Economists agree who is responsible for booming economy

[bhsmte]

The consensus is the unemployment rate is very low regardless of method. My point is that the cuts exceed the need when considering long term impact.

I would agree the overall rate is low, from a historical perspective.

I do think, a lot of people are under employed though.

 

[Hank77]

I want to say, Trump has definitely cut regulations, although most of the regulations cut were pending regulations, not regulations that were in effect. For rules that were in effect, I believe this is a fairly complete list. (right click, open in new private window to get past the paywall) A lot of the removed rules involve worker and environmental protections. Their removal probably will stimulate the economy slightly, though some of those worker and environmental protections were quite important...

As for the remaining 860+ rules, these are rules that had been proposed, but weren't yet in effect. I don't have a complete list, so I can't say much about them. I agree with the idea that government regulations should be streamlined, but I admit I don't trust Trump to do it in a way that improves individual welfare.

Thank you, this is very helpful. I had never seen an actual list past the first 100 days. In that list I didn't see anything that I thought could have effected the 2017 economy.

 

[Vylo]

Just an FYI, I didn’t ask that question, it is directly from the article.

And stats show 90% of wage earners are getting a tax break.

It’s trickling in all of us.

Of course you might get hit elsewhere on taxes, the breaks expire, you may end up having to purchase more expensive services or lose one you need, and it may cost more in the long run with interest. All to prop up stocks.

 

[Hank77]

Lol

2017 economy....??

 

[hislegacy]

Of course you might get hit elsewhere on taxes, the breaks expire, you may end up having to purchase more expensive services or lose one you need, and it may cost more in the long run with interest. All to prop up stocks.

The glass will always be half empty for the eight years of this Presidency

I get it. For seven and a half years everything bad was Bush’s fault and for the next eight everything good will be from Obama

 

[hislegacy]

2017 economy....??

That started growing exponentially when the new President came in???

How does a President get credit for something that started booming as his directives and executive orders were reversed?

 

[hislegacy]

You didn’t ask for proof. I answered your question.

I’m all about letting the legal process run it’s course. The evidence should drive the bus.

You stated it like it was a fact. Common sense would dictate that there would be substantiation of the statement. But I’ll put it in the file of unsubstantiated claims. The file now takes up two warehouses

 

[Hank77]

That started growing exponentially when the new President came in???

How does a President get credit for something that started booming as his directives and executive orders were reversed?

What are you saying started booming with which executive order? We both now have a list that was posted on a link so we can be talking about the same thing. Pick one to fit your description and we can discuss it with other posters.

 

[hislegacy]

What are you saying started booming with which executive order? We both now have a list that was posted on a link so we can be talking about the same thing. Pick one to fit your description and we can discuss it with other posters.

Start with the OP

What education or knowledge do you personally have that circumvents theirs. Which specific economist do you not agree with and please present proof of what the specific disagreement is and the facts supporting your disagreement and we can discuss that with the other posters.

You first, because you are obviously better informed than I.

 

[AllButNone]

Thank you, this is very helpful. I had never seen an actual list past the first 100 days. In that list I didn't see anything that I thought could have effected the 2017 economy.

You're welcome! I just want to clarify, I don't think Trump has done much of anything to stimulate the 2017 economy The effects of the regulatory changes are very minor. Aside from the stock market, about the only thing surprising about 2017 was how average it was. The WSJ survey the original post was based on also had no mention of time, and I'd be surprised if there are any/many economists who think Trump had a big impact on 2017 figures.

Trump's biggest plus plus to GDP growth, the thing that would cause most economists in the WSJ survey to call Trump's policies slightly positive for economic growth, is the tax cut, but its effects won't really be felt until 2018 and 2019. (the tax cut is still a bad idea for other reasons, however)

 

[whatbogsends]

Start with the OP

What education or knowledge do you personally have that circumvents theirs. Which specific economist do you not agree with and please present proof of what the specific disagreement is and the facts supporting your disagreement and we can discuss that with the other posters.

You first, because you are obviously better informed than I.

Here's disagreement of your premise taken directly from the article linked in the OP:

“The notion that deregulation unleashes growth is virtually impossible to find in the data,” said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities who served as the chief economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “What does matter is this idea that confidence matters. If their expectations about the future are positive, then it does make a difference.”

 

[Vylo]

The glass will always be half empty for the eight years of this Presidency

I get it. For seven and a half years everything bad was Bush’s fault and for the next eight everything good will be from Obama

Yeah, no one claimed that all bad things that happened during Obama were Bush's fault, but Obama did inherit an economic disaster, where Trump was handed a good economy. It takes time for a president's actions to be felt. The only reason the economy came back so early under Obama, is that he got a jump on legislation with W's approval. Trump has barely even reached out to Obama or any other former president for that matter, so his effects are more delayed. By this point going forward though, the economy should be almost all, if not entirely Trump's. Let's see where it goes from here.

 

[AllButNone]

What education or knowledge do you personally have that circumvents theirs.

This is the original WSJ piece the article you linked to misrepresents.

The survey question was "On balance, how would you rate President Donald Trump’s policies and actions to date for: Stock Market, GDP Growth, Job Creation, Long-Term Growth, and Financial Stability".

Do you feel this survey question supports the narrative of the Hill article you linked to?

I 100% agree with the median results for this survey question. I 100% disagree with the Hill article you linked.

 

[cow451]

You stated it like it was a fact. Common sense would dictate that there would be substantiation of the statement. But I’ll put it in the file of unsubstantiated claims. The file now takes up two warehouses

You asked when impeachment would begin. I have an answer “Not soon enough.” That was obviously a sarcastic answer. Sorry it flew past your head.
You asked for clarification and I said I’m fine with legal process running it’s course.

Why the burr under your saddle!

 

[hislegacy]

No burr here, just trying to keep the standards for posting at the same level.

If you don’t have proof, just say so.

 

[cow451]

No burr here, just trying to keep the standards for posting at the same level.

If you don’t have proof, just say so.

A thousand pardons for any lack clarity you may have experienced.