Tyndmyr wrote:It's a significant spike, outperforming the Obama years as a whole.
No it's not. There is no spike, let alone one of any significance, from the Trump administration. It is basically a continuation of the rate from 2010. There's a little noise, and we're actually in a downtrend at the moment.
The years from 2018 to 2010 were from a recession that predated Obama, and which was caused by a housing bubble under (now who was it before Obama?). Presidents are not magicians. Obama could not be reasonably expected to fix the problem instantly.
We are looking at the first year
and a half of Trump's reign. I can pick a year too: From 2009 to 2010, under Obama, growth went from negative eight, to positive four. And while the -8 was in Obama's term, again its root cause is from the Shrub's term in office. There are cherries all over to pick from.
Obama had no year with 4% growth.
The -8, in fairness, was due to the recession. That's a big enough event that a certain degree of bleedover is inevitible. I'm not focusing on that simply because focusing on that low point is not an accurate depiction of the Obama years overall. Focusing on the high points, and their relative weakness, is more fair.
Tyndmyr wrote:[Growth] does involve some tradeoffs, particularly for the ecology, but the nature of the economy is of exponential growth.
No, exponential growth is not "in the nature of the economy". It seems so, because population is growing exponentially, but resources are not. If you throw all the logs in the fire, the fire will burn hotter. But the night is long.
Every year's gains are over the preceding year's. As in individuals, wealthy countries tend to continue to be so, because a higher degree of wealth allows you to invest some portion of that towards additional gains. A large part of this country's overall wealth is a result of post-WW2 gains, multiplied forward.
Imagine a hypothetical world identical to ours, save for the housing bubble not occurring. You miss some of the reported climb from mis-valuation of housing, but the correction, when it happens, is much weaker. We may not be able to avoid every market downturn, but they don't have to be as rough as that recession was. You have a lesser recession, growth stays happier, and we're probably all better off at this point in time. Rich and poor alike.
You two Win in the Creepy Story Category.
hummm....That explains Tyndmyr's 'take' from Time-to-Time.
From your story, I gather, Tyndmyr; You have lived a sheltered existence.
You were raised to pass Judgement quickly and often. It's normal for you.
Do you have any University Experience?
Sheltered is not really the correct term. Poor/Religious would be accurate. I am now neither of those things, so I don't know that you could ascribe my outlook to merely copying what I was taught, though ascribing at least part of it as reactionary to my upbringing would be fair, I suppose.
Sure, I went to college. In addition to the standard CS track, I've taken a number of courses purely out of curiosity/personal desire to remediate poor early education. Creationist ideology makes for a poor biology education.
sardia wrote:You think the GOP's pace of spending and cuts is sustainable? Because I see Republicans, with Trump & swamprats co looting what they can, burning through our metaphorical seed money/rainy day funds. That tax cut to bring in international money was a 1 time deal,(at least several decades worth of previously untaxed receipts, all going in to pay for tax cuts.
I think the pace would be entirely sustainable if it were better focused. I view Trump as having sort of stumbled into this thanks to his populist approach and existing ideology within the republican party. This isn't quite the same as Trump having some kind of brilliant master plan for economy. He doesn't.
Now, a continued path of one time improvements is at least theoretically possible, but I agree that in many cases, it's not the main thrust of Trump's policies. If the trade war thing works out well, and we see tariffs at far closer to parity, that would be economically helpful. However, there's a big if in there. Kind of an open question at present.
You don't seem to believe in disparate impact, because your standard of proof is very high. Eg realtors steering black families away from white wealthy areas, or Dept. of Agriculture giving loans to black farmers last.
Individual discrimination via structural. I view disparate impact as a possible useful warning sign of racism, but I do not view every disparate impact as such. Intent matters a good deal. We can glance at Trump, and reasonably conclude that, in many cases, his policies have a disparate impact not merely as an accidental byproduct of an otherwise good policy, but as the actual intent.
I believe the difference between those two is significant.
As an abortion-relevant example, the right routinely considers the left racist because minorities disproportionately utilize abortion services. Since they view it as akin to murder, and there's historical ties between abortion advocacy and eugenics, they're happy to label their opposition as supporting genocide or what have you. This is incorrect, as it's imputing values and motivations that are inaccurate to the current fight. It's not their actual motivation. Just because a disparate impact exists does not imply ill intent, or even that a policy is necessarily bad.
You seem to think that abortion for all, only via jumping through a bunch of hoops, is perfectly ok.
That is incorrect. I'm not a particular fan of adding hoops and bureaucracy to abortion, or indeed, to much of anything else.
I do view the de-facto bans as still a fairly obvious tactic, and probably not likely to actually fool many on the left. Much as de-facto gun bans don't actually fool many on the right. They might claim, in a particular instance, that they do not actually want to ban abortion with this law, but when they talk so frequently about reversing Roe v Wade, the logical conclusion is that their intent is definitely to ban abortion, and most things they push are merely stepping stones toward that, not an attempt to make it safer or what have you. As you say, significant parallels between guns and abortion.
Abortion is being discussed as an example for discussing left/right ideologies, being a particularly partisan issue.
Sableagle wrote:I checked some historical GDP figures, going back a few presidential terms, and China's doing better than the USA on minimum, average and maximum.
Right now, sure.
Among other things, there is a cost to environment preservation, that's fair. It isn't the only thing with a cost, though. And at least in some cases, environmentalism is prioritizing the desires of the rich for things to look nice, over the desires of the poor to make a buck.
However, we are probably not at a point where the only way we could possibly improve the economy is by going to third world standards of pollution and sanitation. Our ecological debates are usually more about if we ought to dig for oil or not. Tradeoffs still exist here, but nobody's seriously considering going to China levels of pollution.