxy, and cut out Jesus. Fine by me then.

 

[Larniavc]

These are not crazy economic theories,

Reaganomics

 

[Laeomis]

Reaganomics

The Reagan period is when economics began to shift from the post-World War II economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, to Milton Friedman. Much of economics changed after WW2, as it had changed after WWI, and before WWI, and it again changed after the Vietnam war. After WW2, economics were more socialist, and after Vietnam they became neoliberal. One could argue that there is no such thing as conservatism in economics, even though the word is used. Liberal economics is demand sided, helping the poor, and government control. Neoliberal economics is supply sided, less taxes on corporations, laissez-faire, and helping the poor less. They are both liberal, but you might be able to say one is liberal to the poor and conservative to the rich, and the other is liberal towards the rich and conservative to the poor. None of these economic theories are new, actually, and it appears after every war economics shifts between two economic theories. Classical and mercantilist. Mercantile economics are protectionist, while classical are laissez-faire (which means to let economics run itself, with no interference). It is a tug of war between protecting the markets, and allowing free trade.

 

[FireDragon76]

... Perhaps you would rather ascribe to a communist heterodoxy, and cut out Jesus. Fine by me then.

This kind of rhetoric is deeply dishonest and uncharitable.

All I'm insisting on is not poisoning the well regarding a legitimate critique of what sounds like a suspect economic theory, by trying to inject religious piety into the mix. That's scandalizing the faith, and it shouldn't be acceptable for a Christian to engage in.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Reagan period is when economics began to shift from the post-World War II economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, to Milton Friedman. Much of economics changed after WW2, as it had changed after WWI, and before WWI, and it again changed after the Vietnam war. After WW2, economics were more socialist, and after Vietnam they became neoliberal. One could argue that there is no such thing as conservatism in economics, even though the word is used. Liberal economics is demand sided, helping the poor, and government control. Neoliberal economics is supply sided, less taxes on corporations, laissez-faire, and helping the poor less. They are both liberal, but you might be able to say one is liberal to the poor and conservative to the rich, and the other is liberal towards the rich and conservative to the poor. None of these economic theories are new, actually, and it appears after every war economics shifts between two economic theories. Classical and mercantilist. Mercantile economics are protectionist, while classical are laissez-faire (which means to let economics run itself, with no interference). It is a tug of war between protecting the markets, and allowing free trade.

How about less hollow ideology, and something more pragmatic and just: more democratic control of economic decisions proportional to the risks incurred on actual stakeholders, and less leaving it up to the whims of billionaires? That's not socialism, that's responsible governance. Much of the developed world has no problems understanding this. Only in America and Britain is this controversial.

 

[Laeomis]

This kind of rhetoric is deeply dishonest and uncharitable.

All I'm insisting on is not poisoning the well regarding a legitimate critique of what sounds like a suspect economic theory, by trying to inject religious piety into the mix. That's scandalizing the faith, and it shouldn't be acceptable for a Christian to engage in.

How about less hollow ideology, and something more pragmatic and just: more democratic control of economic decisions proportional to the risks incurred on actual stakeholders, and less leaving it up to the whims of billionaires? That's not socialism, that's responsible governance. Much of the developed world has no problems understanding this. Only in America and Britain is this controversial.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure what you're talking about either. I can attribute Jesus Christ, the Gospel, Proverbs, the Torah, and Revelations to economics if I feel so. If you don't want that, then you can accept communism.

The problem with democracy is that many nations do not want democracy. Third world nations actually hate democracy. Why? Because, democracy means they have to contribute to free trade, and free trade means more money in the pockets of billionaires. Third world nations hate democracy and free trade, because they will always have the disadvantage. Free trade and democracy means their natural resources will be exploited for cheap. Democracy means slavery. There is a concept in economics known as the the Trilemma.

The Trilemma is the balance between sovereign nationality, democracy and a global government. It is a trilemma, because only two options can be chosen at one time out of three. The three options are National Sovereignty, Democracy and Global Governance. National sovereignty combined with democracy has already happened and passed, this was the economic system of the post World War II world. National sovereignty and global governance was the free trade that existed before World War I. This has been called the 'golden straightjacket' and this world crashed. The last option, that is believed to come onto the world is the combination of the global government and democracy. We will see what horrors this puts on the world, because it means the end of national soveriegnty, and probably the mark of the beast.

Carrasco, G. (2020, October, 1). Rodrik's Trilemma and its consequences. Project State Craft.

Rodrik’s Trilemma and its Consequences

Understanding and balancing global governance, hyper-globalisation, and national sovereignty.

www.projectstatecraft.org

 

[Larniavc]

Third world nations actually hate democracy.

Like Ireland?

Your posts read like pre university essays. A lot of description with little critical analysis.

 

[bèlla]

Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

I heard it earlier and shook my head. There’s a lot of people who believe Trump is for the little man. He has 3 1/2 years to show them truth and he’ll get there. Grab your popcorn and watch.

~bella

 

[Laeomis]

Like Ireland?

Your posts read like pre university essays. A lot of description with little critical analysis.

You said to take Jesus Christ out of it. If you refuse to take communion with Christ, then your nation, and all nations will drink from the cup of communism.

15For thus saith the LORD God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it. 16And they shall drink, and be moved, and be mad, because of the sword that I will send among them. (KJV, Jeremiah, 25:15).

 

[Laeomis]

How about less hollow ideology, and something more pragmatic and just: more democratic control of economic decisions proportional to the risks incurred on actual stakeholders, and less leaving it up to the whims of billionaires? That's not socialism, that's responsible governance. Much of the developed world has no problems understanding this. Only in America and Britain is this controversial.

America and Britain is where this idea comes from, and it is called Anglo-American corporate model. There is the Anglo-American model, the Nordic model, the German model, and the Japanese model. The Anglo-American model is the model that is most focused on shareholders. It is also pro allowing workers to strike, but it is not very focused on providing social nets for the less fortunate. The Nordic model is against strikes, and is more geared towards company loyalty, and is highly focused on providing money to those who are not working. The Japanese model is completely for company loyalty, and many workers will work in one company for life. There are also other models, like the rent model of the Arabians, and France is somewhere in between the Anglo-American model and the Nordic model. American and Britain are already at the model, but probably losing it, but the rest of the world are on different models.