Is a 4.1% quarterly increase in GNP good?

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF - what exactly are you arguing? Do you think the buybacks are irrelevant? Do you think the tax cuts will stimulate investment that fat corporate balance sheets wouldn't already have justified?

Sorry if I'm being daft, but I don't see what your position is with respect to the efficacy and consequences of the corporate tax cuts.
I think buybacks, for the most part, relate to pre-tax cut earnings and were declared (as opposed to paid) before the tax bill came into effect. If corporations were really sitting on tons of earnings and cash, and thought their stock was undervalued, buy-backs would be a customary strategy, regardless of the tax bill or spending increeases. I think the initial response to the tax bill may have been the initial private investment, orders, inventory increases and more employment. However, this spending would have to be in anticipation of the tax cuts, because the impact of the cuts (and also increased Federal spending) only will be seen over years, not two quarters. Heck, many businesses, such as limited liability companies, don't even know how the IRS will interpret what even counts for their tax benefit, and therefore don't even know what, if any, savings will accrue.


Stock buybacks are a customary strategy. Some estimates say $1 trillion is bought back over a decade - before the tax cut. Buybacks have surged this year with the tax cut legislation.

And let's not forget much of it is repatriated cash. Retained earnings and cash stockpiled by companies overseas and recently returned to the US.
So corps with record earnings and cash levels increased their buy backs before the tax cuts even take effect to record levels to increase stock levels. Makes sense in order to maximize stock prices. Show me any data that prove it had to do with tax cuts.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF - what exactly are you arguing? Do you think the buybacks are irrelevant? Do you think the tax cuts will stimulate investment that fat corporate balance sheets wouldn't already have justified?

Sorry if I'm being daft, but I don't see what your position is with respect to the efficacy and consequences of the corporate tax cuts.
I think buybacks, for the most part, relate to pre-tax cut earnings and were declared (as opposed to paid) before the tax bill came into effect. If corporations were really sitting on tons of earnings and cash, and thought their stock was undervalued, buy-backs would be a customary strategy, regardless of the tax bill or spending increeases. I think the initial response to the tax bill may have been the initial private investment, orders, inventory increases and more employment. However, this spending would have to be in anticipation of the tax cuts, because the impact of the cuts (and also increased Federal spending) only will be seen over years, not two quarters. Heck, many businesses, such as limited liability companies, don't even know how the IRS will interpret what even counts for their tax benefit, and therefore don't even know what, if any, savings will accrue.


Stock buybacks are a customary strategy. Some estimates say $1 trillion is bought back over a decade - before the tax cut. Buybacks have surged this year with the tax cut legislation.

And let's not forget much of it is repatriated cash. Retained earnings and cash stockpiled by companies overseas and recently returned to the US.
So corps with record earnings and cash levels increased their buy backs before the tax cuts even take effect to record levels to increase stock levels. Makes sense in order to maximize stock prices. Show me any data that prove it had to do with tax cuts.


Denial
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
Obama's 2nd term had average annual GDP of 2.2%, with a high of 2.9% and a low of 1.6% (quarterly high of 5.1%).

Trump's first year was also 2.2%. Through 6 months this year we are at 3.2% - we'll see if the Trump economy can break out or break down. Most projections have 2018 annual GDP right around the high of 2.9% that Obama achieved in his 2nd term.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:
Eh? I'm pretty sure dajo specifically said the economy at this time is the same as under Obama, not worse.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF - what exactly are you arguing? Do you think the buybacks are irrelevant? Do you think the tax cuts will stimulate investment that fat corporate balance sheets wouldn't already have justified?

Sorry if I'm being daft, but I don't see what your position is with respect to the efficacy and consequences of the corporate tax cuts.
I think buybacks, for the most part, relate to pre-tax cut earnings and were declared (as opposed to paid) before the tax bill came into effect. If corporations were really sitting on tons of earnings and cash, and thought their stock was undervalued, buy-backs would be a customary strategy, regardless of the tax bill or spending increeases. I think the initial response to the tax bill may have been the initial private investment, orders, inventory increases and more employment. However, this spending would have to be in anticipation of the tax cuts, because the impact of the cuts (and also increased Federal spending) only will be seen over years, not two quarters. Heck, many businesses, such as limited liability companies, don't even know how the IRS will interpret what even counts for their tax benefit, and therefore don't even know what, if any, savings will accrue.


Stock buybacks are a customary strategy. Some estimates say $1 trillion is bought back over a decade - before the tax cut. Buybacks have surged this year with the tax cut legislation.

And let's not forget much of it is repatriated cash. Retained earnings and cash stockpiled by companies overseas and recently returned to the US.
So corps with record earnings and cash levels increased their buy backs before the tax cuts even take effect to record levels to increase stock levels. Makes sense in order to maximize stock prices. Show me any data that prove it had to do with tax cuts.
There is plenty of data to show that companies had trillions on their balance sheets that they weren't using to finance investments. Here's one article that discusses that fact in the context of corporate debt growth. Here's another similar article arguing that the tax cut will cause companies to repatriate cash, distribute it to stockholders, and retain their massive debt. As you see from the image below (and undoutedly already knew), corporate cash hoarding has been on the rise, but we haven't seen the benefits from the investment of that cash. I don't know why this tax cut would change anything and I haven't seen any evidence it has. Seems to me most large profitable corporations still prefer to increase their stock price by returning cash to stockholders rather than investment. It's been a good time to be a stockholder (other than from the volatility from the disrupter in chief).

Here's another data point. " 'What did companies do with their cash?' said the Morgan Stanley analysis. 'In short, a large increase in stock buybacks was the biggest change' in the first quarter of this year from the last quarter of 2017." The article is full of quotes like that. I can't find anything to suggest that investment has seen anywhere close to that level of increase.



Have you read this article from the NYT? Are you surprised the deficit is growing faster than "expected"? I am surprised anyone is surprised but I suspect that they are feigning surprise and knew this was going to happen.


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
Obama's 2nd term had average annual GDP of 2.2%, with a high of 2.9% and a low of 1.6% (quarterly high of 5.1%).

Trump's first year was also 2.2%. Through 6 months this year we are at 3.2% - we'll see if the Trump economy can break out or break down. Most projections have 2018 annual GDP right around the high of 2.9% that Obama achieved in his 2nd term.
I suggest you see where Trump's economy is in the second term if your going to cherry pick. But nice try at trying to spin. Bottom line, Trump inherits an anemic Obama economy (se the number in my post) and a year half later we have robust growth in GNP, investment, orders and employment far better than than what happened in the first 6 quarters of when Obama came in. Perhaps too much better - time for interest rates to rise.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Obama economy was NOT anemic...especially when you consider it came off the back of a major recession and recovery. Everyone, including the GOP, should be glad Obama saved the economy and he did so without a political hackett. If there's one thing I blame Obama for it's letting the bankers off the hook when at least a dozen should have served big time in the can, 15 years. Imagine Trump trying to pull the nation out of economic disaster and recession. Now that's a downright scary thought.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF - what exactly are you arguing? Do you think the buybacks are irrelevant? Do you think the tax cuts will stimulate investment that fat corporate balance sheets wouldn't already have justified?

Sorry if I'm being daft, but I don't see what your position is with respect to the efficacy and consequences of the corporate tax cuts.
I think buybacks, for the most part, relate to pre-tax cut earnings and were declared (as opposed to paid) before the tax bill came into effect. If corporations were really sitting on tons of earnings and cash, and thought their stock was undervalued, buy-backs would be a customary strategy, regardless of the tax bill or spending increeases. I think the initial response to the tax bill may have been the initial private investment, orders, inventory increases and more employment. However, this spending would have to be in anticipation of the tax cuts, because the impact of the cuts (and also increased Federal spending) only will be seen over years, not two quarters. Heck, many businesses, such as limited liability companies, don't even know how the IRS will interpret what even counts for their tax benefit, and therefore don't even know what, if any, savings will accrue.


Stock buybacks are a customary strategy. Some estimates say $1 trillion is bought back over a decade - before the tax cut. Buybacks have surged this year with the tax cut legislation.

And let's not forget much of it is repatriated cash. Retained earnings and cash stockpiled by companies overseas and recently returned to the US.
So corps with record earnings and cash levels increased their buy backs before the tax cuts even take effect to record levels to increase stock levels. Makes sense in order to maximize stock prices. Show me any data that prove it had to do with tax cuts.
There is plenty of data to show that companies had trillions on their balance sheets that they weren't using to finance investments. Here's one article that discusses that fact in the context of corporate debt growth. Here's another similar article arguing that the tax cut will cause companies to repatriate cash, distribute it to stockholders, and retain their massive debt. As you see from the image below (and undoutedly already knew), corporate cash hoarding has been on the rise, but we haven't seen the benefits from the investment of that cash. I don't know why this tax cut would change anything and I haven't seen any evidence it has. Seems to me most large profitable corporations still prefer to increase their stock price by returning cash to stockholders rather than investment. It's been a good time to be a stockholder (other than from the volatility from the disrupter in chief).

Here's another data point. " 'What did companies do with their cash?' said the Morgan Stanley analysis. 'In short, a large increase in stock buybacks was the biggest change' in the first quarter of this year from the last quarter of 2017." The article is full of quotes like that. I can't find anything to suggest that investment has seen anywhere close to that level of increase.



Have you read this article from the NYT? Are you surprised the deficit is growing faster than "expected"? I am surprised anyone is surprised but I suspect that they are feigning surprise and knew this was going to happen.



We are back at the timing issue. There is a difference between when dividends are paid and declared. For the first quarter dividends would be declared generally in the fourth quarter of the prior year. The tax bill didn't even become law until December 22nd. Thus, decisions on corporate distributions were for the most part being made before there was certainty what would even become law or if there would be a new law law.

If your sitting on trillions of cash, the obvious strategy is to distribute the cash. Give me evidence that the distribution of cash to shareholders was anything other than a sound corporate policy to maximize shares and not face takeovers and board removals from the new wave of insurgent investors.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
Obama's 2nd term had average annual GDP of 2.2%, with a high of 2.9% and a low of 1.6% (quarterly high of 5.1%).

Trump's first year was also 2.2%. Through 6 months this year we are at 3.2% - we'll see if the Trump economy can break out or break down. Most projections have 2018 annual GDP right around the high of 2.9% that Obama achieved in his 2nd term.
I suggest you see where Trump's economy is in the second term if your going to cherry pick. But nice try at trying to spin. Bottom line, Trump inherits an anemic Obama economy (se the number in my post) and a year half later we have robust growth in GNP, investment, orders and employment far better than than what happened in the first 6 quarters of when Obama came in. Perhaps too much better - time for interest rates to rise.
I'm not the one cherrypicking here. But since you like the last 6 Obama quarters as your cherrypicked amount (why not 4, why not 8?), here are some numbers. New jobs under last 6 quarters of Obama 3.7 million and new jobs under Trump 3.5 million. We are experiencing the same economic run, no matter how you choose to refine it. Here is a fun chart:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/unemployment-trump-was-born-third-base-thinks-he-hit-triple
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:








We are back at the timing issue. There is a difference between when dividends are paid and declared. For the first quarter dividends would be declared generally in the fourth quarter of the prior year. The tax bill didn't even become law until December 22nd. Thus, decisions on corporate distributions were for the most part being made before there was certainty what would even become law or if there would be a new law law.

If your sitting on trillions of cash, the obvious strategy is to distribute the cash. Give me evidence that the distribution of cash to shareholders was anything other than a sound corporate policy to maximize shares and not face takeovers and board removals from the new wave of insurgent investors.
I think the better question is why corporations who are already using trillions in cash on stock buybacks in lieu of increased investment will react differently when the increase in their cash is as a result of a tax cut. What's going to change to cause them to decide that this new cash is different?

As for the timing point, that seems like a non sequitur. Cash is fungible and these corporations have clearly accelerated their pace of shareholder payback. The repatriation (with delayed tax payments) certainly plays into it. We know that dividends and buybacks have increased bigly. We don't know whether increased investment will materialize.

I don't believe the increase in shareholder payouts is a coincidence.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF - what exactly are you arguing? Do you think the buybacks are irrelevant? Do you think the tax cuts will stimulate investment that fat corporate balance sheets wouldn't already have justified?

Sorry if I'm being daft, but I don't see what your position is with respect to the efficacy and consequences of the corporate tax cuts.
I think buybacks, for the most part, relate to pre-tax cut earnings and were declared (as opposed to paid) before the tax bill came into effect. If corporations were really sitting on tons of earnings and cash, and thought their stock was undervalued, buy-backs would be a customary strategy, regardless of the tax bill or spending increeases. I think the initial response to the tax bill may have been the initial private investment, orders, inventory increases and more employment. However, this spending would have to be in anticipation of the tax cuts, because the impact of the cuts (and also increased Federal spending) only will be seen over years, not two quarters. Heck, many businesses, such as limited liability companies, don't even know how the IRS will interpret what even counts for their tax benefit, and therefore don't even know what, if any, savings will accrue.


Stock buybacks are a customary strategy. Some estimates say $1 trillion is bought back over a decade - before the tax cut. Buybacks have surged this year with the tax cut legislation.

And let's not forget much of it is repatriated cash. Retained earnings and cash stockpiled by companies overseas and recently returned to the US.
So corps with record earnings and cash levels increased their buy backs before the tax cuts even take effect to record levels to increase stock levels. Makes sense in order to maximize stock prices. Show me any data that prove it had to do with tax cuts.


Denial
Unsubtantiated conjecture.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
Obama's 2nd term had average annual GDP of 2.2%, with a high of 2.9% and a low of 1.6% (quarterly high of 5.1%).

Trump's first year was also 2.2%. Through 6 months this year we are at 3.2% - we'll see if the Trump economy can break out or break down. Most projections have 2018 annual GDP right around the high of 2.9% that Obama achieved in his 2nd term.
So using your logic, Cal is a great football power since Cal had a few good years under JT, Never mind that before and after that Cal sucked. Now just replace Cal with Obama
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

The economy is the same as Obama's 2nd term except with higher deficits. If you want to tell me differently, show me the data.

Additionally, companies do not need to wait for future lower tax payouts to increase buybacks. They will do it based on future projections. They already have plenty of cash on hand which is why lowering their taxes will not boost the economy.
Since you failed corporations 101, you obviously don't know that state laws where domestic corps. are incorporated require that distributions to shareholders (like buy backs) can only be made from a corporation's retained earnings, not future earnings. Once again you make assertions without knowledge. So when i say that the payments are out of past profits, I really mean that unless our now alleging corproations are making illegal payments. So yes, actually corporations do have to wait. Your first paragraph is just as dumb.
The corporations are sitting on tons of retained earnings and cash. They don't need to wait for anything to make additional buybacks if they see even more cash coming in the future. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious on this is baffling.

If my first paragraph is so dumb show me data. Please, Mr. Big Talker, show me some data.
It isn't dumb because of the data, It's just wrong.

The GDP at the end of the first quarter Q! for 2009 (you can use February's if you want, but it achieves the same result) per the Fed of when Obama started was 14.394 Trillion, and after end of Q2 2010n was 14.926 Trillion, with a an improvement of .532 Trillion. The first quarter for Trump of Q1 2017 was 19.162 Trillion and is now 20.4 Trillion (per government press release, not the Fed), which is a 1.238 Trillion increase or more than double the increase in GDP under Obama for the same time period.

And here is why it is dumb. You are trying to show somehow the economy is worse at this time under Trump than at the same time under Obama when:

1) Both the Trump tax act and spending increase and the Obama stimulus have been in place for a limited period of time to gauge their long term impact; and

2) The purpose of stimulus was to drive-up short term deficits (see the post above). Indeed, the rationalization for the poor performance of the Obama stimulus from lefty economists like Krugman (you may recall from an article posted by Bearister in another thread) was that the Obama stimulus was way too small to kick start investment and deficits and ill-conceived because a major component of the stimulus, funding for state and local infrastructure projects, failed to produce net spending, as these governments used the money for shovel ready project they were already gong to do, and used the windfall from the federal government stimulus to pay down debt instead, further reducing the overall level of government debt, and offsetting and deficit spending benefit at the federal level. The reference to lower deficits reflects on the poor job Obama did in stimulating the economy.

I was gong to discuss the robust increases in private investment, orders, inventories, and employment (way above Obama levels) to demonstrate corporations were now using their tax savings for buy-backs, but why bother addressing things of factual nature (especially when you can take the Okaydo approach of constantly pulling incorrect factual assertions out of your butt and then challenge people to prove you wrong). If corporations are sitting on TONS of earnings and cash (another questionable factual assertion) why not buy back shares to improve the share price? Isn't management supposed to try and maxImize sh,are value? You don't need a future tax cut to implement that strategy when you have TONS of earnings and cash. Show me the date to prove I'm wrong.




All that writing and you didn't even read the question right. Go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is a hint - Obama's 2nd term was from 2013 - 2016. Here is the context - the economy we have now is the economy established during the Obama Presidency.

All that writing for a BS response. The economy Trump inherited was the 6 quarters before he took office, where the wonderful Obama economy was zipping a long at an anemic .68 Trillion increase, which is about the same in did in the first 6 quarters of Obama's first term, the only difference being Obamacare gets the full benefit of his impotent stimulus plan, and where Trump's have not really had much of stimulus in use.
Obama's 2nd term had average annual GDP of 2.2%, with a high of 2.9% and a low of 1.6% (quarterly high of 5.1%).

Trump's first year was also 2.2%. Through 6 months this year we are at 3.2% - we'll see if the Trump economy can break out or break down. Most projections have 2018 annual GDP right around the high of 2.9% that Obama achieved in his 2nd term.
I suggest you see where Trump's economy is in the second term if your going to cherry pick. But nice try at trying to spin. Bottom line, Trump inherits an anemic Obama economy (se the number in my post) and a year half later we have robust growth in GNP, investment, orders and employment far better than than what happened in the first 6 quarters of when Obama came in. Perhaps too much better - time for interest rates to rise.
I'm not the one cherrypicking here. Actually you did: I gave you comparable periods, the first 6 quarters each President was in office. But since you like the last 6 Obama quarters as your cherrypicked amount (why not 4, why not 8?) Trump has had 6 quarters so I needed 6 quarters for comparison purposes, and I think 18 months shoud be long enough to describe the economy Trump inherited. , here are some numbers. New jobs under last 6 quarters of Obama 3.7 million and new jobs under Trump 3.5 million. We are experiencing the same economic run, no matter how you choose to refine it. Here is a fun chart:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/unemployment-trump-was-born-third-base-thinks-he-hit-triple
Here is a fun article:

Analysis | Two areas where Trump's economy is better than Obama's http://wapo.st/2E7NZom?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.53123d7e376e
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

So using your logic, Cal is a great football power since Cal had a few good years under JT, Never mind that before and after that Cal sucked. Now just replace Cal with Obama
Actually Tedford and Obama are a good comparables. Tedford took a sad sack stinky team left for dead and brought it back to life and respectability. Obama pulled the economy out of the fire, avoiding a likely depression. Still got a recession but that looks absolutely peachy compared to a full depression. I'd call both Tedford and Obama winners. On the flipside is Holmoe and Dubya. History won't be kind to either.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Quote:

So using your logic, Cal is a great football power since Cal had a few good years under JT, Never mind that before and after that Cal sucked. Now just replace Cal with Obama
Actually Tedford and Obama are a good comparables. Tedford took a sad sack stinky team left for dead and brought it back to life and respectability. Obama pulled the economy out of the fire, avoiding a likely depression. Still got a recession but that looks absolutely peachy compared to a full depression. I'd call both Tedford and Obama winners. On the flipside is Holmoe and Dubya. History won't be kind to either.
Well then I guess you made my point. Sonny inherited a losing program and Trump inherited a losing economy.

I actually do agree that Obama inherited a worse economy and limped it out of the Great Recession (do read the article I posted were it rightfully points out Obama had mixed success - not failure). The problem is that is his last year plus, like JT's last couple years, were stinkers, and he never really got private investment moving. In the first six quarters, Trump has won non-conference games and we shall see how the season goes, when his tax cuts and spending really kick-in .
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Quote:

So using your logic, Cal is a great football power since Cal had a few good years under JT, Never mind that before and after that Cal sucked. Now just replace Cal with Obama
Actually Tedford and Obama are a good comparables. Tedford took a sad sack stinky team left for dead and brought it back to life and respectability. Obama pulled the economy out of the fire, avoiding a likely depression. Still got a recession but that looks absolutely peachy compared to a full depression. I'd call both Tedford and Obama winners. On the flipside is Holmoe and Dubya. History won't be kind to either.
Well then I guess you made my point. Sonny inherited a losing program and Trump inherited a losing economy.

I actually do agree that Obama inherited a worse economy and limped it out of the Great Recession (do read the article I posted were it rightfully points out Obama had mixed success - not failure). The problem is that is his last year plus, like JT's last couple years, were stinkers, and he never really got private investment moving. In the first six quarters, Trump has won non-conference games and we shall see how the season goes, when his tax cuts and spending really kick-in .
Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Quote:

So using your logic, Cal is a great football power since Cal had a few good years under JT, Never mind that before and after that Cal sucked. Now just replace Cal with Obama
Actually Tedford and Obama are a good comparables. Tedford took a sad sack stinky team left for dead and brought it back to life and respectability. Obama pulled the economy out of the fire, avoiding a likely depression. Still got a recession but that looks absolutely peachy compared to a full depression. I'd call both Tedford and Obama winners. On the flipside is Holmoe and Dubya. History won't be kind to either.
Well then I guess you made my point. Sonny inherited a losing program and Trump inherited a losing economy.

I actually do agree that Obama inherited a worse economy and limped it out of the Great Recession (do read the article I posted were it rightfully points out Obama had mixed success - not failure). The problem is that is his last year plus, like JT's last couple years, were stinkers, and he never really got private investment moving. In the first six quarters, Trump has won non-conference games and we shall see how the season goes, when his tax cuts and spending really kick-in .
Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
The last 18 months of Obama showed half the growth of the six quarters under Trump. That is losing to me. In Tedford's good year, Cal averaged around 8 wins. Averaging 4 wins is a losing team.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:



We are back at the timing issue. There is a difference between when dividends are paid and declared. For the first quarter dividends would be declared generally in the fourth quarter of the prior year. The tax bill didn't even become law until December 22nd. Thus, decisions on corporate distributions were for the most part being made before there was certainty what would even become law or if there would be a new law law.

If your sitting on trillions of cash, the obvious strategy is to distribute the cash. Give me evidence that the distribution of cash to shareholders was anything other than a sound corporate policy to maximize shares and not face takeovers and board removals from the new wave of insurgent investors.
I think the better question is why corporations who are already using trillions in cash on stock buybacks in lieu of increased investment will react differently when the increase in their cash is as a result of a tax cut. What's going to change to cause them to decide that this new cash is different?

As for the timing point, that seems like a non sequitur. Cash is fungible and these corporations have clearly accelerated their pace of shareholder payback. The repatriation (with delayed tax payments) certainly plays into it. We know that dividends and buybacks have increased bigly. We don't know whether increased investment will materialize.

I don't believe the increase in shareholder payouts is a coincidence.
So corporate decisions made without the certainty of any tax bill (recall the constant major changes to the bill and GOP senators threatening to sink passage w/o changes) is a non sequitur to making decisions based on the tax bill?

How do you explain that corporate investment finally has happened? Analysis | Two areas where Trump's economy is better than Obama's http://wapo.st/2E7NZom?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.4b857d9d03c1.

But why did corporations horde cash for some time? From the FED in 2013 (note the timing of the study):

"The firm-level data and the analysis of the academic literature presented above suggest that U.S. corporations are holding record-high amounts of cash for several reasons. The trend that started in the early 1990s is largely attributed to structural factors and is likely to be independent of the financial crisis. In particular, the rising predominance of R&D and increasing competition in sectors such as information technology seem to have contributed to the rise of cash holdings of U.S. corporations. The role of these factors is likely to be present in the next several years."

I agree that repatriated earnings will in the future increase payments to shareholders that otherwise would have been made absent draconian tax rules. And I would expect that to be a factor in future payments. But as the same FED report said: "there is a structural factor, the increasing importance of multinational corporations, that seems to be important because of the current taxation of the income generated abroad that domestic corporations bring back to the U.S. Here, fiscal policy may be playing an undesirable role, and its modification in the coming years could boost domestic investment and help overcome the slow recovery from the Great Recession." Now tell the FED to knock it f&*k off.

So why is investment up?

Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like investment is back to where it was for much of Obama's second term until people freaked out at the thought of Trump being president. Is this the image you are hanging your hat on? Is this what #winning feels like? Not sure I see enough data here to call this is a slam dunk for Trump's economic policies.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Looks like investment is back to where it was for much of Obama's second term until people freaked out at the thought of Trump being president. Is this the image you are hanging your hat on? Is this what #winning feels like? Not sure I see enough data here to call this is a slam dunk for Trump's economic policies.


I am no expert in economics, but I will say that it would not surprise me if Trump is once again creating a crisis, returning things back to where they were before, and then claiming victory. It's pretty much been his whole presidency to date.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
The last 18 months of Obama showed half the growth of the six quarters under Trump. That is losing to me. In Tedford's good year, Cal averaged around 8 wins. Averaging 4 wins is a losing team.
What compared to a recession? Did you forget that part where Obama pulled the whole freakin US economy out of the grips for global depression...and you're ragging on 18 months of minor stagnation amongst a generally good economy (i.e., not a recession and not a future self-induced clusterfcck that trump is designing)?

YOU MUST BE JOKING or drinking the Trump/GOP koolaid...you know calling a full recovery and a generally good economy losing is pure bullshtt and FAKE NEWS. Like I said before, knock it the fcck off.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Business investment is up because oil prices are up so oil and gas investment is up.

Same reasoning applies to 2014.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
The last 18 months of Obama showed half the growth of the six quarters under Trump. That is losing to me. In Tedford's good year, Cal averaged around 8 wins. Averaging 4 wins is a losing team.
What compared to a recession? Did you forget that part where Obama pulled the whole freakin US economy out of the grips for global depression...and you're ragging on 18 months of minor stagnation amongst a generally good economy (i.e., not a recession and not a future self-induced clusterfcck that trump is designing)?

YOU MUST BE JOKING or drinking the Trump/GOP koolaid...you know calling a full recovery and a generally good economy losing is pure bullshtt and FAKE NEWS. Like I said before, knock it the fcck off.
So is the FED. But in any event, if you read what I wrote or the article, I said the last 18 months were stinks in the context of the economy Trump inherited. I gave Obama his due, even if Trump or other do not. I think you will find most independent economists give Obama mixed (not bad ) reviews. But if you want to see how the econo had slide at the end look at the quoted GNP numbers and the curve in the post unof it 2 sucks.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
The last 18 months of Obama showed half the growth of the six quarters under Trump. That is losing to me. In Tedford's good year, Cal averaged around 8 wins. Averaging 4 wins is a losing team.
What compared to a recession? Did you forget that part where Obama pulled the whole freakin US economy out of the grips for global depression...and you're ragging on 18 months of minor stagnation amongst a generally good economy (i.e., not a recession and not a future self-induced clusterfcck that trump is designing)?

YOU MUST BE JOKING or drinking the Trump/GOP koolaid...you know calling a full recovery and a generally good economy losing is pure bullshtt and FAKE NEWS. Like I said before, knock it the fcck off.
So is the FED. But in any event, if you read what I wrote or the article, I said the last 18 months were stinks in the context of the economy Trump inherited. I gave Obama his due, even if Trump or other do not. I think you will find most independent economists give Obama mixed (not bad ) reviews. But if you want to see how the econo had slide at the end look at the quoted GNP numbers and the curve in the post unof it 2 sucks.
You said it was LOSING. If that's losing, what the hell do you call global depression and major recession? Winning? Sounds like Trumpian bullshtt.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Looks like investment is back to where it was for much of Obama's second term until people freaked out at the thought of Trump being president. Is this the image you are hanging your hat on? Is this what #winning feels like? Not sure I see enough data here to call this is a slam dunk for Trump's economic policies.


You should read the chart a little more closely. Investment had fallen to zero the last couple years of Obama. And the sharp uptick at the end is Trump. So why did corps now start investment? Recall Hillary was the next President, so if there was a no confidence vote ..
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:

Trump DID NOT inherit a losing economy. Seems you have taken on Trumpian lies. Knock it the fcck off.
The last 18 months of Obama showed half the growth of the six quarters under Trump. That is losing to me. In Tedford's good year, Cal averaged around 8 wins. Averaging 4 wins is a losing team.
What compared to a recession? Did you forget that part where Obama pulled the whole freakin US economy out of the grips for global depression...and you're ragging on 18 months of minor stagnation amongst a generally good economy (i.e., not a recession and not a future self-induced clusterfcck that trump is designing)?

YOU MUST BE JOKING or drinking the Trump/GOP koolaid...you know calling a full recovery and a generally good economy losing is pure bullshtt and FAKE NEWS. Like I said before, knock it the fcck off.
So is the FED. But in any event, if you read what I wrote or the article, I said the last 18 months were stinks in the context of the economy Trump inherited. I gave Obama his due, even if Trump or other do not. I think you will find most independent economists give Obama mixed (not bad ) reviews. But if you want to see how the econo had slide at the end look at the quoted GNP numbers and the curve in the post unof it 2 sucks.
You said it was LOSING. If that's losing, what the hell do you call global depression and major recession? Winning? Sounds like Trumpian bullshtt.
I call it Holmoe. Last JT years were just losers. Holmoe was abominable. I'm not the big Trump guy, but the economy is going strong at the moment, and it is early. He only beat non-confence opponents. He now is heading for the conference and he is in the Pac north, not south. FED reacts with high interest rates and there is inflation. Sort of like facing Udub and SC back to back.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:


I'm not the big Trump guy
Thou doth protest too much
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Looks like investment is back to where it was for much of Obama's second term until people freaked out at the thought of Trump being president. Is this the image you are hanging your hat on? Is this what #winning feels like? Not sure I see enough data here to call this is a slam dunk for Trump's economic policies.


You should read the chart a little more closely. Investment had fallen to zero the last couple years of Obama. And the sharp uptick at the end is Trump. So why did corps now start investment? Recall Hillary was the next President, so if there was a no confidence vote ..


Oil and gas investment, dude. How many times do I have to tell you? The last 5 years of that chart are tracking volatile oil and gas investment up and down.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Business investment is up because oil prices are up so oil and gas investment is up.

Same reasoning applies to 2014.

And here these stupid people think it was due to across the board capital good acquisitions on the rise. That said, this really is not corporate tax rate cuts driven yet, and seems more driven by household income increases causing higher consumer demand, which drives expansion. (Which make sense as corporations will benefit from lower rates over time, while reduced withholding took effect Jan 1).

Business investment on hot streak since Trump elected and it may keep sizzling https://on.mktw.net/2LHyXKM

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/household-income-trump-economy-optimism/ via @IBDeditorials

Real Time Economics: Business Investment Soars . https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/15/real-time-economics-business-investment-soars- via @WSJ

Wait before declaring Trump's tax cuts a win. @Noahpinion says it might be years before we know https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-01


As for those dramatically increasing oil prices today, uh not really. Prices are hovering between 60 tp 80 dollars per barrel the last 6 months - see the chart below. In 2014 the prices were generally between 110 and 120 dollars per barrel, haven fallen from marginal higher prices in 2011 thought 2013, which somehow must correlate with the "oil prices so up" in 2014 somehow.


wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:


I'm not the big Trump guy
Thou doth protest too much
Circling back to the OP, was the concern about the economy being overheated. You have not seen much of the stimulus (tax cuts or spending) have effect yet. In fact, a good portion of the tax benefits (like those to pass through entities) are so complex as to require guidance from Treasury before any business can make decision based on the purported tax breaks. So the concern is that with more stimulus coming on board, the economy is overheating at a 4.1 growth rate and the FED will react.

We then got off on tangents about how the present Trump economy of now six quarters somehow had to be compared to Obama's entire second term because, well, those are the numbers that worked best for the poster's agenda, somehow corporations were spending all their tax cuts that had not yet received on distributions, even on distributions often declared before the tax legislation came into existence (which I learned was a non-sequitur), that stimulus was creating deficits, even though that is the point of stimulus (to tax less and spend more) in the short run, that wages should have gone up already notwithstanding that everyone taking economics 100 knows wage are sticky, somehow the only investment made by companies was in oil and gas production during the run-up in private investment in the last 6 quarters because of the purported wild escalations of prices (actually oil companies just shut down and restart operation based on shifts in oil prices, which are not counted as capital investments). Then some guy read a graph to assume that several years of essentially no investment before Trump took office meant that everyone was afraid of Trump, you know the guy who was always behind Clinton in the polls, and I guess business leaders then had an epiphany after the election, because the graph showed a step rise in investment after Trump took office. Hey maybe it was all due to oil companies. The upshot is in this echo chamber of unfounded left wing assertions there should be more protest, or has everyone not wreaking of a liberal agenda simply shaken their heads and walked?

Lest you forget, and you did, I nailed Trump on various matters, praised Obama for getting us (albeit slowly) out of the Great Recession, etc. ). Somehow I don't think Fox is extending me that job offer.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Business investment is up because oil prices are up so oil and gas investment is up.

Same reasoning applies to 2014.

And here these stupid people think it was due to across the board capital good acquisitions on the rise. That said, this really is not corporate tax rate cuts driven yet, and seems more driven by household income increases causing higher consumer demand, which drives expansion. (Which make sense as corporations will benefit from lower rates over time, while reduced withholding took effect Jan 1).

Business investment on hot streak since Trump elected and it may keep sizzling https://on.mktw.net/2LHyXKM

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/household-income-trump-economy-optimism/ via @IBDeditorials

Real Time Economics: Business Investment Soars . https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/15/real-time-economics-business-investment-soars- via @WSJ

Wait before declaring Trump's tax cuts a win. @Noahpinion says it might be years before we know https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-01


As for those dramatically increasing oil prices today, uh not really. Prices are hovering between 60 tp 80 dollars per barrel the last 6 months - see the chart below. In 2014 the prices were generally between 110 and 120 dollars per barrel, haven fallen from marginal higher prices in 2011 thought 2013, which somehow must correlate with the "oil prices so up" in 2014 somehow.



There you go cherrypicking data again. Here is a chart for crude oil prices which have more than doubled since their 2016 lows. Click on 5 years if the link doesn't come up that way. The image looks just like business investment.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2516/wti-crude-oil-prices-10-year-daily-chart

Also, I read your article on Household income. Sorry to read Household median income is up only 3% in the 18 months Trump has been President (according to your source). It went up 5.2% in 2015 and 3.2% in 2016 (according to the Census Bureau). Seems the trend is slowing under Trump. And, let's be honest - GDP is important but Real Household Median Income is the single most important economic measure in my opinion. By that measure, the Trump economy is deteriorating versus Obama.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Business investment is up because oil prices are up so oil and gas investment is up.

Same reasoning applies to 2014.

And here these stupid people think it was due to across the board capital good acquisitions on the rise. That said, this really is not corporate tax rate cuts driven yet, and seems more driven by household income increases causing higher consumer demand, which drives expansion. (Which make sense as corporations will benefit from lower rates over time, while reduced withholding took effect Jan 1).

Business investment on hot streak since Trump elected and it may keep sizzling https://on.mktw.net/2LHyXKM

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/household-income-trump-economy-optimism/ via @IBDeditorials

Real Time Economics: Business Investment Soars . https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/15/real-time-economics-business-investment-soars- via @WSJ

Wait before declaring Trump's tax cuts a win. @Noahpinion says it might be years before we know https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-01


As for those dramatically increasing oil prices today, uh not really. Prices are hovering between 60 tp 80 dollars per barrel the last 6 months - see the chart below. In 2014 the prices were generally between 110 and 120 dollars per barrel, haven fallen from marginal higher prices in 2011 thought 2013, which somehow must correlate with the "oil prices so up" in 2014 somehow.



There you go cherrypicking data again. Here is a chart for crude oil prices which have more than doubled since their 2016 lows. Click on 5 years if the link doesn't come up that way. The image looks just like business investment.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2516/wti-crude-oil-prices-10-year-daily-chart

Also, I read your article on Household income. Sorry to read Household median income is up only 3% in the 18 months Trump has been President (according to your source). It went up 5.2% in 2015 and 3.2% in 2016 (according to the Census Bureau). Seems the trend is slowing under Trump. And, let's be honest - GDP is important but Real Household Median Income is the single most important economic measure in my opinion. By that measure, the Trump economy is deteriorating versus Obama.


There you go again. You said investment during the Trump period is due to oil and gas company investments in response to the spike in oil prices. Moreover, you said the same thing happened in 2014. So when I put a chart of oil prices up for the Trump period when investment went up that didn't show any real price increase, you accuse me of cherry picking. And then you put a link to a ten-year chart that shows there was no run up in oil prices in 2014, and in fact, prices had slipped, on average, marginally from the prior years. Why don't we just look at oil prices in the first year of Obama's second term because that must mean something?

All of which is academic, as energy companies bring marginal facilities on and off line quickly as prices change, none of which registers in investment numbers. What you need to do is look at upstream investment by oil companies, which deals with future expectations of prices. Then you also choose to look at just one component of private investment. The article about wages was provided because of the reference to household spending going-up which is what driving investment (as opposed to oil investment), but notwithstanding my lead on the post, you missed that and went into a tangent about wages; to wit: "And, let's be honest - GDP is important but Real Household Median Income is the single most important economic measure in my opinion." I'm glad you added in your opinion. Personally, I think we should use a happiness measure to determine economic growth. Or why not a green measure, since this is California? But let's be honest, economists look primarily at GDP and then some other indicators, none of which is Real Household Median Income:

What Are the Best Measurements of Economic Growth? http://www.investopedia.?com/ask/answers/032515/what-are-best-measurements-economic-growth.asputm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons via @investopedia

Leading economic indicators are statistics that predict what will happen in the economy. They identify future business cycle changes. Read More: https://www.thebalance.com/leading-economic-indicators-definition-list-of-top-5-3305862?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons

Learn about economic indicators including prices, federal finance, and international trade, and why are they important. Read More: https://www.thoughtco.com/beginners-guide-to-economic-indicators-1145901?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons

These six facts tell you how the economy is really doing right now. They also preview which way the economy is going in the near future. Read More: https://www.thebalance.com/how-is-the-economy-doing-3306046?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons.

And from the FED:
:https://www.richmondfed.org:443/en/research/national_economy/national_economic_indicators

I'm sure there is something you can find in these articles to try to move the conversation away from your Trumpian (this should become a verb for making things up) assertion that oil and gas investment is the reason for increases in investment under Trump due to non-existing increases in oil prices recently and in 2014. Maybe one article mentions something from that first golden year in Obama's second term that could be helpful. But using the top leading indicator GDP, "the average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. " Quoting : CNN, July 27, 2018. By that measure, the economy is doing well.


Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:




somehow corporations were spending all their tax cuts that had not yet received on distributions, even on distributions often declared before the tax legislation came into existence (which I learned was a non-sequitur),
The non-sequitur is the fact that companies can only pay out dividends out of retained earnings. There are numerous reports of buybacks and dividends reported after the effective date of the tax legislation. Instead of acknowledging that, you are positing some notion that those were already baked.

If you are going to stick to your guns about retained earnings, than I guess you should credit Obama's economy for creating the earnings that funded the hundreds of billions in 2018 stock buybacks. But that would force you to acknowledge that corporations find it in their best interests to return capital rather than invest it.

Here's one such article.

Quote:

Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs.
Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.
Apple alone announced plans for $100 billion in buybacks. Big banks such as Wells Fargo (WFC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC) each said they would buy back at least $20 billion of their own stock after the Federal Reserve gave them a clean bill of health late last month.



dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Business investment is up because oil prices are up so oil and gas investment is up.

Same reasoning applies to 2014.

And here these stupid people think it was due to across the board capital good acquisitions on the rise. That said, this really is not corporate tax rate cuts driven yet, and seems more driven by household income increases causing higher consumer demand, which drives expansion. (Which make sense as corporations will benefit from lower rates over time, while reduced withholding took effect Jan 1).

Business investment on hot streak since Trump elected and it may keep sizzling https://on.mktw.net/2LHyXKM

Bad News For Dems: Household Income Hits All-Time High Under Trump https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/household-income-trump-economy-optimism/ via @IBDeditorials

Real Time Economics: Business Investment Soars . https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2018/05/15/real-time-economics-business-investment-soars- via @WSJ

Wait before declaring Trump's tax cuts a win. @Noahpinion says it might be years before we know https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-01


As for those dramatically increasing oil prices today, uh not really. Prices are hovering between 60 tp 80 dollars per barrel the last 6 months - see the chart below. In 2014 the prices were generally between 110 and 120 dollars per barrel, haven fallen from marginal higher prices in 2011 thought 2013, which somehow must correlate with the "oil prices so up" in 2014 somehow.



There you go cherrypicking data again. Here is a chart for crude oil prices which have more than doubled since their 2016 lows. Click on 5 years if the link doesn't come up that way. The image looks just like business investment.

https://www.macrotrends.net/2516/wti-crude-oil-prices-10-year-daily-chart

Also, I read your article on Household income. Sorry to read Household median income is up only 3% in the 18 months Trump has been President (according to your source). It went up 5.2% in 2015 and 3.2% in 2016 (according to the Census Bureau). Seems the trend is slowing under Trump. And, let's be honest - GDP is important but Real Household Median Income is the single most important economic measure in my opinion. By that measure, the Trump economy is deteriorating versus Obama.


There you go again. You said investment during the Trump period is due to oil and gas company investments in response to the spike in oil prices. Moreover, you said the same thing happened in 2014. So when I put a chart of oil prices up for the Trump period when investment went up that didn't show any real price increase, you accuse me of cherry picking. And then you put a link to a ten-year chart that shows there was no run up in oil prices in 2014, and in fact, prices had slipped, on average, marginally from the prior years. Why don't we just look at oil prices in the first year of Obama's second term because that must mean something?

All of which is academic, as energy companies bring marginal facilities on and off line quickly as prices change, none of which registers in investment numbers. What you need to do is look at upstream investment by oil companies. Then you also choose to look at just one component of private investment. The article about wages was provided because of the reference to household spending going-up which is what driving investment (as opposed to oil investment), but notwithstanding my lead on the post, you missed that and went into a tangent about wages; to wit: "And, let's be honest - GDP is important but Real Household Median Income is the single most important economic measure in my opinion." I'm glad you added in your opinion. Personally, I think we should use a happiness measure to determine economic growth. Or why not a green measure, since this is California? But let's be honest, economists look primarily at GDP and then some other indicators, none of which is Real Household Median Income:

What Are the Best Measurements of Economic Growth? http://www.investopedia.?com/ask/answers/032515/what-are-best-measurements-economic-growth.asputm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons via @investopedia

Leading economic indicators are statistics that predict what will happen in the economy. They identify future business cycle changes. Read More: https://www.thebalance.com/leading-economic-indicators-definition-list-of-top-5-3305862?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons

Learn about economic indicators including prices, federal finance, and international trade, and why are they important. Read More: https://www.thoughtco.com/beginners-guide-to-economic-indicators-1145901?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons

These six facts tell you how the economy is really doing right now. They also preview which way the economy is going in the near future. Read More: https://www.thebalance.com/how-is-the-economy-doing-3306046?utm_source=emailshare&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=shareurlbuttons.

And from the FED:
:https://www.richmondfed.org:443/en/research/national_economy/national_economic_indicators

I'm sure there is something you can find in these articles to try to move the conversation away from your Trumpian (this should become a verb for making things up) assertion that oil and gas investment is the reason for increases in investment under Trump. Maybe one article mentions something from that first golden year in Obama's second term that could be helpful. But using the top leading indicator GDP, "the average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. " Quoting : CNN, July 27, 2018. By that measure, the economy is doing well.


Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment?
I don't know why you have such a hard time with data. Any observer can see from the link I posted that oil prices were high in 2014, dropped substantially through 2016, and then more than doubled back up through 2018. It's not hard. Oil and gas and business investment followed suit.

Here are some articles. I'll try to find you more substantive data later:
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Oil-And-Gas-Boom-Sends-US-GDP-Soaring.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/the-tax-cut-buybacks-business-investment.html

You are really showing your true colors as a Trump fluffer here. I mean, you introduce an article about Real Household Median Income and I talk about how much I like that statistic and then you spend way too much time criticizing me for that. Then don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it. But I have a feeling you would like it more if it was more pro-Trump.

It's clear you are going to act like we have reached a new paradigm if 2018 GDP grows 3% even though 2014 GDP grew 2.9%. That's your prerogative. Something about semi-retired Trump loving lawyers like you and Rudy Giuliani. Talking all kinds of nonsense.
Page 2 of 5
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.